Article Text
stringlengths 503
25.5k
| Summary
stringlengths 227
12.3k
|
|---|---|
'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.
| It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.A cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.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.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.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.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.The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections. |
Stalemate in pension strike talks
Talks aimed at averting national strikes over pension reforms have ended without agreement after 90 minutes.
Five public sector unions met Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at the Labour spring conference in Gateshead. They want the government to withdraw regulations - due to be introduced in weeks - which would raise the pension age for council workers from 60 to 65. Up to 1.4 million workers could take part in strikes earmarked for 23 March. Discussions will resume next week.
A spokesman for Unison, Britain's biggest union, said after Saturday's meeting: "At least we are still talking." All sides are anxious to avoid a major confrontation in the run up to the general election, said BBC labour affairs correspondent Stephen Cape. In four days, Unison will start balloting 800,000 local government workers on strikes. Other public sector unions have pledged to follow. The five unions which met Mr Prescott want the government to withdraw these regulations. This would allow months of tough negotiations to follow, said our correspondent. But a spokesman for Mr Prescott warned that the changes to the local government pension scheme would have to go ahead in April.
Privately ministers believe this will be the "less painful" option, our correspondent added. The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) will co-ordinate any industrial action with up to six other public sector unions. PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned last week that 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."
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. Mr Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures last week. It is understood no deal was offered in that meeting but there was room for further negotiations.
| The five unions which met Mr Prescott want the government to withdraw these regulations.They want the government to withdraw regulations - due to be introduced in weeks - which would raise the pension age for council workers from 60 to 65.Five public sector unions met Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at the Labour spring conference in Gateshead.Mr Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures last week.Other public sector unions have pledged to follow.But a spokesman for Mr Prescott warned that the changes to the local government pension scheme would have to go ahead in April.PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned last week that there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink.The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) will co-ordinate any industrial action with up to six other public sector unions.A spokesman for Unison, Britain's biggest union, said after Saturday's meeting: "At least we are still talking." |
Talks aim to avert pension strike
Talks aimed at averting a series of national strikes over pensions reforms will take place this weekend.
Five public sector unions will hold private talks with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at Labour's spring conference in Gateshead. They want the government to withdraw regulations - due to be introduced in weeks - which would raise the pension age for council workers from 60 to 65. Up to 1.4m workers could take part in a strike already earmarked for 23 March. However, all sides are anxious to avoid a major confrontation in the run up to the general election, said BBC labour affairs correspondent Stephen Cape. In four days, Britain's biggest union Unison will start balloting 800,000 local government workers on strikes. Other public sector unions have pledged to follow. It is just weeks before new regulations are introduced to raise the pension age of local government workers.
The five unions meeting Mr Prescott want the government to withdraw these regulations. This would allow months of tough negotiations to follow, said our correspondent. But a spokesman for Mr Prescott warned that the changes to the local government pension scheme would have to go ahead in April. Privately ministers believe this will be the "less painful" option, our correspondent added. The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) will co-ordinate any industrial action with up to six other public sector unions. PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned last week that 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."
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. Mr Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures last week. It is understood no deal was offered in that meeting but there was room for further negotiations.
| The five unions meeting Mr Prescott want the government to withdraw these regulations.They want the government to withdraw regulations - due to be introduced in weeks - which would raise the pension age for council workers from 60 to 65.It is just weeks before new regulations are introduced to raise the pension age of local government workers.But a spokesman for Mr Prescott warned that the changes to the local government pension scheme would have to go ahead in April.Other public sector unions have pledged to follow.Mr Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures last week.Five public sector unions will hold private talks with Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at Labour's spring conference in Gateshead.The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) will co-ordinate any industrial action with up to six other public sector unions. |
Hague's six-figure earnings shown
The rewards of leaving front-bench politics are shown in the latest annual register of members' interests.
The register shows former Tory leader William Hague earning up to £820,000 on top of his MPs' salary, much of it from speaking fees. His former shadow chancellor Michael Portillo makes up to £560,000 a year - partly because of speeches and TV work. Ex-health secretary Alan Milburn earned up to £85,000 from speeches, articles and advice while not in the Cabinet.
Mr Milburn was away from the frontbench for just more than a year between stepping down as health secretary and becoming Labour's election supremo. His declared interests include £20,000 from newspaper articles and fees of up to £35,000 for four speeches. He also commanded a salary of between £25,000 and £35,000 for being on investment company Bridgepoint Capital's European advisory committee. His time out of office will, however, have lost him his £71,433 minister's salary. Mr Hague's work outside Parliament included two one-man shows, which with other speaking fees netted him up to £480,000. He also earned up to £195,000 for a weekly column in the News of the World, and between £5,000 and £10,000 for presenting BBC'2's Have I Got News for You. Mr Hague was also paid an undisclosed amount for the newspaper serialisation of his biography of William Pitt the Younger and up to £135,00 for work as an adviser to various companies.
Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo makes some of his money as a non-executive director of BAE Systems. He is to stand down as an MP at the next election. And former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook was paid between £45,001 and £50,000 for the paperback edition of his book about his resignation from government. His declared income of up to £205,000 also includes payments for being a consultant to the Tote and for his regular column in the Guardian newspaper. The register also shows former Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe declaring a £100,000 advance for her third and fourth novels. She also received up to £30,000 for acting as the Guardian's agony aunt and between £5,001 and £10,000 for appearing on ITV's Celebrity Fit Club. David Blunkett has become a paid adviser to Indepen Consulting Limited now he is not home secretary - he helps them with seminars about the relationship between government and business. He earns between £5,001and £10,000 for the work.
Tony Blair's entry confirms that King Abdullah of Jordan paid for him to fly from a holiday in Egypt to official discussions - and for a sightseeing tour to Wadi Rum. Tory leader Michael Howard's only fresh entry is a Christmas hamper from the Sultan of Brunei. He also declares a trip to Mexico last year to address executives of News International, and helicopter and private jet travel paid for by supporters. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy registered donations to his office from supporters, a free ticket to last year's Bafta awards and rent from a single-bedroom flat in London. The register only contains new information for December 2004 - but Monday saw the publication of the annual review of the register, with the year's details. The payments are shown in bands of up £5,000, making it difficult to calculate the exact earnings.
| Mr Hague was also paid an undisclosed amount for the newspaper serialisation of his biography of William Pitt the Younger and up to £135,00 for work as an adviser to various companies.The register also shows former Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe declaring a £100,000 advance for her third and fourth novels.The register shows former Tory leader William Hague earning up to £820,000 on top of his MPs' salary, much of it from speaking fees.His former shadow chancellor Michael Portillo makes up to £560,000 a year - partly because of speeches and TV work.Mr Milburn was away from the frontbench for just more than a year between stepping down as health secretary and becoming Labour's election supremo.And former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook was paid between £45,001 and £50,000 for the paperback edition of his book about his resignation from government.He also declares a trip to Mexico last year to address executives of News International, and helicopter and private jet travel paid for by supporters.His declared income of up to £205,000 also includes payments for being a consultant to the Tote and for his regular column in the Guardian newspaper.Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo makes some of his money as a non-executive director of BAE Systems.He also earned up to £195,000 for a weekly column in the News of the World, and between £5,000 and £10,000 for presenting BBC'2's Have I Got News for You. |
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.
| Both Mr Brown and Mr Blair rose to prominence when Lord Kinnock led Labour between 1983 and 1992.Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the chancellor would be best placed to take over from Mr Blair.Tony Blair has become the Labour Party's longest-serving prime minister.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.Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer under Mr Blair, became Britain's longest-serving chancellor of modern times in 2004.In 1997, Mr Blair became the youngest premier of the 20th century, when he came to power at the age of 43. |
Parties warned over 'grey vote'
Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.
A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds. Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out. A total of 3,028 adults aged 18 or over were interviewed for the study. Mr Lishman urged the next government to boost state pension.
He also called for measures to combat ageism and build effective public services to "support us all in an ageing society". "Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said. "Political parties must wake up to the fact that unless they address the demands and concerns of older people they will not keep or attract their vote." In the survey carried out by ICM Research, 14% of people aged between 18 and 34 said they never voted in general elections. Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55. Age Concern says the over-55s are "united around" key areas of policy they want the government to focus on. For 57%, pensions and the NHS were key issues, while the economy was important for a third, and tax was a crucial area for 25%.
The report was welcomed by Conservative shadow pensions secretary David Willetts. "The pensioners' voice must certainly be heard in the next election as they have never fitted into Blair's cool Britannia," he said. "Labour's continued refusal to admit the true extent of the pensions crisis will be one of the monumental failures of this government." He pointed to Tory plans to increase the basic state pension to reduce means testing, strengthen company pensions and encourage savings. A Liberal Democrat spokesman said the party took the issues raised in the report very seriously. He highlighted the party's promises to raise the basic state pension, provide free long-term care for the elderly and replace council tax, seen as a particular problem for pensioners on fixed incomes. Labour has said it wants to use savings reforms to Incapacity Benefit to improve the basic state pension and has set up a review of the council tax system.
| Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55.Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out.Mr Lishman urged the next government to boost state pension.Labour has said it wants to use savings reforms to Incapacity Benefit to improve the basic state pension and has set up a review of the council tax system."Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said.In the survey carried out by ICM Research, 14% of people aged between 18 and 34 said they never voted in general elections.Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds. |
Campbell returns to election team
Ex-Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell will return to the fold to strengthen Labour's general election campaign, the party has confirmed.
Mr Campbell has consistently made public his keenness to play a part in the poll, expected in May. Both Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott have welcomed his return. "He is a strong Labour Party member," Mr Prescott told BBC One's Breakfast With Frost programme.
Mr Campbell quit Number 10 in August 2003 after being Tony Blair's right-hand man at the 1997 and 2001 elections. Labour have refused to discuss his exact new position and have not said how it would affect his Downing Street replacement David Hill. "Of course Alastair's going to be part of the election campaign and I think that all of us who will also be part of the election campaign are very pleased about that," Ms Jowell told Sky News.
But she said his return would not put anybody else's "nose out of joint". "This is the daft thing about the way in which politics is written about," Ms Jowell added. "There's room for everybody. We serve the country better if we make room for all the talent." A Labour source told the Sunday Times Mr Campbell would "effectively front" the election media campaign but said he would be given no formal title.
Labour strategists told the paper he would be "set loose" on Conservative leader Michael Howard in attacking his party's economic record when it was in power. "They used pictures from the 1970s in the 1992 campaign to remind people of the winter of discontent - and now it's our turn," the source told the paper. "Making Michael Howard leader gives us an unmissable opportunity to remind people what it was like to pay mortgage rates of 15% even if it was more than a decade ago." Mr Campbell was at the centre of the government's row with BBC over Andrew Gilligan's story about the Iraq weapons dossier. The Hutton inquiry cleared him of "sexing up" the dossier in the run-up to the Iraq war. Since leaving Downing Street, he has toured the country with his one man show, An Audience With Alastair Campbell and presented a number of interview programmes for Channel 4.
| A Labour source told the Sunday Times Mr Campbell would "effectively front" the election media campaign but said he would be given no formal title.Ex-Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell will return to the fold to strengthen Labour's general election campaign, the party has confirmed.Mr Campbell was at the centre of the government's row with BBC over Andrew Gilligan's story about the Iraq weapons dossier."Of course Alastair's going to be part of the election campaign and I think that all of us who will also be part of the election campaign are very pleased about that," Ms Jowell told Sky News."He is a strong Labour Party member," Mr Prescott told BBC One's Breakfast With Frost programme.Labour strategists told the paper he would be "set loose" on Conservative leader Michael Howard in attacking his party's economic record when it was in power.Since leaving Downing Street, he has toured the country with his one man show, An Audience With Alastair Campbell and presented a number of interview programmes for Channel 4.Mr Campbell has consistently made public his keenness to play a part in the poll, expected in May. |
Conservative MP defects to Labour
A Conservative MP and former minister has defected to Labour.
Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe. Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs. Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990. In a letter to his constituency chairman he wrote: "It is in the country's best interest that Tony Blair rather than Michael Howard should form the next government." While saying he admired Mr Blair's "courageous" leadership of the country, he bitterly criticised the Conservatives stance on Europe. "The Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has now hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations," he wrote.
Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members". "As he rightly says, [the Conservatives] have learned nothing from their two election defeats and are, if anything, drifting further rightwards," he added. A spokesman for Michael Howard said Mr Jackson's views on policy issues were "very different" from those of the party leadership. "He believes students should pay tuition fees, that Tony Blair should not be criticised over his handling of the Iraq war and that more powers should be given to Europe," the spokesman said. He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives. Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election. He is the third Conservative MP to defect to Labour since 1997.
| Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members".Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs.He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives.Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990.Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe.Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election. |
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.
| 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."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 told Sir Edward: "I am sorry this is obviously hell - a nightmare on stilts for you.Documents show that Sir Edward mulled over resigning and perhaps returning to coalition government in a Labour-led coalition.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."Jeremy said he was encountering a rather embarrassing problem with his colleagues about the prime minister personally," reads a telephone memo for Mr Heath.Hours later Sir Edward's hopes of a deal unravelled as Mr Thorpe's colleagues refused to support him.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.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.Mr Thorpe was at liberty to verify this by talking to one or two of the prime minister's colleagues." |
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.
| The Conservative Party would deal "sympathetically" with any application by disgraced peer Lord Archer to rejoin its ranks, its co-chairman has said.Dr Fox was asked if he would say yes or no if Lord Archer applied to rejoin.Lord Archer, who was not available for comment, remains a popular figure among constituency Tory parties and is a successful fundraiser.Tory peer Lord Tebbit said he agreed with Dr Fox's view, and said the case should be looked at on its merits.Lord Archer spent two years in prison after being convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice.Meanwhile, senior Conservative MP Sir Teddy Taylor warned that moves bring Lord Archer back into the fold could be controversial.A jury ruled that Lord Archer lied during a libel trial against the Daily Star at the High Court in London in 1987. |
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.
| 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.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 government says unions will be consulted before any changes are made to the pension system.The Public and Commercial Services Union will co-ordinate any action with up to six other public sector unions.PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink.Unions have already earmarked 23 March for a one-day strike which could involve up to 1.4 million UK workers. |
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."
| If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."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.Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards.The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said.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. |
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.
| 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.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.He said the current level of taxation was about right, although he would put a new 50% tax on top earners.The Lib Dems argue they were honest about taxes in the past by calling for a 1p rise on income tax.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.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."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."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".And Chancellor Gordon Brown said the Lib Dem figures did not add up.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. |
UK youth 'interested' in politics
The majority of young people are interested in politics, holding "strong opinions" on policies and have a "keen appetite" for direct action.
Research undertaken for voting watchdog the Electoral Commission suggests 81% of 16 to 20-year-olds feel strongly about issues like crime and education. The survey findings are being released to coincide with the launch of the Y Vote Mock Elections 2005 initiative. Mock elections are planned to take place in schools across the UK.
Electoral Commission boss Sam Younger said: "We know that young people often feel disengaged from democratic life and we believe in working creatively to encourage their interest and participation. "Mock elections can play an extremely valuable role in helping young people understand how the democratic process works and why it matters," he said. The survey of a sample of 500 British 16 to 20-year-olds and 500 21 to 25-year olds "showed Britain's young people are far from apathetic about issues that matter to most of their lives". The Y Vote initiative is being run jointly by the Electoral Commission, the Hansard Society and the Department for Education and Skills in the run-up to local elections and the general election, possibly on 5 May. Michael Rafferty, who is mock elections project manager at the Hansard Society, said he looked forward to seeing schools and colleges across the UK participating in the mock votes.
| "Mock elections can play an extremely valuable role in helping young people understand how the democratic process works and why it matters," he said.Michael Rafferty, who is mock elections project manager at the Hansard Society, said he looked forward to seeing schools and colleges across the UK participating in the mock votes.The Y Vote initiative is being run jointly by the Electoral Commission, the Hansard Society and the Department for Education and Skills in the run-up to local elections and the general election, possibly on 5 May.Mock elections are planned to take place in schools across the UK. |
Parties' plans for council tax
Anger at council tax rises spilled over into mass protests in 2003, when the average English bill rose 12.9%.
Pensioners' protests spread - some marched, others simply refused to pay the increase. Some, such as 83-year-old Elizabeth Winkfield, said they would rather go to jail. The Audit Commission found the whole local government finance system was "fundamentally flawed" and all three of the main parties have said the system has to change.
Labour says it wants to retain the property-based tax but reform it to make it fairer and says there is scope for councils to become more efficient. They say they are already helping pensioners with council tax bills, with a £100 lump sum for the over-70s and last year the government capped some local councils' budgets to keep demands down. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has said the current system is not sustainable in the long term and said there would be "radical reform". The party says this year's increases will be the lowest in a decade. A report last year looked at increasing the number of council tax bands and other forms of local taxation, such as reformed business rates, although no decisions have been made. An independent inquiry into its findings, the Lyons review, is due to report back at the end of 2005.
The Tories have promised a reduction on bills for pensioners, who they say have been hardest hit by year-on-year increases in council tax. They say they can save £4bn on "government waste", of which £1.3bn could be used to cut pensioners' bills by an average of £340. It would not be means tested, say the Tories, because that would create more bureaucracy and could discourage people from saving for their retirement. Instead households where council tax payers are over 65 would get a rebate covering half their bill, up to a maximum of £500. The Tories also say they are suspicious about any proposals to revalue homes - currently graded according to their value in 1991 - because they believe seven million of homes could move up a band.
The Liberal Democrats want to do away with the council tax altogether and switch to a local income tax of the kind seen in the USA, Norway and Switzerland. The rate would be set locally, but administered by the Inland Revenue which they say would save at least £300m. They say the council tax is the most unpopular and most unfair tax in Britain, because it puts a "ceiling" on what the richest pay. The party says it would aim for a £5,000 tax-free personal allowance, or a £7,000 allowance for the over-65s. After that income would be taxed up to £100,000. The Lib Dems say their plan is fairer, more efficient, has already been tested abroad and offers more accountability.
| The Tories have promised a reduction on bills for pensioners, who they say have been hardest hit by year-on-year increases in council tax.Labour says it wants to retain the property-based tax but reform it to make it fairer and says there is scope for councils to become more efficient.They say the council tax is the most unpopular and most unfair tax in Britain, because it puts a "ceiling" on what the richest pay.It would not be means tested, say the Tories, because that would create more bureaucracy and could discourage people from saving for their retirement.They say they are already helping pensioners with council tax bills, with a £100 lump sum for the over-70s and last year the government capped some local councils' budgets to keep demands down.The rate would be set locally, but administered by the Inland Revenue which they say would save at least £300m.Instead households where council tax payers are over 65 would get a rebate covering half their bill, up to a maximum of £500.The party says it would aim for a £5,000 tax-free personal allowance, or a £7,000 allowance for the over-65s.The Liberal Democrats want to do away with the council tax altogether and switch to a local income tax of the kind seen in the USA, Norway and Switzerland. |
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.
| 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.But a UKIP spokesman said Labour and the Conservatives had spent £10m between them on the last general election.Much of the UKIP funding came from Yorkshire millionaire Sir Paul Sykes, who helped bankroll the party's billboard campaign. |
Labour battle plan 'hides Blair'
The Tories have accused Tony Blair of being "terrified" of scrutiny after Labour unveiled details of how it will fight the next general election.
In a break with tradition, the party will ditch the leader's battle bus and daily press briefings in Westminster. Instead Mr Blair will travel to key cities and marginal seats to deliver the party's message. Labour election chief Alan Milburn denied the party was trying to "hide" the prime minister.
He promised "the most positive and upbeat election campaign Labour has ever run". But Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said Labour's plans showed Mr Blair was "terrified of facing proper scrutiny".
"At a time when the British people are looking for more accountability and openness, this government turns its back on them; abandoning plans to tour the country and scared to face journalists in a press conference - it does rather beg the question, 'What have they got to hide?'" The general election is widely expected next May and all the parties are stepping up their campaign preparations. Mr Milburn said the economy would take centre stage in Labour's campaign in what would be a "watershed" election and the "last stand of the Thatcherites". Mr Milburn said Labour's slogan would be "Britain is working - Don't let the Tories wreck it."
The tone of the campaign, said Mr Milburn, would be more conversational than rhetorical; more spontaneous less scripted; less national more local and less based on issues and more concentrated on people. The approach is particularly designed to appeal to women voters, he said. Mr Milburn brushed aside questions over why the chancellor was not present at the Cabinet meeting to discuss election strategy particularly since such importance was being given to the economy. "I'm not privy to everybody's diary," he said. Mr Brown has headed Labour's preparations for previous polls but Mr Milburn is taking that role this time. In a break with the past, Labour will not hold a daily news conference in London. It will not be a "battle bus" style campaign either, he said.
In previous elections, each party leader has had their own battle bus transporting national newspaper, television and radio reporters to staged campaign events around the country. Mr Milburn said Labour's media effort this time would focus more on local newspapers and broadcasters, with every local radio station given the chance to interview the prime minister. Mr Milburn said there would also be a greater effort to set up face-to-face meetings between ministers and the electorate. Former Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell is also returning to advise Labour on media strategy and campaigning.
Mr Milburn said no decision had been taken yet over whether David Blunkett would have a prominent role in the election. Liberal Democrat chief executive Lord Rennard suggested Labour was avoiding news conferences in London because it wanted less scrutiny of its record and proposals. "Tony Blair seems to have disappeared from Labour leaflets and broadcasts," he said. "In contrast Charles Kennedy will feature prominently in the Liberal Democrat campaign right across the country."
| Mr Milburn said the economy would take centre stage in Labour's campaign in what would be a "watershed" election and the "last stand of the Thatcherites".Mr Milburn said no decision had been taken yet over whether David Blunkett would have a prominent role in the election.Mr Milburn said Labour's slogan would be "Britain is working - Don't let the Tories wreck it."Mr Milburn said there would also be a greater effort to set up face-to-face meetings between ministers and the electorate.Mr Milburn said Labour's media effort this time would focus more on local newspapers and broadcasters, with every local radio station given the chance to interview the prime minister.Labour election chief Alan Milburn denied the party was trying to "hide" the prime minister.The tone of the campaign, said Mr Milburn, would be more conversational than rhetorical; more spontaneous less scripted; less national more local and less based on issues and more concentrated on people.But Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said Labour's plans showed Mr Blair was "terrified of facing proper scrutiny".It will not be a "battle bus" style campaign either, he said.Mr Brown has headed Labour's preparations for previous polls but Mr Milburn is taking that role this time. |
Kennedy predicts bigger turnout
Voters' "pent up passion" could confound predictions of a low turnout in the coming general election, Charles Kennedy has said.
The Liberal Democrat leader predicted concerns over Iraq and other international and domestic issue would express themselves during the campaign. His comments come as an inquiry looks at how best to boost voter turnouts. Ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook said people were not apathetic but fed up of "pager politics" and not being heard. He, like Mr Kennedy, pointed to the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrated against plans for the Iraq war.
Mr Cook, who is giving evidence to the Power inquiry into voter turnout rates, told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme it was not fair to blame the public who were "more interested in politics than ever before". "They are turned off by the way we do politics in Britain. There's a message there for politicians." He urged politicians to avoid negative campaigning and to "speak more from the heart". "We should be not so afraid to say what we stand for." He also criticised the cult of personality politics: "There's far too much interest in celebrities. "Politics are in danger of becoming another branch of the celebrity industry." The government has tried a number of things in an attempt to boost voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001. This has included bringing in directly elected mayors to head local authorities and trialling postal voting.
| Mr Cook, who is giving evidence to the Power inquiry into voter turnout rates, told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme it was not fair to blame the public who were "more interested in politics than ever before".The government has tried a number of things in an attempt to boost voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001.Ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook said people were not apathetic but fed up of "pager politics" and not being heard.He also criticised the cult of personality politics: "There's far too much interest in celebrities.Voters' "pent up passion" could confound predictions of a low turnout in the coming general election, Charles Kennedy has said."They are turned off by the way we do politics in Britain. |
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.
| Record numbers of schools across the UK are to take part in a mock general election backed by the government.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.""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 mock votes will take place around 5 May, widely expected to be the date of the general election.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. |
MPs issued with Blackberry threat
MPs will be thrown out of the Commons if they use Blackberries in the chamber Speaker Michael Martin has ruled.
The £200 handheld computers can be used as a phone, pager or to send e-mails. The devices gained new prominence this week after Alastair Campbell used his to accidentally send an expletive-laden message to a Newsnight journalist. Mr Martin revealed some MPs had been using their Blackberries during debates and he also cautioned members against using hidden earpieces.
The use of electronic devices in the Commons chamber has long been frowned on. The sound of a mobile phone or a pager can result in a strong rebuke from either the Speaker or his deputies. The Speaker chairs debates in the Commons and is charged with ensuring order in the chamber and enforcing rules and conventions of the House. He or she is always an MP chosen by colleagues who, once nominated, gives up all party political allegiances.
| MPs will be thrown out of the Commons if they use Blackberries in the chamber Speaker Michael Martin has ruled.The use of electronic devices in the Commons chamber has long been frowned on.The Speaker chairs debates in the Commons and is charged with ensuring order in the chamber and enforcing rules and conventions of the House.The £200 handheld computers can be used as a phone, pager or to send e-mails. |
'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.
| 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.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.Any merger would have to be approved by the unions' executives and their membership.Amicus has 1.2 million members and the TGWU has 800,000. |
MPs tout Lords replacement plan
A group of MPs has tried to raise the pressure on Tony Blair over reform to the House of Lords by publishing a detailed blueprint for change.
The cross-party group has unveiled a draft bill proposing a smaller second chamber in which 70% of members would be elected. MPs and peers have failed to agree on reform since 1999 when 600 hereditaries lost their seats. The group says it can win support for removing the last 92 hereditaries. The government postponed plans to remove the remaining hereditary peers because they said they were unlikely to succeed after opposition in the Lords. Tony Blair has argued. there needs to be consensus on reforms. There have been suggestions there will be proposals for changing at least the powers of the Lords in Labour's manifesto.
But the all-party group, including Tories Ken Clarke and Sir George Young, Labour's Robin Cook and Tony Wright and Liberal Democrat Paul Tyler, is confident its plan would win support from a "large majority". And they list former Conservative leader William Hague and former Labour leader Neil Kinnock as supporters of the plans. The group says the British public and a clear majority of MPs support replacing the Lords with a largely-elected second chamber. Their plan would see the House of Lords being renamed the Second Chamber of Parliament, and its members would be known as MSCPs.
There would be 385 MSCPs, including 270 elected members, 87 appointed members and 16 bishops. They would serve for between 12 and 14 years. Mr Cook said holding elections for MSCPs on the same day as those for MPs might help motivate the electorate and increase voter turnout. He added: "Over the last year I have seen many statements from senior figures of this government insisting the public must have the right of choice. "What could be more important than a choice of the people who sit in our Parliament?"
The group believes pressure is growing for change and the government's current position is unsustainable. It wants all three main parties to include a commitment to a "largely democratic" second chamber in their manifestos. Mr Clarke said the issue "went to the heart of reforming the health of the British political system". And Mr Tyler said the prime minister's view that there was no agreement on the shape of the future of the Lords was flawed. "The problem, I think, in the prime minister's mind is there doesn't appear to be a consensus that includes him," he said. "We are providing a consensus". The Elect the Lords Campaign said the draft bill was an important contribution to the debate. "We believe this draft bill is detailed enough to form the basis of closer parliamentary scrutiny," said co-ordinator Peter Facey. "In lieu of any other such clear proposals, the government must permit that to happen."
| Their plan would see the House of Lords being renamed the Second Chamber of Parliament, and its members would be known as MSCPs.The group says the British public and a clear majority of MPs support replacing the Lords with a largely-elected second chamber.The cross-party group has unveiled a draft bill proposing a smaller second chamber in which 70% of members would be elected.A group of MPs has tried to raise the pressure on Tony Blair over reform to the House of Lords by publishing a detailed blueprint for change.The Elect the Lords Campaign said the draft bill was an important contribution to the debate.The government postponed plans to remove the remaining hereditary peers because they said they were unlikely to succeed after opposition in the Lords.But the all-party group, including Tories Ken Clarke and Sir George Young, Labour's Robin Cook and Tony Wright and Liberal Democrat Paul Tyler, is confident its plan would win support from a "large majority".And Mr Tyler said the prime minister's view that there was no agreement on the shape of the future of the Lords was flawed."The problem, I think, in the prime minister's mind is there doesn't appear to be a consensus that includes him," he said.The group says it can win support for removing the last 92 hereditaries.There would be 385 MSCPs, including 270 elected members, 87 appointed members and 16 bishops. |
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.
| Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock has officially been made a life peer during a ceremony in the House of Lords.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.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.It has been a long journey for the new Lord Kinnock from his earliest days as a rebellious youngster in the south Wales valleys.He will be known Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty - after his former constituency.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."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. |
Iraq advice claim sparks new row
The Tories say ministers must respond in Parliament to claims that the legal advice used to justify the Iraq war was drawn up at Number 10.
Downing Street has denied the claims, made in a new book about the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice. Lord Goldsmith also denied them, saying he was not "leaned on" in any way. But the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General.
The government has consistently refused to publish Lord Goldsmith's advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential.
But a short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action. It said it was "plain" Iraq continued to be in material breach of UN resolution 1441. In his new book, Lawless World, Philippe Sands, a QC and international law professor, suggests the parliamentary answer was written in Downing Street. According to Mr Sands, Lord Goldsmith had warned Tony Blair in a document on 7 March 2003 that the use of force against Iraq could be illegal and that it would have been safer to seek a second UN resolution sanctioning military action.
Mr Sands told Newsnight the government had prepared a legal team to be able to defend its case, in case legal action was taken against the UK over the war. On 10 March, military chiefs reportedly asked for an unequivocal statement about the legality of the war to make sure troops could be defended in a court of law. The book, being serialised in the Guardian newspaper, says on 13 March Lord Goldsmith met then Home Office Minister Lord Falconer and Downing Street adviser Baroness Morgan. "After that Downing Street proceeded to set out his [Lord Goldsmith's] view in a parliamentary answer which was then published on 17 March," said Mr Sands.
Tory leader Michael Howard reiterated calls for the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General, warning: "This issue will not go away." "These revelations throw an intensive spotlight on to the cavalier way in which this government operates - even on an issue as important as peace and war. "The government needs to act to restore public confidence and trust." Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell repeated his party's calls for Lord Goldsmith's first piece of legal advice to be made public. "The public interest, which the government claims justifies non-publication of the whole of the advice, can only be served now by the fullest disclosure."
In a statement to Newsnight, Lord Goldsmith said: "In my parliamentary answer on March 17 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions. "It was certainly not a view that I expressed as a result of being leaned on in any way, nor as I have already made clear, was it written by or at Number 10." The prime minister's official spokesman also rejected the claims, saying: "The attorney general made it clear the words and the judgement were his." But ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook says all the advice should now be published. He said the claims suggested Parliament had only received a précis of Lord Goldsmith's second opinion - and that it was actually drafted in No 10. This would be wrong even if Lord Goldsmith had signed the statement, Mr Cook said, because the attorney general's advice should be an "independent legal opinion", not subject to "political negotiation of this kind".
| "After that Downing Street proceeded to set out his [Lord Goldsmith's] view in a parliamentary answer which was then published on 17 March," said Mr Sands.Downing Street has denied the claims, made in a new book about the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice.But a short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action.In a statement to Newsnight, Lord Goldsmith said: "In my parliamentary answer on March 17 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions.This would be wrong even if Lord Goldsmith had signed the statement, Mr Cook said, because the attorney general's advice should be an "independent legal opinion", not subject to "political negotiation of this kind".Lord Goldsmith also denied them, saying he was not "leaned on" in any way.The government has consistently refused to publish Lord Goldsmith's advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential.The Tories say ministers must respond in Parliament to claims that the legal advice used to justify the Iraq war was drawn up at Number 10.Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell repeated his party's calls for Lord Goldsmith's first piece of legal advice to be made public.But the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General. |
Lib Dems target first-time buyers
The Liberal Democrats have unveiled plans to build 100,000 new "affordable" homes on publicly owned land.
The party's scheme would allow people to buy a share in a home through a mutual home ownership trust, as a way of getting onto the housing ladder. The Lib Dems would also encourage the conversion of existing buildings in an effort to protect greenfield sites. Labour has already announced plans to help first-time buyers and the Tories would extend right-to-buy schemes.
All the major parties are focusing on the issue in the run-up to the election after a survey suggested first-time buyers could not afford a home in 92% of UK towns. The Lib Dems say their "mutual homes" would let people buy a share of a property, usually worth about 5% of the building costs. Party leader Charles Kennedy said the homes would be affordable because they would be built on surplus public sector land, donated by central or local government. People would also only have to pay for the cost of the building and not the land, he added.
They would spend about 30% of their monthly salary on rent and buying extra shares in the property. When they moved house, they would be able to cash in on any rise in property prices by selling their share. It would also allow councils to vary discounts to tenants given the right to buy their council homes so local needs were taken into account. Mr Kennedy said: "Mutual homes will offer people the opportunity to build up an equity stake in a home gradually, investing only as much as they can afford."
There are also plans to prevent high house prices forcing people out of their local communities. The kind of "golden share" used by the Lib Dems in South Shropshire could be rolled out more widely. Under the plan, councils secure deals with developers where they keep a 1% share in a property scheme so properties cannot be sold on the open market. Instead, they are sold at "build cost" to people who the local council decides have local needs. The party says its help for first-time buyers can be funded at no extra cost to the taxpayer. But the plans involve changing the VAT system, which the party says often makes it too expensive to renovate existing buildings.
The Conservatives claimed the plans would amount to an extra tax of up to £11,000 on every new house. "This is typical of Lib Dem hypocrisy," said Tory shadow local government secretary Caroline Spelman. "They claim that they want to help people on to the property ladder, but the small print of their policies reveal how they intend to price even more people out of the housing market." The flagship Tory proposal on housing policy is to give a million more housing association tenants the right to buy their homes. Labour has said it will allow 300,000 council and housing association tenants to buy a share in their homes. Housing Minister Keith Hill said much of the Lib Dem plans mimicked the government's strategy. "However, as usual, the Lib Dems' proposals are completely uncosted," he said. Mr Hill said he also asked whether the Lib Dems would match Labour's promise to spend £42bn on making refurbishing and repair council homes by 2010.
| The Lib Dems say their "mutual homes" would let people buy a share of a property, usually worth about 5% of the building costs.The party's scheme would allow people to buy a share in a home through a mutual home ownership trust, as a way of getting onto the housing ladder.Mr Hill said he also asked whether the Lib Dems would match Labour's promise to spend £42bn on making refurbishing and repair council homes by 2010.Party leader Charles Kennedy said the homes would be affordable because they would be built on surplus public sector land, donated by central or local government.It would also allow councils to vary discounts to tenants given the right to buy their council homes so local needs were taken into account.Labour has said it will allow 300,000 council and housing association tenants to buy a share in their homes.People would also only have to pay for the cost of the building and not the land, he added.There are also plans to prevent high house prices forcing people out of their local communities.The Lib Dems would also encourage the conversion of existing buildings in an effort to protect greenfield sites.They would spend about 30% of their monthly salary on rent and buying extra shares in the property.When they moved house, they would be able to cash in on any rise in property prices by selling their share. |
UKIP could sue Veritas defectors
The UK Independence Party could take legal action to unseat two London Assembly members who defected to Robert Kilroy Silk's Veritas Party.
Damian Hockney, now Veritas deputy leader, and Peter Hulme-Cross were elected in 2004 on the list system. The party argues the pair should give up their seats as they won them as UKIP representatives, not as individuals. Mr Hockney said the law was clear that those elected on a list who quit their party should keep their seats. UKIP chairman Petrina Holdsworth urged the men to step down from the GLA in a letter.
She said: "The party has taken legal advice and it is clear that we could take legal proceedings against you which could result in the return of our seats and/or damages against you. "We would however like you to be given an opportunity to reflect on what you have done, to restore your own credibility with the electorate and return the seats to the party which won them fair and square at the last election." Mr Hockney said the law worked in exactly the same way for the GLA as it did for other electoral list systems. "The Greater London Act is clear that if someone resigns who was elected on a list, their party whip the seat belongs to them and not the party." He said Mr Hulme-Cross and himself had no intention of resigning and added that they felt that it was UKIP who were not being true to the electorate. He accused the party of signing up to a deal with the Tories in Europe, rather than sticking to an independent stance. But the claim was denied by UKIP spokesman, who said: "Mr Hockney's accusations are like his sense of political morals - empty." Veritas was formed by Mr Kilroy-Silk earlier this month after he quit UKIP following an unsuccessful bid to take over as leader.
| Mr Hockney said the law was clear that those elected on a list who quit their party should keep their seats."The Greater London Act is clear that if someone resigns who was elected on a list, their party whip the seat belongs to them and not the party."He said Mr Hulme-Cross and himself had no intention of resigning and added that they felt that it was UKIP who were not being true to the electorate.The party argues the pair should give up their seats as they won them as UKIP representatives, not as individuals.She said: "The party has taken legal advice and it is clear that we could take legal proceedings against you which could result in the return of our seats and/or damages against you.Veritas was formed by Mr Kilroy-Silk earlier this month after he quit UKIP following an unsuccessful bid to take over as leader. |
Lib Dems highlight problem debt
People vulnerable to problem debts should be afforded greater protection from banks aggressively promoting financial products, the Lib Dems say.
Vincent Cable says one in eight households already struggle with debt and that will worsen if there is a hike in interest rates or unemployment. The Lib Dems' Treasury spokesman is unveiling a policy aimed at the issue. He wants to see "proper health checks" when loans are marketed so people know to take out payment protection.
"Were economic conditions to deteriorate at all, large numbers of people could be affected because they have borrowed to the limit," Mr Cable told BBC News. "Banks are very aggressively promoting debt in many cases there is a bigger problem ahead." Mr Cable said the government's Consumer Credit Bill would target some of the "extreme problems" such as loan sharking, but ministers had been "a bit complacent" about the wider issue of debt levels. He said much of the payment protection currently available was "extremely expensive" and there were "lots of exclusions".
Mr Cable added that the Office of Fair Trading should investigate the market. Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy meanwhile is in the middle of a tour of the UK aimed at persuading voters his is the "real opposition". Mr Kennedy is visiting a mixture of rural seats, where his party is hoping to make gains from the Conservatives, and urban areas traditionally associated with Labour. Labour say a Lib Dem vote could "let the Tories in", while the Tories say the Lib Dems would mean "higher taxes, soft crime laws, more power to Europe". Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May.
The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories. Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience". And he brushed off Labour suggestions a vote for his party would mean letting the Tories in "by the back door". "If you look at the four previous parliamentary by-elections, the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that, not only can we leapfrog the Conservatives where we start in a third place position, but we can go on to defeat the government. "That's going to be the story, I think, of this coming general election."
| Labour say a Lib Dem vote could "let the Tories in", while the Tories say the Lib Dems would mean "higher taxes, soft crime laws, more power to Europe".People vulnerable to problem debts should be afforded greater protection from banks aggressively promoting financial products, the Lib Dems say.Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience".Mr Cable said the government's Consumer Credit Bill would target some of the "extreme problems" such as loan sharking, but ministers had been "a bit complacent" about the wider issue of debt levels.Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May.The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories.Mr Kennedy is visiting a mixture of rural seats, where his party is hoping to make gains from the Conservatives, and urban areas traditionally associated with Labour.And he brushed off Labour suggestions a vote for his party would mean letting the Tories in "by the back door". |
Prime minister's questions
So who, if anyone, is playing politics with the security of the nation?
Michael Howard has no doubt it is the prime minister who, he claims, is "ramming" through Parliament the controversial new anti-terror measures without proper debate. He didn't say so, but the Tories believe the prime minister is playing the fear card on this one so he can look tough in the run up to the general election And they believe Tony Blair is using the issue to suggest the Tories are soft on terrorism. Why on earth will the prime minister not simply take up the Tories' offer to extend the existing powers temporarily to allow proper parliamentary debate of the laws, he demanded. The prime minister claims this is the clearest indication that it is the Tories who are playing politics with the issue by attempting to score cheap political points in parliament. Is not the opposition against to the proposed laws "in principle", in which case delaying a decision for further debate would be pointless?
What this is really about, believes Mr Blair, is the Tories spotting an opportunity to embarrass, maybe even defeat the government. And that is more important to them than national security. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy avoided suggesting anyone was playing politics with the issue. He preferred to state that, as with other issues like ID cards, the government's immediate instinct was authoritarian.
As is his habit nowadays, the prime minister was less rough with Mr Kennedy than he had been with Mr Howard - he prefers a more exasperated tone suggesting he believes the Lib Dems have, once again, just missed the point. Apart from all that, it was electioneering as usual. The very first question to the prime minister from Derby North's Bob Laxton asked him, in effect, if he would carry on the excellent policy of pouring more resources into schools. Later Birmingham's Sion Simon even went so far as to suggest the Tories were such a shower that we should have the general election now. The prime minister almost blushed. This was not the appropriate place to announce election day, he stammered. But can anyone be in any doubt that that announcement is just days away - an announcement coming in the week beginning 4 April for an election on 5 May is where the big money is in the Commons. And perhaps that simple fact alone means everyone is seen to be playing politics with just about everything at the moment.
| The prime minister claims this is the clearest indication that it is the Tories who are playing politics with the issue by attempting to score cheap political points in parliament.He didn't say so, but the Tories believe the prime minister is playing the fear card on this one so he can look tough in the run up to the general election And they believe Tony Blair is using the issue to suggest the Tories are soft on terrorism.Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy avoided suggesting anyone was playing politics with the issue.So who, if anyone, is playing politics with the security of the nation?As is his habit nowadays, the prime minister was less rough with Mr Kennedy than he had been with Mr Howard - he prefers a more exasperated tone suggesting he believes the Lib Dems have, once again, just missed the point.The prime minister almost blushed.Why on earth will the prime minister not simply take up the Tories' offer to extend the existing powers temporarily to allow proper parliamentary debate of the laws, he demanded.Michael Howard has no doubt it is the prime minister who, he claims, is "ramming" through Parliament the controversial new anti-terror measures without proper debate. |
Kilroy names election seat target
Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk is to contest the Derbyshire seat of Erewash at the next general election.
Labour's Elizabeth Blackman won the seat in 1997 and has a 6,932 majority. She says she will fight on her record "as a hard-working constituency MP". Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his plans a day after launching his new party, Veritas, the Latin for truth. The East Midlands MEP, who quit the UK Independence Party, wants his new group to "change the face" of UK politics. His choice of election constituency quashes speculation that he would stand against Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire. UKIP won 31% of the vote in Erewash in last June's European elections - with Mr Kilroy-Silk among their candidates for the region. Until 1997, Erewash had been held by the Tories since 1970. Ms Blackman said she was proud of the government's achievements in the area. She declined to give her view of Mr Kilroy-Silk at this point.
On Thursday, he told a London news conference that Veritas would avoid the old parties' "lies and spin". He said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration and promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration. Veritas says it hopes to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election but plans to announce detailed policies on crime, tax, pensions, health and defence over the next few weeks.
UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said Veritas was joining "an already crowded field on the right of British politics". Mr Kilroy-Silk 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. UKIP's 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.
| UKIP's 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 leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.UKIP won 31% of the vote in Erewash in last June's European elections - with Mr Kilroy-Silk among their candidates for the region.UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his plans a day after launching his new party, Veritas, the Latin for truth.Mr Kilroy-Silk quit UKIP last week after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party.Mr Kilroy-Silk was joined in the new venture by one of UKIP's two London Assembly members, Damien Hockney, who is now Veritas' deputy leader.Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk is to contest the Derbyshire seat of Erewash at the next general election. |
Campaign 'cold calls' questioned
Labour and the Conservatives are still telephoning the millions of people who have signed up to make sure they do not get marketing "cold calls".
The parties say they can stick to the rules by ensuring that their calls are not marketing - for instance by asking about people's voting intentions. The Lib Dems are asking the watchdog overseeing the rules to stop the calls. The information commissioner's office says surveys are allowed but people had to be told if personal data was kept. Telephone call centres are expected to be used as never before by all the three major parties in the run-up to the general election.
But seven million telephone numbers are on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) lists, which ban unsolicited sales and marketing calls. Both schemes are run by the Direct Marketing Association and backed by EU directives on privacy and electronic communications.
The rules on marketing calls apply as much to politicians as to private sector companies. But that does not mean Labour and the Tories are not calling people signed up to the TPS. A Labour Party spokesman told the BBC News website the party avoided those on TPS lists when telephoning people about membership or fundraising. But that did not happen for "voter identification" calls. "When we ask which party they will vote for, that is not marketing and we have very clear legal advice that it is not," he said. "So it is not covered by the Telephone Preference Service."
He said the party always asked people if they would be happy to be contacted again and if they said no, they were not rung again. A Conservative spokeswoman said the party stuck to the rules when it rang TPS subscribers. She said: "We do apply TPS but in line with the law. We would not do things that are not allowed in the law." Assistant information commissioner Phil Jones said it was classed as marketing if political parties telephoned people to encourage them to vote for them. But "classic market research", such as a poll of voter intentions, did not constitute direct marketing, he said. "If a party is calling someone who is registered on TPS and records their voting intention with a view to using this information in the future, this should be clear to the voter concerned," said Mr Jones. "If a party rings a person who is registered on TPS to ask about their voting intention and goes on to encourage that voter to support them, the party may well be in breach of the regulations. "In summary, whether a party calling TPS registered voters to check their voting intentions will breach regulations will depend on the script used and whether the script is followed." Mr Jones said the watchdog received "very few complaints" on the issue.
Earlier, Lib Dem chairman Matthew Taylor wrote to the watchdog saying: "The advice we have received on several previous occasions is that such phone calls are illegal." He says evidence from local Lib Dem parties around the country suggests there are "significant" numbers of such calls. "I hope you can therefore take swift and efficient action to ensure that this ceases," he tells the commissioner. Mr Taylor argues there should be new guidelines so all parties can act in the same way if the watchdog believes the rules allow parties to ring TPS numbers about voting intentions and later urge those people to vote for them.
| Assistant information commissioner Phil Jones said it was classed as marketing if political parties telephoned people to encourage them to vote for them.Mr Taylor argues there should be new guidelines so all parties can act in the same way if the watchdog believes the rules allow parties to ring TPS numbers about voting intentions and later urge those people to vote for them."If a party is calling someone who is registered on TPS and records their voting intention with a view to using this information in the future, this should be clear to the voter concerned," said Mr Jones."When we ask which party they will vote for, that is not marketing and we have very clear legal advice that it is not," he said.A Conservative spokeswoman said the party stuck to the rules when it rang TPS subscribers.He said the party always asked people if they would be happy to be contacted again and if they said no, they were not rung again."If a party rings a person who is registered on TPS to ask about their voting intention and goes on to encourage that voter to support them, the party may well be in breach of the regulations.The parties say they can stick to the rules by ensuring that their calls are not marketing - for instance by asking about people's voting intentions.A Labour Party spokesman told the BBC News website the party avoided those on TPS lists when telephoning people about membership or fundraising.But seven million telephone numbers are on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) lists, which ban unsolicited sales and marketing calls.She said: "We do apply TPS but in line with the law. |
Goldsmith denies war advice claim
The attorney general has denied his statement to Parliament about the legality of the Iraq war was drafted by Downing Street officials.
Lord Goldsmith said Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan played no part in drafting the answer. He added the answer represented his view that the war was legal, but was not a summary of his advice to the PM. The government has resisted calls to publish the full advice, saying such papers are always kept confidential.
In a statement, Lord Goldsmith said: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer." He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
"No other minister or official was involved in any way." He suggested the claim that Lord Falconer and Lady Morgan had drafted the answer were the result of a mis-transcription of his evidence to the Butler Inquiry into pre-war intelligence. "As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said. "The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government." Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled. "The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said. "What is clear from his statement today is that he does not believe that it was a full, accurate summary of his formal opinion."
Earlier, Tony Blair dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion. "That's what he (Lord Goldsmith) said and that's what I say. He has dealt with this time and time and time again," Mr Blair told his monthly news conference in Downing Street. He refused to answer further questions on the issue.
On the question of whether such papers have always been kept confidential, Tory MP Michael Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry, told the BBC: "That, as a general rule, is right, but it's not an absolute rule." He said there had been other occasions when advice had been published, most recently regarding Prince Charles's marriage plans. The government could not pick and choose when to use the convention, he said. Mr Mates added: "This may be one of those special occasions... when it would be in the public interest to see the advice which the attorney general gave to the prime minister."
The claims about Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan's involvement were made in a book published this week by Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers. He also says Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair on 7 March 2003 that the Iraq war could be illegal without a second UN resolution sanctioning military action.
A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this. Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said the ministerial answer was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action. She said the full advice should have been attached, according to the ministerial code, and demanded a Lords inquiry into the matter. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they still want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General. Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said Lord Goldsmith's statement still did not clear up the outstanding issues. "If his original advice of 7 March accepted that military action might be illegal, how was it that he resolved any such doubts by the time the Parliamentary answer was published on 17 March?" he said. "Only the fullest disclosure will now do."
| Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said the ministerial answer was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action.Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled.In a statement, Lord Goldsmith said: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer."He added the answer represented his view that the war was legal, but was not a summary of his advice to the PM.Lord Goldsmith said Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan played no part in drafting the answer."The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said."If his original advice of 7 March accepted that military action might be illegal, how was it that he resolved any such doubts by the time the Parliamentary answer was published on 17 March?"Earlier, Tony Blair dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion.he said."The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government.""As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said.A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this.He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. |
Lib Dems unveil women's manifesto
The Liberal Democrats are attempting to woo female voters with the launch of their manifesto for women.
Charles Kennedy is pledging a maternity income guarantee and a pension system based on years of residence rather than national insurance payments. He also thinks women will back plans to end university tuition fees and for free long-term care for the elderly. Both Labour and the Conservatives have said they also plan to boost pensions and to improve childcare support. Mr Kennedy says he wants to deal with policy areas that disadvantage women. "Two million pensioners in Britain currently live below the government's own poverty line - two-thirds of whom are women," he said.
He says that pensions based on the number of years worked ignore the contribution women make caring for children. The Lib Dem's Citizen's Pension, based on length of residency not on national insurance contributions, would address that imbalance, Mr Kennedy argues. Under the package, new mothers would be offered minimum guaranteed maternity pay of £170 a week for the first six months after the birth of their first child. Mr Kennedy also believes the party's plans to use the money saved from not introducing "illiberal" ID cards to boost police numbers by 10,000 would appeal to women too. The policies are not new announcements, but the way they are structured as a package to appeal to women is.
Mr Kennedy also points to the fact that 40% of the party's candidates set to stand in winnable or target seats are women. Party strategists claim that where women candidates replace men turnout rises by 4%. Mr Kennedy began the pitch for female support with an interview on BBC Radio 4's Women's Hour on Monday. During the interview Mr Kennedy revealed that he planned to structure the party's general election campaign around the birth of his first child, which is expected in April. The baby and his wife Sarah would be "priority number one" even if it arrived in the middle of the election campaign, he said.
Party strategists believe winning over a significant proportion of women voters is key to electoral success. A party spokesman said it was courting female votes because they tended to vote more than men and are believed to be more considered and open-minded in deciding who they vote for. Labour's deputy minister for women Jacqui Smith accused the Lib Dems of offering "false promises" to women and said their sums did not add up. She said: "These proposals would increase the costs to the public purse drastically year on year, and hard working families will pay dearly, through either increased taxes or reduced spending on public services". The Labour party has committed itself to "universal, affordable and flexible" childcare for parents of all 3 to 14 year-olds, including childcare centred on schools to be available from 8am to 6pm. In September, Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said she would like to see longer paid maternity leave, higher paternity pay and the extension of flexible working rights to carers, if Labour won a third term. The Conservatives are yet to unveil their manifesto plans for childcare but said in November they would increase maternity pay and pay the child tax credit in cash to parents to spend as they like, on a nanny, au pair or even a family member, such as a grandparent, acting as a carer. They were also consulting on making childcare costs tax deductible.
| Mr Kennedy also believes the party's plans to use the money saved from not introducing "illiberal" ID cards to boost police numbers by 10,000 would appeal to women too.Both Labour and the Conservatives have said they also plan to boost pensions and to improve childcare support.The Conservatives are yet to unveil their manifesto plans for childcare but said in November they would increase maternity pay and pay the child tax credit in cash to parents to spend as they like, on a nanny, au pair or even a family member, such as a grandparent, acting as a carer.The Lib Dem's Citizen's Pension, based on length of residency not on national insurance contributions, would address that imbalance, Mr Kennedy argues.Mr Kennedy also points to the fact that 40% of the party's candidates set to stand in winnable or target seats are women.Mr Kennedy says he wants to deal with policy areas that disadvantage women.Labour's deputy minister for women Jacqui Smith accused the Lib Dems of offering "false promises" to women and said their sums did not add up.He says that pensions based on the number of years worked ignore the contribution women make caring for children.During the interview Mr Kennedy revealed that he planned to structure the party's general election campaign around the birth of his first child, which is expected in April.She said: "These proposals would increase the costs to the public purse drastically year on year, and hard working families will pay dearly, through either increased taxes or reduced spending on public services". |
Tory expert denies defeat warning
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."
| 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."Mr Howard later added there was not "one iota" of truth in the report.But Mr Crosby said in a statement: "I have never had any such conversation... and I do not hold that view." |
Kennedy begins pre-election tour
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has begun a week-long tour to persuade voters they are the "real opposition".
Mr Kennedy is visiting constituencies in Somerset and Hampshire on Monday - rural seats where his party is hoping to make gains from the Conservatives. Later he will visit places, such as Liverpool, where Labour is targeted. Labour say a Lib Dem vote could "let the Tories in", while the Tories say the Lib Dems would mean "higher taxes, soft crime laws, more power to Europe". Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May. On Tuesday Mr Kennedy will visit Leicester South, where Lib Dem MP Parmjit Singh Gill overturned a big Labour majority to win the seat in last year's by-election.
Stops in Shrewsbury, North Dorset, Liverpool, Manchester, Basingstoke and west London are planned for later in the week. The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories. Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience". Asked whether it was realistic to assume the Liberal Democrats could win the general election, he said: "There's no limit to the ambitions we have as a party. "But we have got to be responsible, we have got to be credible, we have got to demonstrate to people that we are up to that task."
Mr Kennedy said the British public felt let down by Labour on issues from Iraq to top-up fees and the Conservatives were not "asking the critical questions". And he said people were "highly sceptical" about Labour and Conservative promises on tax. But he brushed off Labour suggestions a vote for his party would mean letting the Tories in "by the back door". "If you look at the four previous parliamentary by-elections, the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that, not only can we leapfrog the Conservatives where we start in a third place position, but we can go on to defeat the government. "That's going to be the story, I think, of this coming general election."
| The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories.Mr Kennedy said the British public felt let down by Labour on issues from Iraq to top-up fees and the Conservatives were not "asking the critical questions".Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May.On Tuesday Mr Kennedy will visit Leicester South, where Lib Dem MP Parmjit Singh Gill overturned a big Labour majority to win the seat in last year's by-election.Asked whether it was realistic to assume the Liberal Democrats could win the general election, he said: "There's no limit to the ambitions we have as a party.Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience".And he said people were "highly sceptical" about Labour and Conservative promises on tax. |
Manchester wins Labour conference
The Labour Party will hold its 2006 autumn conference in Manchester and not Blackpool, it has been confirmed.
The much trailed decision was ratified by Labour's ruling National Executive Committee in a break with the traditional choice of a seaside venue. It will be the first time since 1917 that the party has chosen Manchester to host the annual event. Blackpool will get the much smaller February spring conference instead in what will be seen as a placatory move.
For years the main political parties have rotated between Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton. And the news the much larger annual conference is not to gather in Blackpool will be seen as a blow in the coastal resort. In 1998 the party said it would not return to Blackpool but did so in 2002. The following year Bournemouth hosted the event before the party signed a two year deal for Brighton to host the autumn conference.
Colin Asplin, Blackpool Hotel Association said: "We have tried very hard to make sure they come back to Blackpool. "Obviously we have failed in that. I just hope Manchester can handle the crowds. "It amazes me that the Labour Party, which is a working class party, doesn't want to come to the main working class resort in the country." The exact cost to Blackpool in terms of lost revenue for hotel accommodation is not yet known but it is thought that block bookings will be taken at the major Manchester hotels after the official announcement.
| The Labour Party will hold its 2006 autumn conference in Manchester and not Blackpool, it has been confirmed.For years the main political parties have rotated between Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton.In 1998 the party said it would not return to Blackpool but did so in 2002.And the news the much larger annual conference is not to gather in Blackpool will be seen as a blow in the coastal resort.Colin Asplin, Blackpool Hotel Association said: "We have tried very hard to make sure they come back to Blackpool.It will be the first time since 1917 that the party has chosen Manchester to host the annual event. |
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.
| 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".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.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.Mr Blair has already spent a day with Five and Michael Howard is booked for a similar session. |
Brown outlines third term vision
Gordon Brown has outlined what he thinks should be the key themes of New Labour's next general election bid.
He said ensuring every child in Britain had the best start in life could be a legacy to match the NHS's creation. The chancellor has previously planned the party's election strategy but this time the role will be filled by Alan Milburn - a key ally of Tony Blair. The premier insisted Mr Brown will have a key role in Labour's campaign, and praised his handling of the economy.
Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Mr Brown outlined his view of the direction New Labour should be taking. "As our manifesto and our programme for the coming decade should make clear, Labour's ambition is not simply tackling idleness but delivering full employment; not just attacking ignorance, disease and squalor but promoting lifelong education, good health and sustainable communities." BBC political editor Andrew Marr said that Mr Brown's article was "a warning shot" to Mr Blair not to try and cut him out of the manifesto writing process. "It was, as always, coded and careful... but entirely deliberate," was Mr Marr's assessment. The prime minister was asked about Mr Brown's article and about his election role when he appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Blair said a decision had yet to be taken over how the election would be run but the chancellor's role would be "central". Mr Blair argued that under New Labour the country had changed for the better and that was "in part" because of Mr Brown's management of the economy. And he pledged childcare would be a "centrepiece" of Labour's manifesto. He also predicted the next general election will be a "tough, tough fight" for New Labour. But the prime minister insisted he did not know what date the poll would take place despite speculation about 5 May. Mr Blair said he was taking "nothing for granted" ahead of the vote - warning that the Tory strategy was to win power via the back door by hinting they were aiming to cut Labour's majority instead of hoping for an outright win.
| BBC political editor Andrew Marr said that Mr Brown's article was "a warning shot" to Mr Blair not to try and cut him out of the manifesto writing process.Mr Blair argued that under New Labour the country had changed for the better and that was "in part" because of Mr Brown's management of the economy.Mr Blair said a decision had yet to be taken over how the election would be run but the chancellor's role would be "central".The prime minister was asked about Mr Brown's article and about his election role when he appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.The premier insisted Mr Brown will have a key role in Labour's campaign, and praised his handling of the economy.Mr Blair said he was taking "nothing for granted" ahead of the vote - warning that the Tory strategy was to win power via the back door by hinting they were aiming to cut Labour's majority instead of hoping for an outright win. |
Labour's core support takes stock
Tony Blair has told Labour supporters he's "back" and still hungry for the job of prime minister - but does that sum up the mood at the party's spring conference in Gateshead?
"The electorate are keener on the government than some Labour Party members," is the dry assessment of Graham Lane, leader of the Labour group on Newham Council. The problem, according to Mr Lane, is not continuing divisions over Iraq, foundation hospitals or tuition fees, or even voter apathy, but Mr Blair himself. "I have a new slogan. Vote Blair, Get Brown. That's what I am telling people on the doorstep. Don't worry, he will be gone soon." His friend, Saxon Spence, leader of Devon county Labour group, lays the blame for any lack of campaigning zeal on one issue above all others. "You cannot underestimate the impact of the war in Iraq. We lost people from our local party who had some key roles."
But the two friends were fired up by Gordon Brown's speech on Saturday, with its appeal to core Labour values on social justice, health and education.
"There was real passion. I think we have all felt a little jaded, but it reminded us why we joined the party in the first place," said Mrs Spence. "If he hadn't have walked off the stage, they would still be clapping," added Mr Lane. But for every Brownite at the spring conference there was an equally ardent fan of Mr Blair. Stephen Douglas, 26, from Wales, said after the PM's speech on Sunday: "I think it was a bit of a turning point, given the roasting he has had on some issues. The guy still has it."
Tony Martin, of Burnley, said: "He is the first leader who has won us two terms. This bloke has delivered for us." Malcolm Shipley, of Shipley, said it was "as if he is coming round to the right approach again". Katrina Bull, a prospective parliamentary candidate said Mr Blair had shown he could rouse the party's grassroots: "I think if every voter was able to spend time in a room with Tony, the way we have today, we will have no problem with turnout." She had just emerged from a Q&A session, in which Mr Blair - tieless and supremely at ease - answered questions posed via the party's website.
A party of councillors from Nottingham agreed that there was nothing wrong with Mr Blair's leadership - and they were adamant that the campaigning strength of the party in their city was as strong as ever. Iraq, they insisted, would not be a factor for most voters. "The biggest problem we have got at the moment is that we keep getting all these polls saying we are going to run away with the election. "It might sound great, but it does create this sense of complacency among our own voters and I think that is the greater problem than Iraq," said Nottingham City Councillor Brian Parbutt. And even Mr Blair's most vocal critics seemed to agree on one thing - he is a master of the sort of glossy, high-profile campaigning that has become Labour's hallmark, epitomised by Friday's whistle-stop tour of marginal seats. A group of shop stewards from the Swan Hunter shipyard, who said they were facing redundancy, could barely suppress their anger at Mr Blair's failure to, as they saw it, shake off his Tory leanings and stand up for manufacturing in the North East.
They were also scathing about the alleged benefits of showpiece projects such as conference venue Sage Centre, heralded by John Prescott and others this weekend as a symbol of Labour's success in urban regeneration.
"It is no good having the Sage or Baltic if you haven't got the money for the entrance fee," said Terry Telford. But when asked about Mr Blair's bravura performance on Friday, the men agreed he was "brilliant". And they would all be out on the doorstep pushing the Labour message come election time. "If you are not fired up about the election, then what's the point? There is no complacency as far as I can see in the Labour Party. We are fired up. We are up for this election," said Richie Porterhouse. Mr Telford agreed, but added it was becoming increasingly difficult to think of an answer when people asked "What has Labour done for the North East?" "I have had doors slammed in my face," he said.
Every activist I spoke to said they were proud of what they believed Labour had achieved in their local communities - the new hospitals and schools, the better life chances for young people. The problem they faced, they said, was converting this local feelgood factor into votes. But they could at least rely on one "secret weapon", as one activist put it - Tory leader Michael Howard.
| Mr Telford agreed, but added it was becoming increasingly difficult to think of an answer when people asked "What has Labour done for the North East?"Katrina Bull, a prospective parliamentary candidate said Mr Blair had shown he could rouse the party's grassroots: "I think if every voter was able to spend time in a room with Tony, the way we have today, we will have no problem with turnout."A party of councillors from Nottingham agreed that there was nothing wrong with Mr Blair's leadership - and they were adamant that the campaigning strength of the party in their city was as strong as ever.The problem they faced, they said, was converting this local feelgood factor into votes.Every activist I spoke to said they were proud of what they believed Labour had achieved in their local communities - the new hospitals and schools, the better life chances for young people.Stephen Douglas, 26, from Wales, said after the PM's speech on Sunday: "I think it was a bit of a turning point, given the roasting he has had on some issues.But for every Brownite at the spring conference there was an equally ardent fan of Mr Blair.The problem, according to Mr Lane, is not continuing divisions over Iraq, foundation hospitals or tuition fees, or even voter apathy, but Mr Blair himself.Tony Martin, of Burnley, said: "He is the first leader who has won us two terms.We are up for this election," said Richie Porterhouse.Tony Blair has told Labour supporters he's "back" and still hungry for the job of prime minister - but does that sum up the mood at the party's spring conference in Gateshead?But when asked about Mr Blair's bravura performance on Friday, the men agreed he was "brilliant"."It might sound great, but it does create this sense of complacency among our own voters and I think that is the greater problem than Iraq," said Nottingham City Councillor Brian Parbutt.And they would all be out on the doorstep pushing the Labour message come election time."The electorate are keener on the government than some Labour Party members," is the dry assessment of Graham Lane, leader of the Labour group on Newham Council.I think we have all felt a little jaded, but it reminded us why we joined the party in the first place," said Mrs Spence.Malcolm Shipley, of Shipley, said it was "as if he is coming round to the right approach again". |
Labour's 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.
| Veteran Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham has said he will stand down at the next election.Mr Blair said he was a "huge figure" in Labour and a "valued, personal friend".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". |
Teenagers to be allowed to be MPs
Teenagers will be able to become MPs under plans unveiled by ministers.
In a written statement, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said the current minimum age of 21 for an MP would be reduced to 18. The proposals follow a recommendation last year by elections watchdog the Electoral Commission. "The government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age," said Mr Leslie, who was elected in 1997 at the age of 24. Even if the move does go ahead it is unlikely it will be in place before the next general election, widely predicted for May.
The announcement from Mr Leslie - who was elected in 1997 in a formerly safe Tory seat - prompted calls for a lowering of the voting age to 16. The Votes at 16 alliance said it was a good thing to "engage people" by lowering the candidacy age but argued lowering the voting age would be much more effective. "Candidacy affects only politicians. The voting age affects millions of younger people," said spokesman Alex Folkes. "We would hope that the government will table a bill that is broad enough to allow for amendments to be brought to test support for a reduction in the voting age."
Currently candidates in both local and national votes must be 21 while the voting age is 18. That is because the age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1969 but laws dating from 1695 which determine the current voting age stayed in place. Irish republican Bernadette Devlin was one of just a handful of 21-year-olds elected to Parliament in the 20th century winning a seat in 1969. But the youngest is understood to have been Tory Edward Turnour, who won the 1904 Horsham by-election aged 21 and 144 days and served in Parliament for 47 continuous years. Last April's report by the Electoral Commission said there was no strong argument for leaving the age for standing for election at 21. The commission found the most common approach around the world is for the voting age to be the same as the candidacy age.
| The Votes at 16 alliance said it was a good thing to "engage people" by lowering the candidacy age but argued lowering the voting age would be much more effective.That is because the age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1969 but laws dating from 1695 which determine the current voting age stayed in place.The commission found the most common approach around the world is for the voting age to be the same as the candidacy age."The government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age," said Mr Leslie, who was elected in 1997 at the age of 24.The announcement from Mr Leslie - who was elected in 1997 in a formerly safe Tory seat - prompted calls for a lowering of the voting age to 16.Last April's report by the Electoral Commission said there was no strong argument for leaving the age for standing for election at 21.The voting age affects millions of younger people," said spokesman Alex Folkes. |
Goldsmith: 'I was not leant on'
The attorney general has again denied being "leant on" by Downing Street to make the legal case for invading Iraq.
Claims a written answer on the legality of the war was drafted by Downing Street were "wholly unfounded," he insisted during stormy Lords exchanges. Lord Goldsmith said the answer represented his "genuinely held independent view" the war was legal. The text was released on the eve of a crucial Commons vote in which MPs backed the invasion of Iraq. Many Labour MPs have since indicated that the attorney general's answer played a pivotal role in their willingness to back the conflict. The government has resisted calls to publish the full advice, saying such papers are always kept confidential. In the House of Lords, the attorney general faced a call by former Tory lord chancellor Lord Mackay to now publish the "full text" of the advice - the suggestion was rejected. Another peer meanwhile, Lord Skidelsky, said not to publish the full legal opinion would "strengthen the suspicion that the the original text was doctored for public consumption, in exactly the same way as the notorious intelligence dossier on weapons of mass destruction".
Last week Lord Goldsmith said in a statement: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer." He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. "No other minister or official was involved in any way." "As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said. "The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government." Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled. "The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said. "What is clear from his statement today is that he does not believe that it was a full, accurate summary of his formal opinion."
Tony Blair has dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion. "That's what he [Lord Goldsmith] said and that's what I say. He has dealt with this time and time and time again," Mr Blair told his monthly news conference in Downing Street. He refused to answer further questions on the issue. On the question of whether such papers have always been kept confidential, Tory MP Michael Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry, told the BBC: "That, as a general rule, is right, but it's not an absolute rule." He said there had been other occasions when advice had been published, most recently regarding Prince Charles's marriage plans. The government could not pick and choose when to use the convention, he said. Mr Mates added: "This may be one of those special occasions... when it would be in the public interest to see the advice which the attorney general gave to the prime minister." A book published by Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers says Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair on 7 March 2003 that the Iraq war could be illegal without a second UN resolution sanctioning military action. A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this.
| Lord Goldsmith said the answer represented his "genuinely held independent view" the war was legal.Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled."The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said.Last week Lord Goldsmith said in a statement: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer."In the House of Lords, the attorney general faced a call by former Tory lord chancellor Lord Mackay to now publish the "full text" of the advice - the suggestion was rejected.Tony Blair has dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion."The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government.""As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said.Another peer meanwhile, Lord Skidelsky, said not to publish the full legal opinion would "strengthen the suspicion that the the original text was doctored for public consumption, in exactly the same way as the notorious intelligence dossier on weapons of mass destruction".A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this.He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. |
Milburn defends poster campaign
Labour's election chief Alan Milburn has defended his party's campaign posters amid Tory claims the ads were nothing short of "sly anti-Semitism".
Mr Milburn said he appreciated people's concerns, but insisted that "what they were was anti-Tory" and "not in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic". He was responding to Tory spokesman Julian Lewis who said the ads were part of a wider trend of smearing the party. Labour has withdrawn two controversial posters and launched four new designs.
A row was sparked after the party published posters appearing to depict Michael Howard, who is Jewish, as Fagin, and as a flying pig, amid claims they were anti-Semitic. The posters were labelled a "big misjudgement" by the Conservatives who said Labour's "first shot in the election has badly backfired".
The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who were asked to vote on their favourite. Labour has taken them off its website, saying members preferred other posters. The party's four new designs, launched on Tuesday, steer clear of the Fagin or flying pig images, but make clear that Labour is sticking to its strategy of targeting the Tory leader personally, with reminders of his record in office.
The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who have been asked to choose which one should be used ahead of the election. In the Commons, Tory spokesman Mr Lewis suggested the posters were part of a wider trend and reminded MPs that Labour chairman Ian McCartney last year described shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin as a "21st Century Fagin".
"Given the outrage that that smear caused then, how could you have thought anything other than the fact that what you were doing in reviving it in your poster advertisements was nothing more and nothing less than a calculated campaign of sly anti-Semitism?" Mr Milburn replied that they were not anti-Semitic. "What they were was anti-Tory and I make no apologies at all for making clear to the British public exactly what the Conservative plans would mean," he said. "I fully understand and indeed respect the views of those who have concerns about any poster designs that have appeared on the Labour Party website." The Fagin and pigs might fly posters were taken off Labour's website on Monday after supporters voted for their favourite poster featuring Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin holding a blackboard reading 2+2=5. A Labour spokesman later said their removal from the party's website was not affected by the row.
| A Labour spokesman later said their removal from the party's website was not affected by the row.Labour's election chief Alan Milburn has defended his party's campaign posters amid Tory claims the ads were nothing short of "sly anti-Semitism".The Fagin and pigs might fly posters were taken off Labour's website on Monday after supporters voted for their favourite poster featuring Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin holding a blackboard reading 2+2=5.The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who were asked to vote on their favourite.Labour has withdrawn two controversial posters and launched four new designs.The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who have been asked to choose which one should be used ahead of the election.In the Commons, Tory spokesman Mr Lewis suggested the posters were part of a wider trend and reminded MPs that Labour chairman Ian McCartney last year described shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin as a "21st Century Fagin". |
Immigration to be election issue
Immigration and asylum have normally been issues politicians from the big parties have tiptoed around at election time.
But no longer. Both Labour and the Tories have signalled their intention of making them central to their election campaigns. They have been struck by the level of concern amongst voters about the issues, with internal surveys showing they have the potential to swing large numbers of votes. That was also true at the last general election and the issue did briefly become a campaigning issue. But it sparked the probably predictable furore with claims politicians were either stoking up xenophobia or, alternatively, running scared of addressing the problem. But this time around it looks set to be one of the core battlegrounds with both the big parties competing to set out tough policies.
The Tories are already committed to imposing annual limits on immigration, with a quota for asylum seekers and with applications processed outside the UK. Labour has already branded the proposal unworkable but party strategists have seen the Tories seizing a poll advantage over the issue.
Now Home Secretary Charles Clarke has come up with alternative proposals for a points system to ensure only immigrants who can benefit the economy will be granted entry, and to kick out more failed asylum seekers. That has been attacked by the Tories as too little, too late and for failing to tackle the key issue of the numbers entering the UK. The Liberal Democrats have not been drawn too deeply into the argument but have called for a Europe-wide policy on immigration.
But, while all the parties appear to agree the time has come to properly debate and address the issue, there are already signs they will run into precisely the same problems as before. Former union leader Sir Bill Morris has already accused both the big parties of engaging in a "bidding war about who can be nastiest to asylum seekers".
"My concern is that, whilst the Labour Party and the Conservative Party will take a constructive approach to the debate, right-wing political parties, picking up on statements like `burden to Britain' will exploit this and create a lot of fear and uncertainty". It is precisely that concern - and the possible suggestion the issue is playing to the far right's racist agenda - that will provoke strong reactions from many concerned with this issue. The challenge for the big parties is to ensure they can engage in the debate during the cut and thrust of a general election while also avoiding that trap.
| Immigration and asylum have normally been issues politicians from the big parties have tiptoed around at election time.But, while all the parties appear to agree the time has come to properly debate and address the issue, there are already signs they will run into precisely the same problems as before.Labour has already branded the proposal unworkable but party strategists have seen the Tories seizing a poll advantage over the issue.Former union leader Sir Bill Morris has already accused both the big parties of engaging in a "bidding war about who can be nastiest to asylum seekers".The challenge for the big parties is to ensure they can engage in the debate during the cut and thrust of a general election while also avoiding that trap.That has been attacked by the Tories as too little, too late and for failing to tackle the key issue of the numbers entering the UK.That was also true at the last general election and the issue did briefly become a campaigning issue. |
Labour attacked on Howard poster
Labour has been accused of using anti-Semitic images in posters which critics claim depict Tory leader Michael Howard as Fagin.
The poster shows Mr Howard hypnotising people with a pocket watch, saying: "I can spend the same money twice." The image prompted concern from the editor of the Jewish Chronicle but Labour insists it is simply anti-Tory. Labour later took the image off its website, saying an alternative idea had proved more popular with party members. The party will now use focus groups to test a poster showing Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin with a blackboard reading: "2+2=5".
The hypnotism poster has been compared to the portrayal of the Dickens character Fagin in the stage version of the musical Oliver! There was controversy over another poster choice offered to Labour members. It showed Mr Howard and Mr Letwin - who are both Jewish - as flying pigs. Mr Howard did not comment on the anti-Semitism claims when asked about the poster on Monday. Instead, he pointed to how Tony Blair had in 1997 complained about "personalised abusive campaigning". Mr Howard told Greater Manchester Radio: "It is such a pity that Mr Blair doesn't practise what he preaches."
Jewish Chronicle editor Ned Temko said there had been a mixed reaction to the first poster but e-mails from Jewish Chronicle readers showed deeper concern about the hypnotism image. "Shylock and Fagin are inextricably linked to notions of centuries-old prejudice," he told BBC Radio 4's World At One. "Whatever the idea is, I think it's a difficult exercise to use images like that and to argue that you can divorce them from their historical context or meaning." Mr Temko said he blamed "cock-up not conspiracy", saying he did not detect inherent anti-Semitism in any of the parties' election campaigns.
The poster is among one of a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who have been asked to choose which one should be used ahead of the election. Labour MP Louise Ellman said the hypnotism image was insensitive but urged people not to rush to call things anti-Semitic when they only challenged Tory economic policies. Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said the poster had been misunderstood. The image simply portrayed Mr Howard as a hypnotist, he argued. "Concern has been expressed and clearly we have to take those views on board but I would emphasise that if you see the posters, the common theme... is that the Tories are trying to con you." A Labour spokesman later said the timing of removing the controversial image from the party's website was not affected by the row. "This has been up on the website for two weeks and there has only been a fuss in the last four days so a substantial number of people voted before there was any fuss," he said. But a Conservative spokeswoman said: "This poster campaign - which was offensive to many people - was a big misjudgement by Labour's campaign team."
| Labour has been accused of using anti-Semitic images in posters which critics claim depict Tory leader Michael Howard as Fagin.Mr Howard did not comment on the anti-Semitism claims when asked about the poster on Monday.The image simply portrayed Mr Howard as a hypnotist, he argued.Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said the poster had been misunderstood.The poster shows Mr Howard hypnotising people with a pocket watch, saying: "I can spend the same money twice."It showed Mr Howard and Mr Letwin - who are both Jewish - as flying pigs.Mr Howard told Greater Manchester Radio: "It is such a pity that Mr Blair doesn't practise what he preaches."A Labour spokesman later said the timing of removing the controversial image from the party's website was not affected by the row.There was controversy over another poster choice offered to Labour members.Jewish Chronicle editor Ned Temko said there had been a mixed reaction to the first poster but e-mails from Jewish Chronicle readers showed deeper concern about the hypnotism image. |
Will Tory tax cuts lift spirits?
Michael Howard has finally revealed the full scale of his planned Tory tax cuts.
Should he win the next general election, he has earmarked £4 billion that will be used to reduce taxes - although he still will not say which or how. This was the pre-election message many in his party have been pressing for and voters, he believes, will warm to. At its simplest, it is saying: "Vote Tory and you can have it both ways". Not only would his government stick to Labour spending plans on core public services, including health and education, it would increase spending on defence, police and pensions. And even after that was done, it would still have enough left over for a tax cut equivalent to about a penny off the basic rate of income tax.
All the money would come from its £35 billion efficiency savings which would see the axe taken to bureaucracy, waste and the civil service. Of that, £23 billion would go on spending plans, with £8 billion to fill the black hole left, they claim, by Gordon Brown, and the rest going in tax cuts.
Neither Mr Howard nor Mr Letwin would say exactly how they would use that cash, although a cut in the basic rate seems unlikely. Ideas already floated include raising tax thresholds and abolishing or reducing inheritance tax, although some in the Tory party are urging Mr Howard to announce something more eye-catching before the election. As the Tory leader declared, the aim of the exercise is to open up a real economic policy divide between Labour and the Tories. "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," he said.
It is a move back towards an almost traditional Tory message which previously suggested Labour was the party of tax rises and the Conservatives the party of tax cuts.
The extension of that, however, was that Labour was also seen as the party of big spending on the public services while the Tories were the cutters. And that is where one of the problems lies for Mr Howard - can he persuade sceptical voters that they really can have it both ways with bigger spending on public services AND lower taxes? He insists he will not promise anything before the election that he cannot deliver if put into Downing Street. Labour, needless to say, claim his planned £35bn efficiency savings simply don't add up and that those sorts of figures are fantasy.
One of New Labour's greatest successes before the historic 1997 election was to persuade voters, business and the City that it could be trusted to run the economy. So far that has not faced any real challenge, but independent analysts now claim a third New Labour government would be forced to either increase taxation or taxes to plug a black hole it has at the centre of its finances. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are committed to increasing taxes for the most well off to finance their spending proposals launched earlier in the day. So, Mr Howard hopes his message will start to hit home during this unofficial election campaign and that his poll ratings might finally lift off the floor. And, while other issues like the Iraq war and trust will play a major part in that campaign, it is likely - and the prime minister probably hopes - that the economy will be the deciding factor.
| It is a move back towards an almost traditional Tory message which previously suggested Labour was the party of tax rises and the Conservatives the party of tax cuts.Ideas already floated include raising tax thresholds and abolishing or reducing inheritance tax, although some in the Tory party are urging Mr Howard to announce something more eye-catching before the election.And even after that was done, it would still have enough left over for a tax cut equivalent to about a penny off the basic rate of income tax."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," he said.Michael Howard has finally revealed the full scale of his planned Tory tax cuts.Of that, £23 billion would go on spending plans, with £8 billion to fill the black hole left, they claim, by Gordon Brown, and the rest going in tax cuts.Should he win the next general election, he has earmarked £4 billion that will be used to reduce taxes - although he still will not say which or how.The extension of that, however, was that Labour was also seen as the party of big spending on the public services while the Tories were the cutters.So far that has not faced any real challenge, but independent analysts now claim a third New Labour government would be forced to either increase taxation or taxes to plug a black hole it has at the centre of its finances. |
Chancellor rallies Labour voters
Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.
The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts. He told his party's spring conference the Tories must not be allowed to win. The Conservatives and Lib Dems insisted that voters faced higher taxes and means-testing under Labour.
To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country. Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed. "Never again Tory boom and bust.
"This will be the central dividing line at the election, between a Conservative Party taking Britain back and planning deep cuts of £35bn in our services, and a Labour government taking Britain forward, which on a platform of stability will reform and renew our hospitals, schools and public services and, I am proud to say, spend by 2008 £60bn more." Turning to the economy, the chancellor promised to continue economic stability and growth in a third term in power.
He also pledged to continue the fight against child and pensioner poverty. And he promised help to get young people on the property ladder. "My message to the thousands of young couples waiting to obtain their first home is that housing is rightly now at the centre of our coming manifesto," he said. "And the next Labour government will match our low mortgage rates with a new first-time buyers' initiative." In the speech, which prompted a standing ovation, he also promised to end teenage unemployment within the next five years.
He also highlighted plans for 100% debt relief for the world's poorest countries, a national minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds, the creation of a network of children's centres and flexibility in maternity leave. Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown. "We've heard it all before. Instead of talking about the future he kept on talking about the past. "He completely failed to say which taxes he would put up to fill the black hole in his spending plans. "There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."
Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it. "For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said. "Gordon Brown has created a system of massive centralisation and bureaucracy, a system which subjects millions of people to means testing, and a system of taxation which is extremely complex. "For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation." Also in Gateshead, the prime minister took questions sent in by e-mail, text message and telephone as part of Labour's attempt to engage the public in their campaign. Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done. He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs".
| Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown."There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts.Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed.Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it."For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said.Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country.Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done.He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs"."For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation." |
Blair joins school sailing trip
The prime minister has donned a life jacket and joined school children in a sailing dinghy as he sought to sell his party's education policies.
Tony Blair sailed across the lake in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, while on a visit with Education Secretary Ruth Kelly to back school outings. Mr Blair later stressed Labour's election pledge to focus on education, when he met parents in the area. The Conservatives and Lib Dems both say his pledges are "worthless". All the parties are stepping up campaigning ahead of a General Election widely expected to be held on 5 May. Mr Blair, looking a little windswept, joined two girls from St Egwin's Middle School in Evesham and an instructor for a trip in the Wayfarer dinghy, closely followed by a boat full of photographers.
Afterwards he said outdoor activities were beneficial for children but accepted that lots of teachers now worried about taking part for fear of being sued if something went wrong. "What we're doing is introducing some simple guidelines so if teachers follow those they are not going to be at risk of legal action," Mr Blair said. "When you are doing these types of activities you've got to exercise some common sense there obviously. "You can't have a situation where parents or teachers end up being worried that they're going to be subject to all sorts of legal action if they take children sailing or doing outdoor activity that is actually good for the kids and good for their health and their character."
The pledge on education - "your child achieving more" - was one of six election pledges unveiled by Mr Blair last week. If it wins a third term in the general election expected this year, Labour is committed to giving parents more choice between schools; allowing all secondary schools to take on specialist status; opening 200 city academies and creating 100,000 more sixth-form places. It aims to improve discipline in schools by adopting a "zero tolerance" approach to disruption of classes and introducing fixed penalty notices for truants. Labour also plans to give head teachers at groups of local schools control over funding for units to handle disruptive pupils.
Parents and teachers who met Mr Blair on Tuesday were invited to the informal discussion after writing to their MPs to raise concerns about education. It is the latest in a series of events designed to show the prime minister is speaking directly to voters in the run-up to the election - and that he has not lost touch. For the Conservatives, shadow education secretary Tim Collins said: "Mr Blair¿s government is all talk. He must be judged on what he has done in two terms, not what he mendaciously claims he would do in a third. That judgment will be damning." The Liberal Democrats are promising to cut class sizes for the youngest children and ensure all children are taught by a qualified teacher in each subject.
| The pledge on education - "your child achieving more" - was one of six election pledges unveiled by Mr Blair last week.Mr Blair later stressed Labour's election pledge to focus on education, when he met parents in the area.The prime minister has donned a life jacket and joined school children in a sailing dinghy as he sought to sell his party's education policies."What we're doing is introducing some simple guidelines so if teachers follow those they are not going to be at risk of legal action," Mr Blair said.Parents and teachers who met Mr Blair on Tuesday were invited to the informal discussion after writing to their MPs to raise concerns about education."You can't have a situation where parents or teachers end up being worried that they're going to be subject to all sorts of legal action if they take children sailing or doing outdoor activity that is actually good for the kids and good for their health and their character."Mr Blair, looking a little windswept, joined two girls from St Egwin's Middle School in Evesham and an instructor for a trip in the Wayfarer dinghy, closely followed by a boat full of photographers.Afterwards he said outdoor activities were beneficial for children but accepted that lots of teachers now worried about taking part for fear of being sued if something went wrong. |
Brown calls for £5.5bn Aids fund
Gordon Brown has called on rich nations to fund a £5.5bn ($10bn) plan to fight the Aids epidemic and find a vaccine.
On the fourth day of his six-day tour of Africa, the UK chancellor predicted a vaccine could be found by 2012 if the world stepped up its funding pledges. Doubling the £400m being spent yearly on finding such a vaccine could advance it by three years and save six million lives, Mr Brown said on Thursday. He hopes to use the UK's G8 presidency to push the issue forward.
"I believe that the generation that provided the finance to combat, cure and eradicate the world's deadliest disease of today - and today the world's least curable disease - HIV/Aids - will rightly earn the title 'the great generation'," Mr Brown said in a speech during his African tour. The problems of HIV/Aids were inseparable from poverty, he added. "At least $10 billion per annum (£5.5bn) is needed to address the HIV/Aids crisis in low and middle income countries. "Existing financial commitments on their own will not stop the pandemic. "The UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important - increasing world aid flows by over $50 billion (£27bn). A doubling of world aid to halve world poverty." Mr Brown also said he had agreed with the Italian finance minister Domenico Siniscalco to push forward with plans for the world-wide sharing and co-ordination of research into the disease.
Currently the private sector was only spending £60m a year on seeking an inoculation and the market needed boosting, Mr Brown said. He called on industrialised nations to commit themselves to buying the first 300m vaccines at a cost of $20 each, thereby boosting the market for inoculations. This would be a "large enough inducement to create much stronger interest from both large and small pharmaceutical firms", Mr Brown added.
More must also be done to finance the treatment and care of those living with HIV/Aids and their families, he said. But Aid charity Actionaid criticised Mr Brown's preoccupation with finding a vaccine and called on G8 nations to fund HIV/Aids treatments. The charity's head of HIV/Aids in Britain, Simon Wright said: "While encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to discover an HIV vaccine is important, a failure to provide any funding for HIV treatments condemns a generation of people to death. "HIV is decimating African countries, killing the most productive adults who should be working, caring for children and building the economy. An HIV vaccine is probably at least 10 years away. Treatments are needed now." On Wednesday, Mr Brown visited slums in the Kenyan capital Nairobi . He will visit an HIV/Aids orphanage in Tanzania and a women's credit union in Mozambique before chairing a meeting of the Commission for Africa in Cape Town. The chancellor has already unveiled proposals for a G8 aid package which he has likened to the Marshall Plan used by the United States to rebuild Europe after World War Two.
| But Aid charity Actionaid criticised Mr Brown's preoccupation with finding a vaccine and called on G8 nations to fund HIV/Aids treatments.Doubling the £400m being spent yearly on finding such a vaccine could advance it by three years and save six million lives, Mr Brown said on Thursday.Currently the private sector was only spending £60m a year on seeking an inoculation and the market needed boosting, Mr Brown said.Mr Brown also said he had agreed with the Italian finance minister Domenico Siniscalco to push forward with plans for the world-wide sharing and co-ordination of research into the disease.Gordon Brown has called on rich nations to fund a £5.5bn ($10bn) plan to fight the Aids epidemic and find a vaccine.The charity's head of HIV/Aids in Britain, Simon Wright said: "While encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to discover an HIV vaccine is important, a failure to provide any funding for HIV treatments condemns a generation of people to death."I believe that the generation that provided the finance to combat, cure and eradicate the world's deadliest disease of today - and today the world's least curable disease - HIV/Aids - will rightly earn the title 'the great generation'," Mr Brown said in a speech during his African tour."The UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important - increasing world aid flows by over $50 billion (£27bn)."At least $10 billion per annum (£5.5bn) is needed to address the HIV/Aids crisis in low and middle income countries.An HIV vaccine is probably at least 10 years away. |
Fox attacks Blair's Tory 'lies'
Tony Blair lied when he took the UK to war so has no qualms about lying in the election campaign, say the Tories.
Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda". Dr Fox told BBC Radio: "If you are willing to lie about the reasons for going to war, I guess you are going to lie about anything at all." He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat.
The prime minister ratcheted up Labour's pre-election campaigning at the weekend with a helicopter tour of the country and his speech at the party's spring conference. He insisted he did not know the poll date, but it is widely expected to be 5 May.
In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street." He described his relationship with the public as starting euphoric, then struggling to live up to the expectations, and reaching the point of raised voices and "throwing crockery". He warned his supporters against complacency, saying: "It's a fight for the future of our country, it's a fight that for Britain and the people of Britain we have to win."
Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward". Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies. "What we learned at the weekend is what Labour tactics are going to be and it's going to be fear and smear," he told BBC News. The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver. Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election. "We repay loans when they are due but do not comment to individual financial matters," he said, insisting he enjoyed a "warm and constructive" relationship to Lord Ashcroft.
Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday. Mr Kennedy is accelerating Lib Dem election preparations this week as he visits Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Somerset, Basingstoke, Shrewsbury, Dorset and Torbay. He said: "This is three-party politics. In the northern cities, the contest is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. "In southern and rural seats - especially in the South West - the principal contenders are the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who are out of the running in Scotland and Wales." The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.
| Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward".Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda".Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election.The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver.Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies.In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street."Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday.He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat. |
Brown targets OAPs and homebuyers
Gordon Brown has doubled the level at which house buyers pay stamp duty to £120,000 as he put the economy at the heart of Labour's election campaign.
The chancellor also unveiled a one-off £200 council tax refund for pensioners and a rise in child tax credit. Mr Brown put 1p a pint on beer, 4p on a bottle of wine and 7p on 20 cigarettes but froze petrol duty until September. The Tories called it a "vote now, pay later" Budget. The Lib Dems branded it a "sticking plaster" for the election.
Tory leader Michael Howard predicted the Budget would do nothing to help Labour's "faltering" election campaign.
"This government and this chancellor have run out of solutions to the problems Britain faces," Mr Howard told MPs. "Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later." He ended his response with an election challenge to Labour, saying "bring it on". Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy attacked Mr Brown for failing to mention the environment and for his record on social justice. "How can it be right in Britain today that the poorest 20% pay more in tax, as a proportion of their income, than the richest 20%?" he asked.
Mr Kennedy criticised Mr Brown for failing to mention the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation, saying it was "high time" the system was replaced by a "local tax based on the ability to pay". During his 49 minute speech Mr Brown told MPs he had defied the pundits by hitting his growth target of 3.1% for 2004.
He said his Budget struck a balance "between tax cuts that are affordable, investments that are essential and stability that is paramount". He rejected across-the-board tax cuts in favour of targeted help for families. The child tax credit will rise in line with earnings, giving families an extra £5 a week. In contrast, the personal income tax allowance will rise only in line with inflation from £4,745 to £4,895 next month. Mr Brown told MPs child benefit would rise to a maximum of £63 a week for the first child and £111 for two children. Despite his giveaways, Budget documents show Mr Brown clawed back £265m through a clampdown on tax avoidance and increased revenue from a windfall tax on oil companies. He also scrapped stamp duty relief for commercial property in disadvantaged areas - a measure brought in just over three years ago. BBC political editor Andrew Marr suggested the sweeteners were not big enough to have a transforming effect on voters. But trust in Mr Brown's economic stewardship would be a central election issue, he said.
Mr Brown also unveiled plans for a memorial to the Queen Mother, funded through a special coin to celebrate the Queen's 80th birthday. Other measures include equal tax status for same-sex couples and a deal with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to boost low cost home ownership. The level where people start paying inheritance tax will also rise from £263,000 to £275,000 from April. Mr Brown said he had met his financial "golden rule" with a £6bn surplus and he said public borrowing would continue to fall over the next five years.
The economy had grown for 50 consecutive quarters, he said, and was forecast to continue doing so over the next year, with a forecast of 3% to 3.5% in 2005 and 2.5% to 3% in 2006. The first £2bn of value-for-money savings identified in the Gershon Review have been achieved, the chancellor said. Some 12,500 civil servant posts have been axed, and 7,800 relocated out of the south east of England, he added. SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown had failed the "tartan test" as there were no measures to boost the Scottish economy. Simon Thomas, of Plaid Cymru, called it a budget for Middle England. UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman attacked the plans for pensioners saying they needed "more money and the dignity of being allowed to spend it how they want," not "free bus rides". The Green Party said the Budget was a "wasted opportunity" for environmental protection, adding: "Brown obviously has an eye on the coming election, and has taken his eye off the needs of the planet."
| Mr Kennedy criticised Mr Brown for failing to mention the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation, saying it was "high time" the system was replaced by a "local tax based on the ability to pay".Despite his giveaways, Budget documents show Mr Brown clawed back £265m through a clampdown on tax avoidance and increased revenue from a windfall tax on oil companies.The chancellor also unveiled a one-off £200 council tax refund for pensioners and a rise in child tax credit.Mr Brown told MPs child benefit would rise to a maximum of £63 a week for the first child and £111 for two children.SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown had failed the "tartan test" as there were no measures to boost the Scottish economy.Mr Brown said he had met his financial "golden rule" with a £6bn surplus and he said public borrowing would continue to fall over the next five years.But trust in Mr Brown's economic stewardship would be a central election issue, he said.He said his Budget struck a balance "between tax cuts that are affordable, investments that are essential and stability that is paramount".Gordon Brown has doubled the level at which house buyers pay stamp duty to £120,000 as he put the economy at the heart of Labour's election campaign."Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later."The level where people start paying inheritance tax will also rise from £263,000 to £275,000 from April.The Green Party said the Budget was a "wasted opportunity" for environmental protection, adding: "Brown obviously has an eye on the coming election, and has taken his eye off the needs of the planet."The child tax credit will rise in line with earnings, giving families an extra £5 a week.During his 49 minute speech Mr Brown told MPs he had defied the pundits by hitting his growth target of 3.1% for 2004. |
Straw backs ending China embargo
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended plans to end the European Union's arms embargo on China, despite opposition from the US and Japan.
Mr Straw, visiting Beijing, noted arms embargoes applied to China, Burma and Zimbabwe but not to North Korea, which he said had a terrible rights record. The EU imposed its arms ban on China in 1989 after troops opened fire on protestors in Tiananmen Square. Mr Straw also signed a deal on China-UK tourism. It is expected this would increase the number of Chinese tourists by 40,000 per year, providing $120m in revenue. China has in the past said it sees the weapons ban as politically driven, and does not want it lifted in order to buy more weapons. Mr Straw, speaking at a joint news conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, stressed this point. "The result of any decision [to lift the arms embargo] should not be an increase in arms exports from European Union member states to China, either in quantitative or qualitative terms," Mr Straw said. Earlier this week he said he expected the embargo to be lifted within six months.
But Mr Straw faces tough opposition to the move. Tory foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said lifting the arms embargo would be "irresponsible" and would damage Britain's relations with the US. He said Mr Straw was "naive beyond belief" if he accepted China's claim it does not want the ban lifted in order to buy weapons. The French want the embargo lifted because they want to sell arms to China; the Chinese want it lifted because they want to buy arms and battlefield technology from Europe." When he was in Tokyo earlier this week, Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura told the British minister that his plan to remove the embargo was " a worrying issue that concerns the security and environment of not only Japan, but also East Asia overall". Washington argues that if the embargo is lifted, it could lead to a buying spree for arms that China could use to threaten its diplomatic rival Taiwan. Beijing says Taiwan is part of Chinese territory and wants to unite it with the mainland, by force if necessary. The US is bound by law to help Taiwan defend itself. Washington has also voiced concern that the human rights conditions in China have not improved enough to merit an end to the embargo. It is an issue raised by human rights groups too. Brad Adams, from the UK's Human Rights Watch, said: "This is a huge political signal from Europe that they are willing to forget about Tiananmen Square." But Mr Straw insisted the EU's code of conduct on arms exports meant tough criteria on human rights still had to be met if the embargo was lifted.
| Mr Straw, visiting Beijing, noted arms embargoes applied to China, Burma and Zimbabwe but not to North Korea, which he said had a terrible rights record.But Mr Straw insisted the EU's code of conduct on arms exports meant tough criteria on human rights still had to be met if the embargo was lifted."The result of any decision [to lift the arms embargo] should not be an increase in arms exports from European Union member states to China, either in quantitative or qualitative terms," Mr Straw said.The French want the embargo lifted because they want to sell arms to China; the Chinese want it lifted because they want to buy arms and battlefield technology from Europe."UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended plans to end the European Union's arms embargo on China, despite opposition from the US and Japan.He said Mr Straw was "naive beyond belief" if he accepted China's claim it does not want the ban lifted in order to buy weapons.China has in the past said it sees the weapons ban as politically driven, and does not want it lifted in order to buy more weapons.Washington has also voiced concern that the human rights conditions in China have not improved enough to merit an end to the embargo.Washington argues that if the embargo is lifted, it could lead to a buying spree for arms that China could use to threaten its diplomatic rival Taiwan. |
MPs demand 'Budget leak' answers
Ministers have been asked to explain how Budget details were printed in a London newspaper half an hour before Gordon Brown made his speech.
The Tories said a large chunk of the Budget appeared to have been leaked in what they describe as a "serious breach of Treasury confidentiality". The Lib Dems called for Commons leader Peter Hain to make a statement and said chancellors had resigned over leaks. They were told it would be brought to Speaker Michael Martin's attention. In the Commons, Tory frontbencher Andrew Tyrie MP demanded an immediate ministerial statement about how measures had been "clearly, or at least apparently, leaked to the Evening Standard".
Raising a point of order, he said it was "the latest in a long line of discourtesies to this House", as well as a breach of confidentiality. He said: "I can only hope it is unintentional. If it were planned it would be a very grave matter indeed. A previous Labour chancellor resigned after he leaked the Budget." Hugh Dalton resigned after leaking details of his 1947 budget to journalist John Carvel, who published them in a London newspaper, just minutes before they were announced to the House of Commons. Liberal Democrat David Laws said it was a "very serious matter" and said Mr Hain should make a statement on Thursday. Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal agreed it was "of concern" but said nothing could be done immediately but the issue would be brought to Mr Martin's attention.
| Liberal Democrat David Laws said it was a "very serious matter" and said Mr Hain should make a statement on Thursday.The Tories said a large chunk of the Budget appeared to have been leaked in what they describe as a "serious breach of Treasury confidentiality".The Lib Dems called for Commons leader Peter Hain to make a statement and said chancellors had resigned over leaks.Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal agreed it was "of concern" but said nothing could be done immediately but the issue would be brought to Mr Martin's attention.A previous Labour chancellor resigned after he leaked the Budget." |
'UK will stand firm on EU rebate'
Britain's £3bn EU rebate is not up for renegotiation at next week's European Council summit, Jack Straw said.
The foreign secretary told MPs the rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, was "entirely justified". New European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has suggested the cash could be shared out among net contributors to the EU budget. Mr Straw acknowledged some countries in the newly enlarged 25 nation EU still had to "see the light" on the rebate.
But the foreign secretary told the Commons foreign affairs committee: "Our position is very clear: it is entirely justified and it is not for negotiation." He added that he did not think there would be a political price to pay for the UK's stance - Britain contributed more and received less than other EU states. The two-day European Council summit in Brussels begins on 16 December and is widely expected to mark the beginning of a lengthy negotiating period over the EU's budget for 2007-13. The wrangling could stretch into 2005, even 2006.
The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the Commission wants it to be 1.26%. Mr Straw said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget. "I don't know of any national government thinking of increasing its budget by that amount," he added. The foreign secretary said he hoped the talks next week could produce a date in 2005 for the beginning of negotiations with Turkey about possible EU membership although that there would be no prospect of a date for joining for some time.
| Mr Straw said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget.Britain's £3bn EU rebate is not up for renegotiation at next week's European Council summit, Jack Straw said.The foreign secretary said he hoped the talks next week could produce a date in 2005 for the beginning of negotiations with Turkey about possible EU membership although that there would be no prospect of a date for joining for some time.New European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has suggested the cash could be shared out among net contributors to the EU budget.Mr Straw acknowledged some countries in the newly enlarged 25 nation EU still had to "see the light" on the rebate. |
Howard pitches for UK ethnic vote
Michael Howard is to make a pitch for Britain's ethnic vote urging people who feel "taken for granted" by Tony Blair to vote Conservative.
He will say Conservatives "share the same values" as the UK's minorities. And that he wants to build a "better Britain" where everyone, whatever the colour of their skin or religion, can "make the most of their talents". But the Tory leader will argue against positive discrimination saying it is "outdated and unjust".
"It sets family against family and it leads ethnic communities to doubt their own abilities," he will argue. Mr Howard - himself the son of immigrants - will acknowledge that racial discrimination still exists in the UK. "People from ethnic communities, for example, still earn less than their white counterparts," he will say before arguing the answer to helping everyone to get on was "free enterprise, free trade, free speech". The Tory leader will also call for religious tolerance arguing that Hindus and Sikhs as well as Muslims got "caught in the downdraft of Islamaphobia which was one of the terrible side effects of 9/11".
Mr Howard will make his speech during a visit to support Tory Parliamentary hopefuls Robert Light and Sayeeda Warsi - "the first British Muslim woman" selected to run for MP as a Conservative candidate. He will attack Labour's record in government over issues such as tax and he will set out Tory plans for an immigration quota to be set by MPs. Mr Howard will also attack the Lib Dems for wanting to abolish faith schools, introduce compulsory sex education from the age of seven, and "give contraceptives out in schools from the age of 11". "So I say to all those people from ethnic minorities who feel Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats take their votes for granted - come join us," he will say. Lib Dem president Simon Hughes branded Mr Howard "arrogant and wrong" for claiming the Tories were the "natural party" for Britain's ethnic minorities. "Given the Tories' considerably reduced support in urban areas, where many black and Asian Britons live, during their time in power, the evidence simply does not support his claims that the Conservatives are the party for these communities," he said.
| "So I say to all those people from ethnic minorities who feel Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats take their votes for granted - come join us," he will say.Michael Howard is to make a pitch for Britain's ethnic vote urging people who feel "taken for granted" by Tony Blair to vote Conservative.Lib Dem president Simon Hughes branded Mr Howard "arrogant and wrong" for claiming the Tories were the "natural party" for Britain's ethnic minorities.Mr Howard will make his speech during a visit to support Tory Parliamentary hopefuls Robert Light and Sayeeda Warsi - "the first British Muslim woman" selected to run for MP as a Conservative candidate."People from ethnic communities, for example, still earn less than their white counterparts," he will say before arguing the answer to helping everyone to get on was "free enterprise, free trade, free speech".Mr Howard - himself the son of immigrants - will acknowledge that racial discrimination still exists in the UK. |
Brown ally rejects Budget spree
Chancellor Gordon Brown's closest ally has denied suggestions there will be a Budget giveaway on 16 March.
Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day. But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules. He was speaking as Sir Digby Jones, CBI director general, warned Mr Brown not to be tempted to use any extra cash on pre-election bribes.
Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare". He said he hoped more would be done to build on current tax credit rules.
He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning. Expectations of a rate rise have gathered pace after figures showed house prices are still rising. Consumer borrowing rose at a near-record pace in January. "If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch. "This is a big change in our political culture."
During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy. "I don't think we'll see a pre-election spending spree - we certainly did not see that before 2001," he said.
His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills. His message to the chancellor was: "Please don't give it away in any form of electioneering." Sir Digby added: "I don't think he will. I have to say he has been a prudent chancellor right the way through. Stability is the key word - British business needs boring stability more than anything. "We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away. But if you are going to anywhere, just add something to the competitiveness of Britain, put it into skilling our people'. "That would be a good way to spend any excess."
Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary. "I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today. Prime Minister Tony Blair has yet to name the date of the election, but most pundits are betting on 5 May.
| But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules.During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy.Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare"."We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning."If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch."I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills. |
UK heading wrong way, says Howard
Tony Blair has had the chance to tackle the problems facing Britain and has failed, Michael Howard has said.
"Britain is heading in the wrong direction", the Conservative leader said in his New Year message. Mr Blair's government was a "bossy, interfering government that takes decisions that should be made by individuals," he added. But Labour's campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp responded: "Britain is working, don't let the Tories wreck it again". Mr Howard also paid tribute to the nation's character for its generous response to the Asian quake disaster. The catastrophe was overshadowing the hopes for the future at this usually positive time of the year, Mr Howard said.
"We watched the scenes of destruction with a sense of disbelief. The scale, the speed, the ferocity of what happened on Boxing Day is difficult to grasp. "Yet Britain's response has shone a light on our nation's character. The last week has shown that the warm, caring heart of Britain beats as strong as ever." He went on to reflect on the values that "most Britons hold dear". Looking ahead to the coming general election, he pledged to "turn these beliefs into reality" and set out the choices he says are facing Britain. "How much tax do people want to pay? Who will give taxpayers value for money, the clean hospitals and good, disciplined schools they want? "Who can be trusted to get a grip on the disorder on our streets and the chaos in our immigration system?"
Mr Blair has failed to tackle these problems, he claimed, saying he has the "wrong solution" to them.
"The result is big government and higher taxes eroding incentives, undermining enterprise and denying people choice. "Worst of all, it is a government that has wasted people's money and failed to tackle the problems families face today." The Tories, he said, can cut crime and improve public services without asking people to pay more taxes. "We can have progress without losing what makes Britain great - its tolerance, the respect for the rule of law, the ability of everyone to fulfil their potential. "We simply need to change direction. The election will give Britain the chance to change." This is the record Mr Blair will have to defend in the coming months, he said, urging voters to hold him to account.
But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: "It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January." "Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax. "With Labour Britain is working. Rather than alluding to false promises Michael Howard should be starting 2005 with an apology to the British people for the misery that the government, of which he was a member, inflicted upon the country.
| Tony Blair has had the chance to tackle the problems facing Britain and has failed, Michael Howard has said.The election will give Britain the chance to change."Mr Blair has failed to tackle these problems, he claimed, saying he has the "wrong solution" to them."Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax."Britain is heading in the wrong direction", the Conservative leader said in his New Year message."With Labour Britain is working.The catastrophe was overshadowing the hopes for the future at this usually positive time of the year, Mr Howard said.This is the record Mr Blair will have to defend in the coming months, he said, urging voters to hold him to account."Worst of all, it is a government that has wasted people's money and failed to tackle the problems families face today."The last week has shown that the warm, caring heart of Britain beats as strong as ever."But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: "It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January." |
Kennedy criticises 'unfair' taxes
Gordon Brown has failed to tackle the "fundamental unfairness" in the tax system in his ninth Budget, Charles Kennedy has said.
How was it right that the poorest 20% of society were still paying more as a proportion of their income than the richest 20%, the Lib Dem leader asked. The new £200 council tax rebate for pensioners did nothing to fix the "unfair tax", he added. The government could not go on "patching up" the system, he added. Speaking in the Commons after Mr Brown had delivered what is widely thought to be the last Budget before the general election, Mr Kennedy acknowledged that the UK was one of the most successful economies in the world.
But he criticised both the chancellor and the Tories for failing to address the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation. He said the recent experience of Wales indicated seven million households in England would pay significantly more after revaluation. The chancellor's announcement that he was to offer a £200 council tax rebate paid by pensioner households was merely a "sticking plaster" to a much bigger problem. The Lib Dem plan for a local income tax would benefit the typical household by more than £450 a year, with half of all pensioners paying no local tax and about three million being better off.
On pensions, Mr Kennedy said it was a "scandal" that the system discriminated against women who had missed making National Insurance payments when they were having children. He said a residency criteria would end "at a stroke this fundamental iniquity". Mr Kennedy added his party's priorities of free long-term care for the elderly, abolishing top-up fees and replacing the council tax would be funded by charging 50% income tax to those earning more than £100,000 per annum. He contrasted his approach with Mr Brown's pledge in 2001 not to increase income tax. The chancellor went on to put up National Insurance contributions after the election. "For most individuals, most families, most households, it adds up to exactly the same thing," said Mr Kennedy. "And they wonder why people get cynical about their politicians when they give one impression before an election and do exactly the opposite after that election."
| Mr Kennedy added his party's priorities of free long-term care for the elderly, abolishing top-up fees and replacing the council tax would be funded by charging 50% income tax to those earning more than £100,000 per annum.The new £200 council tax rebate for pensioners did nothing to fix the "unfair tax", he added.The Lib Dem plan for a local income tax would benefit the typical household by more than £450 a year, with half of all pensioners paying no local tax and about three million being better off.On pensions, Mr Kennedy said it was a "scandal" that the system discriminated against women who had missed making National Insurance payments when they were having children.Gordon Brown has failed to tackle the "fundamental unfairness" in the tax system in his ninth Budget, Charles Kennedy has said.He contrasted his approach with Mr Brown's pledge in 2001 not to increase income tax.Speaking in the Commons after Mr Brown had delivered what is widely thought to be the last Budget before the general election, Mr Kennedy acknowledged that the UK was one of the most successful economies in the world. |
UK needs tax cuts, Tories insist
A major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.
Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox had opened the forum in Brighton with an attack on Labour's record and party leader Michael Howard is due to speak later. Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure. But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league.
"Can this country compete, can this country prosper, unless we do something about the burden of regulation and tax on our economy?" he said. "If we are going to take on the great challenges, the challenges like those posed by the Chinese and the Indians, we have got to do something about getting down the burden of regulation and getting down the burden of tax," he said. "The fact is the very carefully costed, fully funded plans we have laid out for saving £12bn by 2007-2008 are absolutely crucial to delivering an economy that will prosper and provide people with jobs and indeed provide the public services with the money they need on a sustainable long-term basis." Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.
Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver". He also attacked the government's "failure" to control immigration and asylum and criticised its record on the NHS, telling delegates Labour cannot be trusted on education or crime. A Tory government would sort out the "shambles" of immigration, put patients before statistics and bring discipline to schools, he said. Michael Howard, who had been due to welcome delegates to the conference on Friday, will address them in a lunchtime speech. His welcome address had to be postponed after he stayed in London to lead the party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in its lengthy progress through Parliament. The bill was finally passed on Friday evening, after more than 30 hours of debate. Mr Howard is likely to defend his party's handling of the bill, which was only passed after the Conservatives accepted Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise that MPs would be able to review it within a year.
| he said.Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising.Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure.But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league.A major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver". |
Howard attacks 'pay later' Budget
Tory leader Michael Howard has dismissed Gordon Brown's Budget as "vote now, pay later" spending plans.
The simple fact was that under a new Labour government taxes would go up after the election to plug a financial black hole, Mr Howard said. Everyone could see the chancellor's "sweeteners", but these hid tax rises for hard working families, he said. Labour's "faltering election campaign" would not be helped by the package of measures, Mr Howard added.
Mr Brown's Budget was not about what was good for the country, but "all about the interests of the Labour party," the Tory leader said after mockingly welcoming the chancellor back to the election campaign. He went on to accuse Mr Brown of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. He urged the chancellor to admit he had been responsible for dragging "millions of people in to the net" to pay stamp duty and inheritance tax. "We can all see the sweeteners, but they hide the crippling tax rises for hard-working families that are inevitable if Labour wins."
He also accused the government and the chancellor of running out of solutions to the problems Britain faced. "Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later." Mr Brown liked to rattle off "magical balances conjured out of thin air" in a bid to convince people there was no "black hole" in the nation's finances, the Tory leader said. "This dodgy government that brought us the dodgy dossier is now publishing a dodgy Budget based on dodgy numbers," he said. "You now propose to borrow, over the next six years, no less than £168 billion; so much for prudence. "The chancellor's forecasts of surpluses are no better than the prime minister's forecasts of weapons of mass destruction."
Mr Brown's council tax rebate for pensioners was £300 less than what the Tories were offering, Mr Howard said. There was nothing in the Budget that would put more police on the streets, make hospitals cleaner or give parents and teachers the discipline and skills they wanted in schools. People would face a "clear choice" at the election, either "more waste and higher taxes under Labour or lower taxes and value for money with the Conservatives", he said. "That's the battleground of this election. That's what this election is going to be all about and I say bring it on," he concluded, to loud Tory cheering.
| The simple fact was that under a new Labour government taxes would go up after the election to plug a financial black hole, Mr Howard said.Mr Brown's Budget was not about what was good for the country, but "all about the interests of the Labour party," the Tory leader said after mockingly welcoming the chancellor back to the election campaign.Mr Brown's council tax rebate for pensioners was £300 less than what the Tories were offering, Mr Howard said.People would face a "clear choice" at the election, either "more waste and higher taxes under Labour or lower taxes and value for money with the Conservatives", he said.Mr Brown liked to rattle off "magical balances conjured out of thin air" in a bid to convince people there was no "black hole" in the nation's finances, the Tory leader said.Everyone could see the chancellor's "sweeteners", but these hid tax rises for hard working families, he said.Labour's "faltering election campaign" would not be helped by the package of measures, Mr Howard added."Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later." |
Election 'could be terror target'
Terrorists might try to target the UK in the run-up to the election, London's most senior police officer has said.
Sir Ian Blair said terror groups would remember the effect of the Madrid bomb on Spain's general election last year. Other potential targets were the royal wedding and the UK's presidency of the European Union and G8, he said. He refused to say if there was specific information about the risk of a pre-poll attack. No 10 was similarly cautious but said the threat was real.
The comments come after Tony Blair defended his controversial anti-terror proposals, warning that it would be wrong to wait for an attack before acting. Sir Ian told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority it would be "unwise" to speculate about whether there was specific information about risks of a pre-election attack. But he said: "Terrorists have long memories. They understand what happened in Madrid and know what the impact of that was on the Spanish electorate.
"This year we are responsible for the EU presidency, presidency of the G8, a royal wedding and a general election. "There are obvious and enormous targets which we have to deal with." Sir Ian said the debate over anti-terror plans was one for politicians, not the police, who would enforce any new powers.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has also warned that a Madrid-style pre-election bombing could happen in the UK too. Asked about Sir Ian's comments, the prime minister's official spokesman said: "We believe the threat is real." The spokesman declined to comment on whether the security services had received specific intelligence relating to a possible attack during the election campaign. He said No 10 did not disclose any security advice they received. Earlier, writing in the Daily Telegraph, the prime minister conceded that plans to detain suspects under house arrest without trial were "difficult issues for any government". The Commons has approved the measures despite considerable opposition, with the government's majority more than halved as 32 Labour rebels joined Tory and Lib Dem opposition. But Mr Blair insisted: "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."
Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Mr Blair of steamrolling the house arrest plans and of "using national security for political point scoring". Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy says that the plan is a further example of Labour's "authoritarian" response to crises. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill proposes "control orders", which as well as house arrest could impose curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use. They would replace current powers to detain foreign terror suspects without trial, which the law lords have ruled against. But critics are concerned that it would be the home secretary and not judges who decided to impose control orders. The plans face further Commons scrutiny on Monday before passing to the Lords.
| Sir Ian said the debate over anti-terror plans was one for politicians, not the police, who would enforce any new powers.Sir Ian Blair said terror groups would remember the effect of the Madrid bomb on Spain's general election last year.Sir Ian told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority it would be "unwise" to speculate about whether there was specific information about risks of a pre-election attack.Terrorists might try to target the UK in the run-up to the election, London's most senior police officer has said.No 10 was similarly cautious but said the threat was real.Other potential targets were the royal wedding and the UK's presidency of the European Union and G8, he said.Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Mr Blair of steamrolling the house arrest plans and of "using national security for political point scoring".He refused to say if there was specific information about the risk of a pre-poll attack.He said No 10 did not disclose any security advice they received.Asked about Sir Ian's comments, the prime minister's official spokesman said: "We believe the threat is real." |
Terror suspects face house arrest
UK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism could face house arrest as part of a series of new measures outlined by the home secretary.
It comes after law lords ruled that the detention of 12 foreign terror suspects without trial breached human rights. Charles Clarke's planned "control orders" mean anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism could be subject to house arrest, curfews or tagging. The Law Society dubbed Mr Clarke's new proposals an "abuse of power". Deals are already being sought to deport some of the foreign detainees who are mainly held in Belmarsh Prison in London under the current laws introduced after the US terror attacks on 11 September 2001. Mr Clarke said efforts would continue to deport them to their countries of origin Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan without them facing torture or death.
Under the proposed changes - prompted by the House of Lords ruling - the home secretary could order British citizens or foreign suspects who could not be deported, to face house arrest or other measures such as restrictions on their movements or limits on their use of telephones and the internet.
British citizens are being included in the changes after the law lords said the current powers were discriminatory because they could only be used on foreign suspects. Mr Clarke also said intelligence reports showed some British nationals were now playing a more significant role in terror threats. Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith said the plans were a "further abuse of human rights in Britain".
Mr Clarke said prosecutions were the government's first preference and promised the powers would only be used in "serious" cases, with independent scrutiny from judges.
He told MPs: "There remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation." He accepted the law lords' ruling but argued detention powers had helped prevent attacks and deter terrorists. The current detainees would not be freed until the new powers were in place as they were still considered a national security threat, he told MPs.
There have been calls for the rules for wire-tap and intercept evidence to be allowed to be used in courts but Mr Clarke refused to back that change.
He said intercept evidence was only a small part of the case against the men and some of it could not be used because it could put sources' lives at risk. Most of the terror suspects are being held indefinitely at Belmarsh prison, in London. Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis was worried about extending special powers to cover British citizens. He warned: "Throughout history, internment has generally backfired because of the resentment it creates. "So unless the process is clearly just, the home secretary could find himself confining one known terrorist only to recruit 10 unknown terrorists." He suggested changing the law to let security-cleared judges view evidence gathered by phone-tapping could allow more terror cases to come to court.
Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten also backed use of wire-tap evidence. He said the standard of proof for the new powers would have to be "very high indeed" and he asked whether ministers had looked at measures which fitted with human rights laws. Shami Chakrabarti, from human rights group Liberty, joined calls for intercept evidence to be allowed in trials. She said: "Adherence to the rule of law should not be a game of cat and mouse. The government should not swap one human rights 'opt out' for another."
| British citizens are being included in the changes after the law lords said the current powers were discriminatory because they could only be used on foreign suspects.He said intercept evidence was only a small part of the case against the men and some of it could not be used because it could put sources' lives at risk.Under the proposed changes - prompted by the House of Lords ruling - the home secretary could order British citizens or foreign suspects who could not be deported, to face house arrest or other measures such as restrictions on their movements or limits on their use of telephones and the internet.He said the standard of proof for the new powers would have to be "very high indeed" and he asked whether ministers had looked at measures which fitted with human rights laws.The Law Society dubbed Mr Clarke's new proposals an "abuse of power".It comes after law lords ruled that the detention of 12 foreign terror suspects without trial breached human rights.UK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism could face house arrest as part of a series of new measures outlined by the home secretary.There have been calls for the rules for wire-tap and intercept evidence to be allowed to be used in courts but Mr Clarke refused to back that change.Mr Clarke said prosecutions were the government's first preference and promised the powers would only be used in "serious" cases, with independent scrutiny from judges.He suggested changing the law to let security-cleared judges view evidence gathered by phone-tapping could allow more terror cases to come to court.Mr Clarke also said intelligence reports showed some British nationals were now playing a more significant role in terror threats. |
Blair defends terror law changes
The prime minister has defended measures to allow house arrest without trial, saying "several hundred" people in the UK are plotting terror attacks.
The government is facing opposition from Tory and Lib Dem MPs and its own backbenchers as it prepares for the final Commons debate on the changes. But Tony Blair said there could be no concession on the "basic principle". Mr Blair told the BBC the "control orders" would only be used in the most limited circumstances. Critics in the opposition and civil rights activists are worried that the home secretary will have the power to issue the detention orders. But the government has so far resisted pressure for judges to be responsible for making the orders, instead saying judges will be able to quash them.
An explanation is being sent by Home Secretary Charles Clarke to all MPs and peers ahead of the final debate in the House of Commons. On Sunday, Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis claimed judges would get the powers to issue detention orders. And Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said some concessions had already been offered by the government during last-minute negotiations. Some 32 Labour MPs voted against the legislation last week. Barbara Follett, whose first husband was killed while under house arrest in South Africa during the apartheid era, confirmed she would vote against the government.
But the government is continuing to insist that "control orders" must be issued by the home secretary. Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour: "We are being advised by the police and the security services... "What they say is you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - you have got to give us power in between just surveying them and being able, being sure enough of the proof, to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. "And these will be restrictions on their liberty that we will use only in the most limited circumstances."
A YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph suggested 75% of respondents thought action was sometimes necessary against people who had not committed an offence but who had been found by intelligence services to be planning a terrorist attack. But Tory leader Michael Howard told BBC News that the government was again making a mistake in "rushing" anti-terrorism legislation. "I very much hope it would be possible to reach a compromise on this." He said after meeting Tony Blair he had been left with the impression that "he really wasn't interested in any of the various proposals we have put forward". Mr Clarke wants house arrest and other powers to replace indefinite jail for terror suspects - something the law lords have ruled against on the basis that it breaches human rights. BBC political correspondent Vicky Young said some form of concession on the measures was likely to be needed to get the legislation through the House of Lords, where Labour does not have a majority and would require support from other parties. Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties pressure group Liberty, said who was able to issue the control orders was not the main issue. She said the legislation was "a travesty and a perversion of justice" and would remain "unpalatable" even if a judge was involved early in the process.
| Mr Blair told the BBC the "control orders" would only be used in the most limited circumstances.BBC political correspondent Vicky Young said some form of concession on the measures was likely to be needed to get the legislation through the House of Lords, where Labour does not have a majority and would require support from other parties.On Sunday, Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis claimed judges would get the powers to issue detention orders.She said the legislation was "a travesty and a perversion of justice" and would remain "unpalatable" even if a judge was involved early in the process.Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties pressure group Liberty, said who was able to issue the control orders was not the main issue.But Tory leader Michael Howard told BBC News that the government was again making a mistake in "rushing" anti-terrorism legislation.But the government is continuing to insist that "control orders" must be issued by the home secretary.Barbara Follett, whose first husband was killed while under house arrest in South Africa during the apartheid era, confirmed she would vote against the government.Critics in the opposition and civil rights activists are worried that the home secretary will have the power to issue the detention orders. |
BAA support ahead of court battle
UK airport operator BAA has reiterated its support for the government's aviation expansion plans to airports throughout the country.
The comments come a day ahead of a High Court challenge by residents' groups and local councils to the government's White Paper. The judicial review will centre on government plans for expansion at Heathrow, Stansted and Luton airports. BAA, which operates all three, said it was consulting with local communities. "We are...consulting on voluntary compensation schemes which go beyond our statutory obligations," a BAA spokesman said.
Groups challenging the plans include Stop Stansted Expansion, Heathrow anti-noise campaigners HACAN Clearskies and the London boroughs of Hillingdon and Wandsworth. At Heathrow, Gatwick, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, BAA launched a series of consultations on blight to properties from the proposed expansion in September 2004, which will close next week. The company is also offering to buy noise-hit properties for an index-linked, unblighted price. Among other measures, BAA has set up a homeowner support scheme for people living near Stansted, and has launched a special scheme for those close to the airport but far enough away not to be covered by the homeowner scheme. At Heathrow, BAA said it was working closely with all interested parties to see how the strict environmental, air quality and noise targets for a third runway can be met.
At Gatwick, the company has written to homes and business likely to be affected by any extra runway. Stop Stansted Expansion said the White Paper, published in December 2003, was "fundamentally flawed" and did not follow the proper consultation process. "We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge before us because the courts have never before overturned a government White Paper," said Stop Stansted Expansion chairman Peter Sanders said. HACAN chairman John Stewart said: "Almost exactly a year ago the government published its 30-year aviation White Paper with much fanfare. "It hoped that would be the end of the debate and it could proceed with its plans for a massive expansion of aviation. "Yet, a year later the protesters are still here, and stronger than ever. " A judgement from Mr Justice Sullivan is expected early in February.
| "We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge before us because the courts have never before overturned a government White Paper," said Stop Stansted Expansion chairman Peter Sanders said.Stop Stansted Expansion said the White Paper, published in December 2003, was "fundamentally flawed" and did not follow the proper consultation process.UK airport operator BAA has reiterated its support for the government's aviation expansion plans to airports throughout the country.The judicial review will centre on government plans for expansion at Heathrow, Stansted and Luton airports.HACAN chairman John Stewart said: "Almost exactly a year ago the government published its 30-year aviation White Paper with much fanfare.At Heathrow, Gatwick, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, BAA launched a series of consultations on blight to properties from the proposed expansion in September 2004, which will close next week.BAA, which operates all three, said it was consulting with local communities. |
TV debate urged for party chiefs
Broadcasters should fix a date for a pre-election televised debate between the three main political leaders, according to the Hansard Society.
It would then be up to Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy to decide whether to take part, the non-partisan charity said. Chairman Lord Holme argued that prime ministers should not have the right of veto on a matter "of public interest". "The broadcasters should make the decision to go ahead," he said.
Lord Holme's proposal for a televised debate comes just four months after millions of viewers were able to watch US President George W Bush slug it out verbally with his Democratic challenger John Kerry. He said it was a "democratically dubious proposition" that it was up to the incumbent prime minister to decide whether a similar event takes place here.
If Mr Blair did not want to take part, the broadcasters could go ahead with an empty chair or cancel the event and explain their reasons why, Lord Holme said. "What makes the present situation even less acceptable is that although Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy have said they would welcome a debate, no-one has heard directly from the prime minister," he said. "It has been left to nudges and winks, hints and briefings from his aides and campaign managers to imply that Mr Blair doesn't want one, but we haven't heard from the prime minister himself."
Lord Holme, who has campaigned for televised debates at previous elections, said broadcasters were "more than willing to cooperate with the arrangements". Opinion polls suggested that the idea had the backing of the public who like comparing the personalities and policies of the contenders in their own homes, he said.
Lord Holme argued that as part of their public service obligations, broadcasters "should make the decision to go ahead" as soon as the election is called. An independent third-party body such as the Hansard Society or Electoral Commission could work out the ground rules so they were fair to participants and informative to the public, he said. "It would be up to each party leader to accept or refuse," said Lord Holme.
"If the prime minister's reported position is true and he does want to take part, he would then be obliged to say why publicly. "The broadcasters would then have the option of cancelling the event for obvious and well-understood reasons, or going ahead with an empty chair. "Either way would be preferable to the present hidden veto." The Hansard Society has long campaigned for televised debates and has published reports on the issue in 1997 and 2001. Tony Blair has already ruled out taking part in a televised debate during the forthcoming election campaign. Last month he said: "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."
| If Mr Blair did not want to take part, the broadcasters could go ahead with an empty chair or cancel the event and explain their reasons why, Lord Holme said.Lord Holme, who has campaigned for televised debates at previous elections, said broadcasters were "more than willing to cooperate with the arrangements"."What makes the present situation even less acceptable is that although Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy have said they would welcome a debate, no-one has heard directly from the prime minister," he said."It would be up to each party leader to accept or refuse," said Lord Holme."The broadcasters should make the decision to go ahead," he said.Lord Holme argued that as part of their public service obligations, broadcasters "should make the decision to go ahead" as soon as the election is called.It would then be up to Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy to decide whether to take part, the non-partisan charity said.Tony Blair has already ruled out taking part in a televised debate during the forthcoming election campaign. |
UK rebate 'unjustified' - Chirac
French president Jacques Chirac has called the UK's £3bn rebate from the European Union "unjustified".
Speaking after a summit meeting he said unless it was put up for discussion the EU would never be able to reach agreement on its medium term finances. Earlier Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK was prepared to veto any bid to reduce the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. He said it remained justified because less EU farm money came to the UK.
Mr Chirac told reporters in Brussels: "One can only have a reasonable budgetary balance if we put back on the table the British cheque. It can no longer be justified. It was from the past." But a UK Government official responded: "Even with the rebate, the UK pays two and a half times more than France contributes to the EU budget. Without it we would pay 14 times as much as France. "There can be no deal on future financing which does not protect the rebate."
The 25-member EU is gearing up for tough negotiations on its budget plans for the period 2007-2013, with the bloc's Luxembourg presidency hoping to strike a deal at a June summit. Earlier Conservative Graham Brady said the rebate was a "crucial test" of how firmly ministers were prepared to stand up for Britain. EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has indicated he wants the rebate to come to an end. Mr Straw said that as well as the veto over the rebate the UK wanted to keep a tight rein on national contributions.
The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the European Commission has urged an increase to 1.26%. Mr Straw has said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget. Shadow Europe minister Mr Brady said: "I believe it is essential that Britain keeps the rebate and I think it's a crucial test of how firmly the British government is prepared to stand up for Britain internationally in Europe.
"The UK is already one of the biggest net contributors to the EU ." The foreign secretary meanwhile said the "justice" of the rebate remained. "We have one of the lowest net receipts of any EU country because of the relatively small size of our agriculture sector and its efficiency. "That continues to be the case."
UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman said the rebate was "set in stone" and there was no reason to negotiate about it. "It is extraordinary to do it at this time, just as we are becoming the biggest contributor to the EU. If we lose our rebate as well, the British taxpayer is going to be bled at such a rate that I think everyone will go off the European project." EU leaders are holding talks in Brussels on how to re-energise the sluggish European economy. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is meeting his EU counterparts to finalise a package of measures aimed at stimulating growth and boosting employment ahead of a series of referendums on the European Constitution. The plans could introduce a free market into everything from computer services to construction. Critics - including Germany and France - believe liberalisation could result in companies shifting staff to cheaper bases in Eastern Europe, undercutting large EU economies and undermining social protections. There are also concerns about the number of workers from eastern European countries who will head west, exacerbating the already high unemployment levels in Germany.
Mr Straw insisted there was nothing to fear from the services directorate. "European countries overall have benefited hugely from the free market in goods," he said. "What we are now talking about is developing that market into an internal market in services." Britain's low unemployment meant there was less "neurosis" about people coming from eastern European countries. "In countries like Germany and France, where frankly because of a tighter social market they have much higher levels of unemployment, there is increasing anxiety about other people coming in," he said.
| He said it remained justified because less EU farm money came to the UK.But a UK Government official responded: "Even with the rebate, the UK pays two and a half times more than France contributes to the EU budget.Earlier Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK was prepared to veto any bid to reduce the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.Mr Straw has said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget.UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman said the rebate was "set in stone" and there was no reason to negotiate about it.Mr Straw said that as well as the veto over the rebate the UK wanted to keep a tight rein on national contributions."The UK is already one of the biggest net contributors to the EU ."The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the European Commission has urged an increase to 1.26%.Earlier Conservative Graham Brady said the rebate was a "crucial test" of how firmly ministers were prepared to stand up for Britain."European countries overall have benefited hugely from the free market in goods," he said.Speaking after a summit meeting he said unless it was put up for discussion the EU would never be able to reach agreement on its medium term finances.The foreign secretary meanwhile said the "justice" of the rebate remained."In countries like Germany and France, where frankly because of a tighter social market they have much higher levels of unemployment, there is increasing anxiety about other people coming in," he said.Shadow Europe minister Mr Brady said: "I believe it is essential that Britain keeps the rebate and I think it's a crucial test of how firmly the British government is prepared to stand up for Britain internationally in Europe. |
Pre-poll clash on tax and spend
Labour and the Tories have clashed over tax and spending plans as the row over Gordon Brown's Budget turned into a full scale pre-election battle.
Tony Blair claimed a Tory government would "cut" £35bn from public services hitting schools, hospitals and police. Tory chairman Liam Fox accused Labour of "at best misrepresentation at worst a downright lie" and said the "smear" tactics were a sign of desperation. The Lib Dems accused Mr Brown of ducking the issue of council tax rises.
Appearing together at a Labour poster launch, the prime minister hailed his chancellor's "brilliant" performance. And he claimed the Tories would cut £35bn from public services, which was the equivalent of sacking every doctor and teacher in the UK.
The Tories said they would not cut spending but agreed public spending would increase more slowly under their plans - leading to a total of £33.5bn less spending than that anticipated by Labour by 2011. But they say not a single doctor, teacher or nurse will be cut. Dr Fox said: "We have said we will be spending more, year on year over and above inflation. "And to call that a cut is at best a misrepresentation, at worst a downright lie."
Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin also predicted Mr Brown would have to raise taxes by £10bn or £11bn if Labour was re-elected because he was borrowing and spending too much. For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable said the chancellor had failed to deal with the "looming problems" of revaluation of council tax bands which he argued would result in "massive increases" for some. Mr Brown and Mr Blair staged a show of unity on Thursday morning, the day after the chancellor delivered a record-breaking ninth Budget.
Mr Cable said taxation as a share of the economy would go up under all three of the main parties. The chancellor meanwhile insisted his spending plans were "affordable". In Wednesday's Budget, Mr Brown doubled the level at which homebuyers pay stamp duty, unveiled a rise in child tax credit and a £200 council tax refund for over-65s. Defending the plans, he told Today: "I will take no risks with the stability of the economy. "All our spending plans announced yesterday [Wednesday], including what we can do for pensioners, as well as for young families and on stamp duty and inheritance tax, all these are costed and affordable." In a further sign, if any were needed, that the election is approaching, the House of Commons authorities have formally told MPs their offices will be "deep cleaned" during the three-week poll campaign. Mr Blair has yet to name the day - but it is widely expected to be 5 May.
| The Tories said they would not cut spending but agreed public spending would increase more slowly under their plans - leading to a total of £33.5bn less spending than that anticipated by Labour by 2011.Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin also predicted Mr Brown would have to raise taxes by £10bn or £11bn if Labour was re-elected because he was borrowing and spending too much.And he claimed the Tories would cut £35bn from public services, which was the equivalent of sacking every doctor and teacher in the UK.Mr Cable said taxation as a share of the economy would go up under all three of the main parties.Tory chairman Liam Fox accused Labour of "at best misrepresentation at worst a downright lie" and said the "smear" tactics were a sign of desperation.Labour and the Tories have clashed over tax and spending plans as the row over Gordon Brown's Budget turned into a full scale pre-election battle.The Lib Dems accused Mr Brown of ducking the issue of council tax rises.For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable said the chancellor had failed to deal with the "looming problems" of revaluation of council tax bands which he argued would result in "massive increases" for some. |
UK pledges £1bn to vaccine effort
UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has offered £960m ($1.8bn) over 15 years to an international scheme aiming to boost vaccination and immunisation schemes.
In a speech, he called for action to reach the 2000 Millennium Declaration goals of halving global poverty and tackling child mortality rates. Mr Brown has just returned from a tour of African nations. The £1bn commitment is part of a five-point plan on debt relief, trade, aid, education and health.
The chancellor was speaking at an event jointly organised by the UK's Department for International Development and the UN Development Programme on Wednesday. Mr Brown welcomed news that the Bill Gates Foundation and Norway are joining up to put an extra £0.53bn ($1bn ) into the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi). Britain, France, Gavi and the Gates Foundation have drawn up proposals to apply the principles of the International Finance Facility (IFF) to the area of immunisation. That could see donors making long-term, legally binding financial commitments which can then be used as collateral for raising extra funds from international capital markets. As well as pledging £960m over 15 years to the immunisation IFF, Britain urged other donors to contribute.
If Gavi could increase its funding for immunisation by an extra £4bn ($7.4bn) over 10 years, then an extra five million lives could have been saved by 2015 and five million thereafter, Mr Brown argued. Campaign groups including Friends of the Earth, the World Development Movement, and War on Want said UK government policy on free trade was a major barrier to fighting poverty. War on Want's John Hilary said: "Compassionate rhetoric cannot disguise the reality of the government's neo-liberal policies. "As long as Mr Blair and Mr Brown continue to push free trade and privatisation on developing countries, more and more people will be pushed deeper into poverty, not lifted out of it."
| Mr Brown welcomed news that the Bill Gates Foundation and Norway are joining up to put an extra £0.53bn ($1bn ) into the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi).UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has offered £960m ($1.8bn) over 15 years to an international scheme aiming to boost vaccination and immunisation schemes.If Gavi could increase its funding for immunisation by an extra £4bn ($7.4bn) over 10 years, then an extra five million lives could have been saved by 2015 and five million thereafter, Mr Brown argued."As long as Mr Blair and Mr Brown continue to push free trade and privatisation on developing countries, more and more people will be pushed deeper into poverty, not lifted out of it."Britain, France, Gavi and the Gates Foundation have drawn up proposals to apply the principles of the International Finance Facility (IFF) to the area of immunisation.Campaign groups including Friends of the Earth, the World Development Movement, and War on Want said UK government policy on free trade was a major barrier to fighting poverty. |
Budget to set scene for election
Gordon Brown will seek to put the economy at the centre of Labour's bid for a third term in power when he delivers his ninth Budget at 1230 GMT. He is expected to stress the importance of continued economic stability, with low unemployment and interest rates. The chancellor is expected to freeze petrol duty and raise the stamp duty threshold from £60,000. But the Conservatives and Lib Dems insist voters face higher taxes and more means-testing under Labour.
Treasury officials have said there will not be a pre-election giveaway, but Mr Brown is thought to have about £2bn to spare.
- Increase in the stamp duty threshold from £60,000
- A freeze on petrol duty
- An extension of tax credit scheme for poorer families
- Possible help for pensioners The stamp duty threshold rise is intended to help first time buyers - a likely theme of all three of the main parties' general election manifestos. Ten years ago, buyers had a much greater chance of avoiding stamp duty, with close to half a million properties, in England and Wales alone, selling for less than £60,000. Since then, average UK property prices have more than doubled while the starting threshold for stamp duty has not increased. Tax credits As a result, the number of properties incurring stamp duty has rocketed as has the government's tax take. The Liberal Democrats unveiled their own proposals to raise the stamp duty threshold to £150,000 in February.
The Tories are also thought likely to propose increased thresholds, with shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin branding stamp duty a "classic Labour stealth tax". The Tories say whatever the chancellor gives away will be clawed back in higher taxes if Labour is returned to power. Shadow Treasury chief secretary George Osborne said: "Everyone who looks at the British economy at the moment says there has been a sharp deterioration in the public finances, that there is a black hole," he said. "If Labour is elected there will be a very substantial tax increase in the Budget after the election, of the order of around £10bn."
But Mr Brown's former advisor Ed Balls, now a parliamentary hopeful, said an examination of Tory plans for the economy showed there would be a £35bn difference in investment by the end of the next parliament between the two main parties. He added: "I don't accept there is any need for any changes to the plans we have set out to meet our spending commitments."
For the Lib Dems David Laws said: "The chancellor will no doubt tell us today how wonderfully the economy is doing," he said. "But a lot of that is built on an increase in personal and consumer debt over the last few years - that makes the economy quite vulnerable potentially if interest rates ever do have to go up in a significant way." SNP leader Alex Salmond said his party would introduce a £2,000 grant for first time buyers, reduce corporation tax and introduce a citizens pension free from means testing. Plaid Cymru's economics spokesman Adam Price said he wanted help to get people on the housing ladder and an increase in the minimum wage to £5.60 an hour.
| - Increase in the stamp duty threshold from £60,000 - A freeze on petrol duty - An extension of tax credit scheme for poorer families - Possible help for pensioners The stamp duty threshold rise is intended to help first time buyers - a likely theme of all three of the main parties' general election manifestos.The chancellor is expected to freeze petrol duty and raise the stamp duty threshold from £60,000.The Tories are also thought likely to propose increased thresholds, with shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin branding stamp duty a "classic Labour stealth tax".Tax credits As a result, the number of properties incurring stamp duty has rocketed as has the government's tax take.Since then, average UK property prices have more than doubled while the starting threshold for stamp duty has not increased.For the Lib Dems David Laws said: "The chancellor will no doubt tell us today how wonderfully the economy is doing," he said.The Liberal Democrats unveiled their own proposals to raise the stamp duty threshold to £150,000 in February."If Labour is elected there will be a very substantial tax increase in the Budget after the election, of the order of around £10bn." |
Blair backs 'pre-election budget'
Tony Blair has backed Chancellor Gordon Brown's pre-Budget report amid opposition claims he was too bullish about the state of the UK economy.
In a speech in Edinburgh, the prime minister said Thursday's report reinforced stability and opportunity. And that would be central to Labour's next election campaign, planning for which was already well advanced. Mr Brown earlier denied his economic forecasts were too optimistic - but refused to rule out future tax rises.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No politician should make the mistake that John Major and his colleagues made in 1992 of saying no matter what the circumstances are, they can make all sorts of guarantees on every individual thing.
"That is not what politicians should do, it would not be responsible to do." Mr Brown insisted his spending plans were "affordable" and he could afford to be optimistic because Britain was now a stable, low-inflation economy and house prices were now stabilising. Mr Blair praised his chancellor for his role in creating economic stability, which he said was the "cornerstone" of Labour's programme.
In a speech at Edinburgh's Napier University, he said Labour would publish over the next few months "a rich agenda for future policy in any possible third term".
"In every area of work there is a detailed plan for the future, much clearer than those in 1997 or 2001. All of it fits together around common themes of opportunity, security and stability for all," Mr Blair said. In his pre-Budget report, Mr Brown surprised some City experts by forecasting UK growth at between 3% and 3.5% for next year. Many believe the figure is more likely to be under 3% - and fear tax rises or spending cuts, saying tax receipts have been overestimated. Carl Emmerson, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told BBC News: "He thinks everything will come out in the wash and it will, in fact, be OK. We're not so sure." David Page, of Investec Securities, said: "His forecast that he will meet the golden rule with a margin of £8bn is way too optimistic. "It's going to take a significant turnaround in the economy to meet these targets."
Conservative Shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "I can't find a single economic forecaster from the IMF to the Institute of Fiscal Studies who believes anything other than the chancellor has got a black hole in his finances. "In order to deal with that he will have to raise taxes after the next general election." Mr Letwin accused the chancellor of using "fancy statistics" to hide public service failures. Vincent Cable, for the Liberal Democrats, called on Mr Brown to open up the government's books to the National Audit Office, to see if he had met his "golden rule". "It is very clear that there are some serious loose ends in government public spending," Mr Cable told MPs.
| Mr Blair praised his chancellor for his role in creating economic stability, which he said was the "cornerstone" of Labour's programme.Mr Brown earlier denied his economic forecasts were too optimistic - but refused to rule out future tax rises.Mr Brown insisted his spending plans were "affordable" and he could afford to be optimistic because Britain was now a stable, low-inflation economy and house prices were now stabilising.All of it fits together around common themes of opportunity, security and stability for all," Mr Blair said.In his pre-Budget report, Mr Brown surprised some City experts by forecasting UK growth at between 3% and 3.5% for next year.In a speech at Edinburgh's Napier University, he said Labour would publish over the next few months "a rich agenda for future policy in any possible third term"."It is very clear that there are some serious loose ends in government public spending," Mr Cable told MPs.Tony Blair has backed Chancellor Gordon Brown's pre-Budget report amid opposition claims he was too bullish about the state of the UK economy.Conservative Shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "I can't find a single economic forecaster from the IMF to the Institute of Fiscal Studies who believes anything other than the chancellor has got a black hole in his finances. |
At a glance: Tory health checks
The UK' opposition Conservatives have unveiled plans to introduce health checks for immigrants if they win the General Election. Here's a guide to the plan:
People coming to live and work in Britain from outside the EU. If they plan to stay six months or more and are from a country with lots of TB, they would have to have a chest x-ray and further tests if appropriate. All people from outside the European Union who want to stay a year or more will have to undergo a full medical.
Tuberculosis, Hepatitis B and HIV. A positive test for TB would automatically mean visa applications being turned down. All other conditions would be dealt with on a case by case basis.
People would have to prove they have an acceptable standard of health and are unlikely to be a danger to public health in the UK, or impose significant costs or demands on the NHS. They would also, if appropriate, have to be able to undertake the work or study they applied to come here for.
People coming to Britain for less than six months would not be medically tested unless they intended to work in health care, childcare or teaching. Children and pregnant women wanting to live in Britain permanently would not have to have a chest X-ray for TB. Under 16s would not face tests for hepatitis and HIV.
The Tories say people fleeing persecution will not be denied sanctuary in Britain because of poor health. However, they will undergo health checks to ensure they receive the right medical treatment and do not spread infectious diseases.
They claim government figures show that TB in England has increased by 25% over the last 10 years and that nearly two-thirds of people with the disease were born overseas. They also believe there should be stricter controls over who comes into Britain to ensure they are not a public health risk. They say the plans will protect access to the NHS.
Applicants will be tested in their home country. Only asylum seekers will be tested in the UK once their refugee status is established.
Home Office Minister Des Browne says the Government already routinely checks people for TB if they come into the UK for six months or more from high-risk countries. Recent medical checks were carried out on 175,000 people at Heathrow Airport and 10,000 at Gatwick. From those tests, about 100 infectious cases of TB were found.
The Tories say 47 other countries across the world impose requirements of this kind. The party has looked at the way the system is operated in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The Tory proposals are "quite closely modelled" on the New Zealand system.
Labour claims the policy is little more than a "desperate attempt to catch up with Labour's five-year plan" for immigration and asylum, which was published last week. This says health screening for TB will be targeted on applicants from high-risk areas before they are given entry clearance. Those who are diagnosed with the disease would then need to seek treatment at home before being allowed to enter the UK. The Liberal Democrats have warned Labour and the Tories they were "in danger of pandering to prejudice rather than challenging it".
| If they plan to stay six months or more and are from a country with lots of TB, they would have to have a chest x-ray and further tests if appropriate.People coming to Britain for less than six months would not be medically tested unless they intended to work in health care, childcare or teaching.People would have to prove they have an acceptable standard of health and are unlikely to be a danger to public health in the UK, or impose significant costs or demands on the NHS.Home Office Minister Des Browne says the Government already routinely checks people for TB if they come into the UK for six months or more from high-risk countries.The Tories say people fleeing persecution will not be denied sanctuary in Britain because of poor health.Under 16s would not face tests for hepatitis and HIV.Children and pregnant women wanting to live in Britain permanently would not have to have a chest X-ray for TB.Here's a guide to the plan: People coming to live and work in Britain from outside the EU.A positive test for TB would automatically mean visa applications being turned down.This says health screening for TB will be targeted on applicants from high-risk areas before they are given entry clearance.Those who are diagnosed with the disease would then need to seek treatment at home before being allowed to enter the UK.They claim government figures show that TB in England has increased by 25% over the last 10 years and that nearly two-thirds of people with the disease were born overseas. |
Labour's four little words
Labour has unveiled the four little words that will form the heart of its general election campaign which, for those just returned from the planet Galifray, is "looming".
The slogan "Britain forward not back" (no, it's not an instruction from one of those inter-planetary Time Lords) is to become as much a part of our daily lives as the sky - it's always there but we mostly stop noticing. The word "Britain" is cast on a red background - a nod to Old Labour. "Forward" is in italics and cunningly slopes forward and, along with "not back", is set against a mushy pea green background. As one of the journalists assembled at the unveiling declared, it was all very post modern, or something. Great use of colour. Those ad men really do earn their money. And, coincidentally, the ad men who came up with the abandoned flying pigs and so-called "Fagin" posters which caused Tory protests have not been sacked but, as election supremo Alan Milburn declared, "are doing a very good job".
Mr Milburn, in the latest in his series of pre-election-campaign campaigning, explained the slogan was the reaction to polling which suggests the public believe Labour and Tony Blair are the future while Michael Howard and the Tories would take the country backwards. "Not many people talk about the years before 1997 as the good old days," he declared. It would be an aggressive campaign because things would inevitably boil down to a choice between Labour and the Tories.
Nobody, he claimed, could picture Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy walking up Downing Street the day after polling. They could, however, picture Michael Howard or, of course, Tony Blair doing it. So it was only right that the campaign concentrated on rigorously examining the opposition's policies and past record. And Tony Blair would be in the very front line of that campaign, he said. "Between now and the election the prime minister will be spending more time out of London than in it but in Britain, not overseas," he promised. "He will be leading the domestic debate from the front, listening, taking the flak." So, let's get on with it then.
| And Tony Blair would be in the very front line of that campaign, he said.Mr Milburn, in the latest in his series of pre-election-campaign campaigning, explained the slogan was the reaction to polling which suggests the public believe Labour and Tony Blair are the future while Michael Howard and the Tories would take the country backwards.It would be an aggressive campaign because things would inevitably boil down to a choice between Labour and the Tories.The word "Britain" is cast on a red background - a nod to Old Labour.They could, however, picture Michael Howard or, of course, Tony Blair doing it.And, coincidentally, the ad men who came up with the abandoned flying pigs and so-called "Fagin" posters which caused Tory protests have not been sacked but, as election supremo Alan Milburn declared, "are doing a very good job".Labour has unveiled the four little words that will form the heart of its general election campaign which, for those just returned from the planet Galifray, is "looming".The slogan "Britain forward not back" (no, it's not an instruction from one of those inter-planetary Time Lords) is to become as much a part of our daily lives as the sky - it's always there but we mostly stop noticing. |
Will the Budget bring out smiling voters?
As Tory spokesman Oliver Letwin said - any chancellor would use his pre-election budget to offer some vote winning sweeteners, wouldn't he.
And everyone does, indeed, expect Gordon Brown to do just that in his last budget before the expected polling day of 5 May. There will be plenty of talk about taking no risks with the economy or handing out irresponsible giveaways. But Mr Brown will stun Westminster and break just about every historical precedent if he fails to do something designed to put a smile on voters' faces and make them more inclined to back Labour in the election. And there has already been speculation about possible tax reductions for the poorest and increasing the threshold on stamp duty in this week's Budget. The aim of his package will be to keep any disillusioned core Labour voters in the fold, while ensuring the middle England voters who gave Tony Blair two election victories don't desert him at the third poll.
And, needless to say, there will be plenty of analysis of what impact the Budget will have on Mr Brown's own ambitions to replace Mr Blair as prime minister at some point after a third win. But there is a shadow hanging over this pre-election performance - in the shape of £11 billion or thereabouts. That is the size of the financial "black hole" the Tories, backed by some independent forecasters, believe Mr Brown will have to fill with tax increases after the election.
The opening shot in that battle was fired at the weekend with claims a Treasury leak suggested Mr Brown was ready to slap capital gains tax on home sales to raise some of that cash. It was immediately denied, but the Tories remain suspicious, claiming that, as Mr Letwin said, if the money does not come from there, where will it come from.
Mr Brown will undoubtedly claim the forecasts are simply wrong and that he will have absolutely no need to raise taxes after the election, should Labour win. Previous gloomy forecasts proved wrong, he will argue, while suggesting that only by sticking with him can Britain continue to have a sound economy, low unemployment and high public spending. The opposition will reject that by claiming they can keep the economy sound, increase spending and cut taxes at the same time.
The Liberal Democrats will also promise to run a sound economy, but based on increased taxes to fund spending and, amongst other things, abolishing the council tax in favour of a local income tax. And there will be prolonged argument over which of the parties can make the greatest savings in Whitehall and beyond to fund their policies. But probably what that all boils down to is a simple question of which of the parties the voters most trust to keep the economy stable and avoid any unpleasant surprises in the coming years. And it is probably still the answer to that one question that will overwhelmingly decide the outcome of the general election.
| Mr Brown will undoubtedly claim the forecasts are simply wrong and that he will have absolutely no need to raise taxes after the election, should Labour win.That is the size of the financial "black hole" the Tories, backed by some independent forecasters, believe Mr Brown will have to fill with tax increases after the election.The opposition will reject that by claiming they can keep the economy sound, increase spending and cut taxes at the same time.The Liberal Democrats will also promise to run a sound economy, but based on increased taxes to fund spending and, amongst other things, abolishing the council tax in favour of a local income tax.The opening shot in that battle was fired at the weekend with claims a Treasury leak suggested Mr Brown was ready to slap capital gains tax on home sales to raise some of that cash.And, needless to say, there will be plenty of analysis of what impact the Budget will have on Mr Brown's own ambitions to replace Mr Blair as prime minister at some point after a third win.But Mr Brown will stun Westminster and break just about every historical precedent if he fails to do something designed to put a smile on voters' faces and make them more inclined to back Labour in the election.But probably what that all boils down to is a simple question of which of the parties the voters most trust to keep the economy stable and avoid any unpleasant surprises in the coming years. |
Brown comes out shooting
Labour may have abolished hunting - but that didn't stop Chancellor Gordon Brown using his Budget to fire both barrels at some of the opposition parties' core election foxes.
Specifically, it saw him attempting to slaughter the council tax as an election issue and to tear limb from limb their wider policies for pensioners and families. In a relatively short speech he kept the best for last and was clearly out to give exactly that pre-election boost everyone had been predicting. So if you are a couple with children, a pensioner, a patient or a youngster, there was something pulled from Mr Brown's red box in an attempt to persuade you to stick with or switch to a New Labour government. Like a surgeon, he attempted to target his handouts with absolute precision onto exactly the groups the government needs to appeal to in the election campaign.
The announcements brought great cheers from his own MPs who are now in full-on election mode and had been looking to their man to give them ammunition for the doorsteps. They obviously believed he had done that for them and, coincidentally, given his own image as a prime minister-in-waiting another little boost.
Labour MPs, for example, will undoubtedly now engage in a debate over exactly how redistributive - a lovely Old Labour word - this chancellor really is. But Gordon Brown is never going to put on a show and even as he was out to cast himself as the man who will win Labour an historic third term, his demeanour remained quiet, confident and reassuring. Prudence made an appearance, albeit towards the end of his address, as he assured voters he would do nothing to mess up the economic stability he had brought to Britain and which, he claimed, would be thrown away by anyone else. According to the opposition parties, however, it is all one big con trick.
As always, they accused him of glossing over the facts of the "black hole" at the centre of his finances which, they claim, would ensure tax increases after the election. He did it most obviously with his increase in national insurance contributions after the 2001 election campaign during which he had pledged not to increase income tax. As Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy claimed, for most families the distinction between income tax and a tax on income is meaningless.
Tory leader Michael Howard said the chancellor was up to his old trick of deliberately re-casting his forecasts to give the illusion that everything in the Treasury larder is as fresh as the day it was first stored away for future use. He branded it a dodgy "vote now pay later" budget based on dodgy figures from a dodgy government that gave Britain the dodgy dossier. Where the chancellor mostly avoided direct electioneering, Mr Howard felt no such constraint with attacks like comparing Mr Brown's forecasts to the prime minister's forecasts on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As ever, there will now be a period of frantic activity by the opposition parties' treasury specialists as they pore over the chancellor's red book, which sets out the fine detail of his budget, in an attempt to spot the flaws. In particular there will be an argument over precisely whose policies on the council tax will offer people the best deal. And in Labour circles there will undoubtedly be an argument over just how good a prime minister Gordon Brown will make at some point after the next election.
| Labour may have abolished hunting - but that didn't stop Chancellor Gordon Brown using his Budget to fire both barrels at some of the opposition parties' core election foxes.And in Labour circles there will undoubtedly be an argument over just how good a prime minister Gordon Brown will make at some point after the next election.He did it most obviously with his increase in national insurance contributions after the 2001 election campaign during which he had pledged not to increase income tax.As always, they accused him of glossing over the facts of the "black hole" at the centre of his finances which, they claim, would ensure tax increases after the election.Labour MPs, for example, will undoubtedly now engage in a debate over exactly how redistributive - a lovely Old Labour word - this chancellor really is.So if you are a couple with children, a pensioner, a patient or a youngster, there was something pulled from Mr Brown's red box in an attempt to persuade you to stick with or switch to a New Labour government.Tory leader Michael Howard said the chancellor was up to his old trick of deliberately re-casting his forecasts to give the illusion that everything in the Treasury larder is as fresh as the day it was first stored away for future use.Specifically, it saw him attempting to slaughter the council tax as an election issue and to tear limb from limb their wider policies for pensioners and families. |
EU rules 'won't stop UK spending'
The shape of the UK's economy In graphics
But he denied that he was ruling out British membership of the euro despite saying there would be no assessment of the five economic tests this year. Mr Brown said that it was vital the UK continued to invest in infrastructure, science, and education in the future. Otherwise it would be overtaken by the likes of China, he told MPs.
The chancellor said that the EU's planned changes in the growth and stability pact - designed to ensure that countries in the euro zone do not borrow too much - would force Britain to run a budget surplus of 1% over the economic cycle.
Under Mr Brown's rules, the UK current budget must be in balance over the economic cycle, but public investment is not counted as part of that deficit. He told the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee that the EU rules "make it difficult for a low debt country to run the investment programmes that are necessary to improve its infrastructure". But he argued that the EU was moving in the direction of the UK principles, and would eventually recognise the need to consider budget deficits over a longer period than one year, to include investment, and to take more account of the total size of government debt as well as the balance each year. Under Mr Brown's "sustainable investment" rule, government debt should be under 40% - in contrast to the 60% allowed under the growth and stability pact.
Mr Brown vigorously denied Conservative claims that he had in effect fiddled the figures to ensure that he met his own fiscal rules. In March the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reclassified £3.4bn of spending on road repairs as public investment - shortly before the chancellor announced in the Budget that he would meet his own fiscal budget rule by only £6bn. Conservative Michael Fallon asked Mr Brown whether the Treasury had leaned on ONS to make this change, and said that the ONS had received a written paper from the Treasury on this matter. But the chancellor said Mr Fallon was "impugning the integrity" of the Office of National Statistics and said the decision had been made completely independently. Mr Brown also denied that he was increasing taxes to fund his spending gap. He told the Treasury Select Committee that a growing economy meant more people in work and more profits for companies which would boost Treasury coffers.
Earlier, ex-Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke welcomed a relaxation of the rules governing the euro zone. Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said political give and take would replace more "rigid" rules. But fellow Tory David Heathcoat-Amory said the folly of the system was in trying to run Europe's varied economies on one set of rules. "The essential point here is that the stability and growth pact has turned out to be a fake," he said. "The warning is about the European constitution, which we are going to have a vote on in a year or two, and that centralises and entrenches these rules in a constitution. It gives more powers to Brussels to co-ordinate things like employment and economic policy." But, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Gordon Brown said that the new stability pact rules were not part of a binding Treaty and could be changed again the future - potentially opening the way for future euro membership. "The conditions for euro entry are unchanged by this new decision about the stability and growth pact," Mr. Brown said.
| "The conditions for euro entry are unchanged by this new decision about the stability and growth pact," Mr. Brown said.The chancellor said that the EU's planned changes in the growth and stability pact - designed to ensure that countries in the euro zone do not borrow too much - would force Britain to run a budget surplus of 1% over the economic cycle.But, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Gordon Brown said that the new stability pact rules were not part of a binding Treaty and could be changed again the future - potentially opening the way for future euro membership.Under Mr Brown's "sustainable investment" rule, government debt should be under 40% - in contrast to the 60% allowed under the growth and stability pact.Mr Brown said that it was vital the UK continued to invest in infrastructure, science, and education in the future.But the chancellor said Mr Fallon was "impugning the integrity" of the Office of National Statistics and said the decision had been made completely independently.Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said political give and take would replace more "rigid" rules.Under Mr Brown's rules, the UK current budget must be in balance over the economic cycle, but public investment is not counted as part of that deficit.Conservative Michael Fallon asked Mr Brown whether the Treasury had leaned on ONS to make this change, and said that the ONS had received a written paper from the Treasury on this matter. |
Observers to monitor UK election
Ministers will invite international observers to check the forthcoming UK general election is fairly run.
The move comes amid claims the poll could be marred by electoral fraud. A report by two MPs committees called on Thursday for urgent changes to the electoral registration system to combat vote rigging and boost turnout. But in a written response to Labour MP Gordon Prentice, the government said it would normally invite observers to any UK election.
Junior constitutional affairs minister Christopher Leslie said: "I fully expect us to repeat our previous practice of doing so once the date for the next general election is announced." The government has looked at ways of boosting voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001.
But trial all-postal ballots in four English regions last summer were hit by delays and some fraud allegations. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Greaves called last week for international observers at the general election - saying otherwise there could be months of court challenges "on a scale not seen since the 19th Century". Thursday's report was drawn up by two committees scrutinising the work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). It said that, with the growth of postal voting, there was a strong case to tighten up fraud protection by requiring voters to register individually, rather than by household. It also said about three million people eligible to vote are not registered to do so.
Figures for the 2001 general election suggest 29% of people aged between 18 and 24, and 19% of black voters were not on the electoral roll. Young people in shared accommodation are thought to miss out because no one acts as head of the household to fill in the form. ODPM committee chairman Andrew Bennett said individual voter registration, as opposed to registration by household, should be quickly introduced as it could "dramatically reduce the chances of fraud". But his counterpart on the DCA committee, Alan Beith, said it should be delayed "until measures likely to increase registration have been put in place and proved effective." Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary Oliver Heald accused the government of "dragging its feet" over "this badly needed measure". "It is vital that we move ahead with the Northern Ireland system of individual electoral registration to safeguard the integrity of the Britain's electoral system," he said.
The report said individual registration should be treated carefully as 12% of voters disappeared from the electoral roll in Northern Ireland when it was introduced in 2002. The report said the government should consider fines for unregistered voters, but accepted many experts said it would be an expensive system that would be hard to enforce. It said incentives to register, such as £20 council tax rebate, were likely to be seen as "gimmicks" and risked undermining the integrity of the system, MPs said. Instead they called for "imaginative campaigns" to boost interest.
| The report said individual registration should be treated carefully as 12% of voters disappeared from the electoral roll in Northern Ireland when it was introduced in 2002.ODPM committee chairman Andrew Bennett said individual voter registration, as opposed to registration by household, should be quickly introduced as it could "dramatically reduce the chances of fraud"."It is vital that we move ahead with the Northern Ireland system of individual electoral registration to safeguard the integrity of the Britain's electoral system," he said.A report by two MPs committees called on Thursday for urgent changes to the electoral registration system to combat vote rigging and boost turnout.Figures for the 2001 general election suggest 29% of people aged between 18 and 24, and 19% of black voters were not on the electoral roll.The report said the government should consider fines for unregistered voters, but accepted many experts said it would be an expensive system that would be hard to enforce.But in a written response to Labour MP Gordon Prentice, the government said it would normally invite observers to any UK election.It said incentives to register, such as £20 council tax rebate, were likely to be seen as "gimmicks" and risked undermining the integrity of the system, MPs said.The government has looked at ways of boosting voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001. |
UK 'discriminated against Roma'
The government's immigration rules racially discriminated against Roma (Gypsies) seeking entry into the UK, the Law Lords have ruled.
It follows a Home Office move to cut asylum claims by stopping people, mostly Roma, from boarding flights to Britain from the Czech capital, Prague. Civil rights group Liberty said it exposed "racism at the heart of the government's asylum policy". The Home Office said it had not meant to discriminate against anyone. It said it would look at the implications of the ruling, but pointed out the controls were no longer in place because Czechs are now entitled to free movement across Europe.
The screening took place at the airport in July 2001, at a time of concern about the number of asylum seekers entering Britain.
Those refused "pre-clearance" were effectively prevented from travelling to the UK, because no airline would carry them. Lady Hale, sitting with Lords Bingham, Steyn, Hope and Carswell, said many Roma had good reason to want to leave the Czech Republic because of persecution. But she said they were treated more sceptically than non-Roma passengers by immigration officers "acting on racial grounds". Lady Hale said immigration officers should have treated all would-be passengers in the same way, only using more intrusive questioning if there was a specific reason.
Liberty said statistics suggested Roma Czechs were 400 times more likely to be stopped by British immigration officials at Prague airport than non-Roma Czechs. It took up the case of six unnamed Roma Czechs refused entry to Britain, and that of the European Roma Rights Centre, which said the measures unfairly penalised Roma people. It lost a High Court action in October 2002 when a judge said the system was "no more or less objectionable" than a visa control system. He ruled there was no obligation on Britain not to take steps to prevent a potential refugee from approaching its border to claim asylum.
The Court of Appeal then decided the practice almost inevitably discriminated against Roma, but that this was justified because they were more likely to seek asylum. Immigration law allows officials to discriminate against citizens from named countries, but it does not allow officers to go further than that.
Responding to the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said: "The scheme was operated two years ago as a short-term response to the high levels of passengers travelling from Prague who are subsequently found to be ineligible for entry to the UK."
Welcoming the ruling, Maeve Sherlock, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "Human rights abuses against the Roma in Eastern Europe are well documented, and it is hugely troubling that the government sought to deny entry to such a vulnerable group." Amnesty International's Jan Shaw said: "That the government's own asylum policy was being operated discriminatorily is bleakly ironic given that discrimination often lies at the heart of serious human rights abuse, not least in the Czech Republic." But the chairman of Migration Watch UK, Sir Andrew Green, said the House of Lords decision was a "step in the wrong direction". "The basic point is that the government has a duty to control our borders and this decision appears to extend the race relations legislation beyond sensible limits."
| Liberty said statistics suggested Roma Czechs were 400 times more likely to be stopped by British immigration officials at Prague airport than non-Roma Czechs.It took up the case of six unnamed Roma Czechs refused entry to Britain, and that of the European Roma Rights Centre, which said the measures unfairly penalised Roma people.Responding to the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said: "The scheme was operated two years ago as a short-term response to the high levels of passengers travelling from Prague who are subsequently found to be ineligible for entry to the UK."Lady Hale said immigration officers should have treated all would-be passengers in the same way, only using more intrusive questioning if there was a specific reason.Civil rights group Liberty said it exposed "racism at the heart of the government's asylum policy".Amnesty International's Jan Shaw said: "That the government's own asylum policy was being operated discriminatorily is bleakly ironic given that discrimination often lies at the heart of serious human rights abuse, not least in the Czech Republic."But she said they were treated more sceptically than non-Roma passengers by immigration officers "acting on racial grounds".The government's immigration rules racially discriminated against Roma (Gypsies) seeking entry into the UK, the Law Lords have ruled.But the chairman of Migration Watch UK, Sir Andrew Green, said the House of Lords decision was a "step in the wrong direction". |
Hunt ban support is 'in decline'
Support for a ban on hunting has fallen in the past six years, a poll suggests.
Less than half the UK wants a ban compared to almost two-thirds in 1999, the Mori survey of 2,000 adults for BBC One's Countryfile programme suggests. The number opposed to a ban remains constant, but those "neither supporting nor opposing" has increased by 11%. Most city-dwellers support the ban but rural people were evenly split between supporters, opponents and undecided.
Polling company Mori carried out both surveys. In July 1999 they asked 801 adults if they supported the ban for the Mail on Sunday. For Countryfile they asked 2,234 adults across the country the same question. The Mail on Sunday survey found that 63% supported a hunting ban compared with 24% against. In the Countryfile survey, 47% said they supported the legislation, with 26% against. But the programme makers suggest the British public are becoming "increasingly neutral" to the issue because around one quarter said they "neither support nor oppose" a ban.
| In July 1999 they asked 801 adults if they supported the ban for the Mail on Sunday.The Mail on Sunday survey found that 63% supported a hunting ban compared with 24% against.Less than half the UK wants a ban compared to almost two-thirds in 1999, the Mori survey of 2,000 adults for BBC One's Countryfile programme suggests.Support for a ban on hunting has fallen in the past six years, a poll suggests. |
Analysis: No pain, no gain?
He called it his "masochism strategy" in the run-up to the Iraq war and now Tony Blair has signed up for another dose of pain.
The idea is simple - the prime minister goes head to head with an often hostile group of "real" voters in the full spotlight of the television cameras. The theory is that talking to the great British public, even if they are the "great unwashed", is better than having the media filter what voters hear from politicians. It is also the most effective way of showing that he is aware of real people's concerns and - on occasions - of their outright fury. Mr Blair used the tactic before the Iraq war to try to show he really was engaging with public concerns and you can expect to see it much more in the run-up to the election.
Labour knows it has been damaged by accusations of spin, "control freakery" and over-slick presentation - sometimes from within the ranks of its own MPs. Tony Blair himself has said people complain he does not listen. Mr Blair's latest bout of flagellation came with a series of questions sessions on Five television throughout Wednesday.
The trouble began on the Wright Stuff show, with Maria Hutchings marching up to him, saying "Tony, that's rubbish" as she tried to complain about her autistic son's school being threatened with closure. A few "don't worries" as Mrs Hutchings was led back to the audience averted a public slanging match - he spoke to her privately after the show. But that was only the start and later sessions produced the type of grilling not even the toughest television interviewer could produce.
Writer Neil Coppendale, from West Sussex, asked of the Iraq war: "Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children died - how do you manage to sleep at night?" On immigration, London teacher Diane Granger said: "Where are you going to put everyone?" And can you imagine even Jeremy Paxman putting the question posed by Brighton nurse Marion Brown: "Would you wipe somebody's backside for £5?"
Mr Blair tried to use the questioners' first names - and sometimes threw them off their stride by asking what they would do about the problems. Many of the newspapers have branded the exercise a PR stunt which backfired. Indeed there is a danger Mr Blair simply ends up looking "embattled". Conservative Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy are to be offered chances to appear in similar slots on the channel next month. Labour strategists believe more of the sessions will mean the hecklers no longer become a story and the real issues take prominence.
James Humphreys, ex-head of corporate communications at Number 10, says the strategy shows frustration with the media. "They feel they don't get their voice across and going direct to people is clearly their game on this occasion," he says. There are risks but the prize is tackling the trend of lower turnouts at the polls, he argues. The prime minister knows full well the potential hazards .
He must remember with gritted teeth his confrontation with Sharron Storer, the Birmingham woman who harangued him over the state of her local hospital in the 2001 election campaign. "All you do is walk around and make yourself known, you don't do anything to help anybody," she told Mr Blair before stomping off, refusing his pleas to discuss the issue privately. Former Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell has described the episode as a "bit of a disaster" as it meant the launch of Labour's election manifesto received little coverage. But it was seen as one of the few moments when that election campaign came alive, not least because it coincided with John Prescott's even more direct contact - when he punched an egg-throwing protester.
Former prime ministers too have come to grief at the hands of a persistent member of the public. The undoubted highlight of years of election phone-in shows was Margaret Thatcher discomfort on Nationwide in 1983, when viewer Diana Gould put her on the spot about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands War. John Major reaped the benefits of street campaigning during the 1992 election campaign with his famous soapbox.
It may have left him splattered with eggs and engine oil at times but he felt it added "fizz" to his campaign. In his memoirs, he also argues the strategy contrasted with Neil Kinnock's "contrived photo opportunities" and attempts at an artful campaign. "He wanted to look like a prime minister. I
was
prime minister and I wanted a flesh and blood fight," says Mr Major. Mr Blair told prospective Labour MPs on Thursday that taking part in phone-ins and public meetings could "enthuse and engage and give the public a sense of empowerment". But he also wants to counter complaints that he has spent too much time on international affairs and foreign trips. Mr Blair recalls how Bill Clinton once advised him: "Always remember that what people see of you in the news in the evening is how they think you spend your day." His hope must be that voters watching him on the rack will bear out for Labour the old maxim: "No pain, no gain."
| Mr Blair used the tactic before the Iraq war to try to show he really was engaging with public concerns and you can expect to see it much more in the run-up to the election.I was prime minister and I wanted a flesh and blood fight," says Mr Major.He called it his "masochism strategy" in the run-up to the Iraq war and now Tony Blair has signed up for another dose of pain.Mr Blair told prospective Labour MPs on Thursday that taking part in phone-ins and public meetings could "enthuse and engage and give the public a sense of empowerment".Tony Blair himself has said people complain he does not listen.But it was seen as one of the few moments when that election campaign came alive, not least because it coincided with John Prescott's even more direct contact - when he punched an egg-throwing protester.Former prime ministers too have come to grief at the hands of a persistent member of the public.Mr Blair recalls how Bill Clinton once advised him: "Always remember that what people see of you in the news in the evening is how they think you spend your day."Mr Blair tried to use the questioners' first names - and sometimes threw them off their stride by asking what they would do about the problems.Indeed there is a danger Mr Blair simply ends up looking "embattled"."All you do is walk around and make yourself known, you don't do anything to help anybody," she told Mr Blair before stomping off, refusing his pleas to discuss the issue privately.A few "don't worries" as Mrs Hutchings was led back to the audience averted a public slanging match - he spoke to her privately after the show.The undoubted highlight of years of election phone-in shows was Margaret Thatcher discomfort on Nationwide in 1983, when viewer Diana Gould put her on the spot about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands War.The idea is simple - the prime minister goes head to head with an often hostile group of "real" voters in the full spotlight of the television cameras."He wanted to look like a prime minister.The prime minister knows full well the potential hazards . |
Tories outlining policing plans
Local communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.
Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities. He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable. The Lib Dems said the plan could let extreme groups run policing, while Labour criticised "extravagant" Tory promises on policing.
Responding to the plans, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank and file officers, said it was essential operational independence was retained.
Jan Berry said: "It is a service, not a political football to be kicked around every time an election approaches. "These plans could result in those with extreme political views dictating what actually happens on the ground," she warned. Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates. "The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "The trouble is, and it's no reflection on the people who are on the police authority - they are good people - but hardly anyone knows who they are." Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.
Critics fear the move could hand control of the police to single-issue campaigners who would ignore the needs of the wider community. Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician. "That is overturning nearly 200 years of the way in which we have organised policing in this country to avoid the politicisation of policing decisions," he said.
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the plan was dangerous and "could create conflict between chief constables and elected officials". Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables. A Labour Party spokesman criticised Michael Howard's record, saying police numbers had fallen by 1,132 when he was home secretary. He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system." The Tories insists the commissioner role would not be like that of an American sheriff. Other Tory law and order plans include building more prisons and making criminals serve full jail sentences.
| Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates.Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities.Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables.Local communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system."Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician.He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable. |
US casino 'tricks' face ban in UK
Controversial new UK casinos will be banned from using American tricks of the trade to ensure they are "socially responsible", it has been suggested.
Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said proposed super-casinos will be different from their US counterparts. In America, pheromones have reportedly been released from machines to encourage aggressive gambling and clocks are often removed from walls. Eight super-casinos are proposed from 2010 if the Gambling Bill becomes law. Ms Jowell said the legislation would ban psychological trickery.
She told The Times: "British casinos will be quite different to those overseas.
"They will have to act in a socially responsible way and will be tightly regulated. "They will be run according to British rules and we'll simply not allow any tricks which people are subjected to unawares and which increase the risk of problem gambling." One tactic used in the US is simulating daylight during night-time to lull players into remaining at the tables and slot machines. Casinos also frequently offer free food, drink and hotel accommodation to keep punters betting. A spokesman for the British Casino Association, which represents the UK industry, said the government was trying to allay fears over a "UK Las Vegas". He said the way the licences were being awarded meant UK firms were at a massive disadvantage and foreign companies would be certain to win the contracts. "The UK industry is one of the world's most respected," he said. "We have the lowest level of problem gambling in the world. "We certainly don't use pheremones. "The UK gambling industry is being totally frozen in time, and the foreign companies will take over."
| A spokesman for the British Casino Association, which represents the UK industry, said the government was trying to allay fears over a "UK Las Vegas"."The UK industry is one of the world's most respected," he said."The UK gambling industry is being totally frozen in time, and the foreign companies will take over."He said the way the licences were being awarded meant UK firms were at a massive disadvantage and foreign companies would be certain to win the contracts.Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said proposed super-casinos will be different from their US counterparts.Controversial new UK casinos will be banned from using American tricks of the trade to ensure they are "socially responsible", it has been suggested.Eight super-casinos are proposed from 2010 if the Gambling Bill becomes law. |
Brown 'proud of economy record'
Gordon Brown has delivered a rousing speech to Labour's spring conference setting out the government's agenda for the next general election.
The chancellor said he was proud of his party's record on the economy, and would strive for continuing stability if elected. The Gateshead conference was told he would help young people who were struggling to buy their own homes. And the chancellor vowed to continue the fight against child poverty. Later, Prime Minister Tony Blair will answer questions sent by the public via text and e-mail.
Analysing Mr Brown's position before the speech, BBC correspondent James Hardy said Mr Brown would draw "sharp dividing lines" with the Conservatives for the forthcoming election campaign. He would contrast Labour's plan to invest £60bn in services with a Tory plan to cut spending by £35bn. "Mr Brown will lay out his credentials as a reforming chancellor determined to take on and beat the Asian tiger economies which increasingly dominate world trade," our correspondent said.
On Friday night, Mr Brown confirmed he would not make any tax commitments until the Labour manifesto had been published after the Budget, expected in March. But commentators will listen to his speech closely for hints on whether, as the Conservatives claim, he plans to raise tax after the election. The Tories accuse Labour of raising taxes 66 times since coming to power in 1997.
Following the chancellor's keynote speech, the prime minister will face interactive questioning from ordinary voters on Saturday. Mr Blair is thought to be deliberately putting himself on the line in a bid to engage the electorate ahead of an expected May election. Capital Radio DJ Margherita Taylor will select questions to put to him from thousands e-mailed and sent by text. The prime minister's enthusiasm for the job remains undimmed, Alan Milburn, Labour's election strategist told Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday. Mr Blair has "the same passion and the same commitments for the job" as when Labour came to power in 1997, he said.
And he confirmed Mr Blair's insistence that no poll date had yet been set. He said: "I'm the General Election co-ordinator and I don't know, and Tony has not made up his mind." On Friday, the prime minister completed a whistle-stop tour of England, during which he unveiled his party's six pre-election pledges. Starting in London, he visited marginal constituencies pledging to build on what he said were Labour's achievements on the economy, crime, education and public services. The Conservatives and Lib Dems said the pledges - set to underpin Labour's election campaign - were "worthless".
| Analysing Mr Brown's position before the speech, BBC correspondent James Hardy said Mr Brown would draw "sharp dividing lines" with the Conservatives for the forthcoming election campaign.Mr Blair has "the same passion and the same commitments for the job" as when Labour came to power in 1997, he said.The Conservatives and Lib Dems said the pledges - set to underpin Labour's election campaign - were "worthless".On Friday night, Mr Brown confirmed he would not make any tax commitments until the Labour manifesto had been published after the Budget, expected in March.Gordon Brown has delivered a rousing speech to Labour's spring conference setting out the government's agenda for the next general election.The chancellor said he was proud of his party's record on the economy, and would strive for continuing stability if elected."Mr Brown will lay out his credentials as a reforming chancellor determined to take on and beat the Asian tiger economies which increasingly dominate world trade," our correspondent said.He said: "I'm the General Election co-ordinator and I don't know, and Tony has not made up his mind."The prime minister's enthusiasm for the job remains undimmed, Alan Milburn, Labour's election strategist told Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday. |
Cabinet anger at Brown cash raid
Ministers are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.
Gordon Brown reallocated £512m from central to local government budgets in his pre-Budget report on Thursday. Mr Raynsford said he had held some "pretty frank discussions" with fellow ministers over the plans. But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.
The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.
Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities. And he confirmed rows over the issue with ministerial colleagues. "Obviously we had some pretty frank discussions about this," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One. But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments". Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added. Mr Raynsford dismissed a suggestion the move was designed to keep council taxes down ahead of an expected general election.
"This is a response to the concerns that have been voiced by local government about the pressures they face." Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes. These would raise the age from which retiring workers could claim their pensions and limit how much they received if they retired early. He insisted the changes were "very modest" and designed to tackle the problem of workers retiring "very early". But general secretary of the public services union Unison Dave Prentis criticised the plans. "If you want world class public services you don't get that by hitting people as they approach retirement."
| But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities.Ministers are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes.Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added.The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments". |
Labour accused of 'EU propaganda'
A "taxpayer subsidised propaganda exercise" on the EU is being used to lull the British public into a false sense of security, say the Tories.
Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram told MPs a new White Paper was part of trying to soften up opinion ahead of the referendum on the EU constitution. His claims were denied by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who accused the Tories of "running scared" of debate. EU cooperation would help get better UK immigration controls, he argued.
Mr Straw used Thursday's Commons debate to launch the new White Paper on the prospects for the EU in 2005. Security, stability and prosperity would be the key themes when the UK took over the chairmanship of the EU in July, said Mr Straw. Africa and climate change would also feature highly. He said the UK was trying to ensure future EU budgets were limited to 1% of Europe's economic output and were spent "where it adds most value". Mr Straw promised to continue to ensure the UK's budget rebate, secured in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher, was "fully justified". "We, like all other countries, have a veto on any changes proposed in this area," he said.
Mr Ancram condemned the document, which the Foreign Office says has cost about £2,500 to design, print and deliver. "Isn't the reason that the government is now involved in a taxpayer subsidised propaganda exercise to try to sell the new EU to the country in advance of the forthcoming referendum and general election?," he asked. The Tory spokesman also criticised the government for claiming the EU constitution would make Europe easier to understand. "The government, last week, had to publish a commentary of 500 pages to try and explain this 'easy and simple' constitution to the British people," he said. "Who are they trying to kid?" The proposed question for the constitution referendum is: "Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?" The Electoral Commission on Thursday said it was satisfied the question was easy to understand. The government has suggested the referendum on the constitution could take place in spring 2006, with the Tories set to campaign for a "no" vote.
Mr Ancram said ministers were prolonging uncertainty by putting the vote off until the latest date possible. The foreign secretary hit back by saying Tory attitudes to Europe had helped keep the party out of power for more than a decade. Mr Straw argued cooperation with European partners could bring a "level playing field" on immigration and asylum controls. "You are setting your face against all of these things," he added. For the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell said the UK should not ignore the need to reform the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Change was particularly important for developing countries wanting access to markets, he argued. Sir Menzies was among those worried about plans, backed by the UK, to lift the arms embargo imposed on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Mr Straw said no decisions had been taken - Chinese human rights had improved but not by enough.
| Security, stability and prosperity would be the key themes when the UK took over the chairmanship of the EU in July, said Mr Straw.Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram told MPs a new White Paper was part of trying to soften up opinion ahead of the referendum on the EU constitution.He said the UK was trying to ensure future EU budgets were limited to 1% of Europe's economic output and were spent "where it adds most value".Mr Straw used Thursday's Commons debate to launch the new White Paper on the prospects for the EU in 2005.The Tory spokesman also criticised the government for claiming the EU constitution would make Europe easier to understand.EU cooperation would help get better UK immigration controls, he argued.The Electoral Commission on Thursday said it was satisfied the question was easy to understand.Mr Straw said no decisions had been taken - Chinese human rights had improved but not by enough.For the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell said the UK should not ignore the need to reform the EU Common Agricultural Policy.Mr Straw promised to continue to ensure the UK's budget rebate, secured in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher, was "fully justified".Mr Straw argued cooperation with European partners could bring a "level playing field" on immigration and asylum controls. |
Whitehall cuts 'ahead of target'
Thousands of civil service jobs have already been cut or moved out of London as part of a major cost-cutting drive.
Chancellor Gordon Brown said 12,500 jobs had gone while 7,800 were being moved out of the South East. He plans to axe 104,000 jobs to free up money for education, health, defence, housing and overseas aid. Unions oppose the plans but Mr Brown said £2bn savings had already been made and more jobs had been cut than had been expected at this stage. A further 200 jobs at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been earmarked to be cut. At the Department for Work and Pensions, 30,000 jobs are to go, 560 will be lost by the end of the month at the Department of Trade and Industry and 400 are to go at the Inland Revenue and Customs.
In his Budget statement, the chancellor said the first 12,500 civil service jobs had been cut, on target. About 4,300 civil servants will leave London and the South East by the end of March 2005 and there are plans to relocate another 3,500. Of those 300 Department of Health posts will go to Yorkshire while hundreds at the Department of Culture will move to Birmingham and Newcastle.
Mr Brown also announced plans to merge 35 agencies into nine - described by one civil service union as a "bonfire of the quangos". Mark Serwotka, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services Union said: "In last year's budget we had the day of the long knifes as the chancellor kicked off the crude game of who could cut the most civil service jobs between the government and the Tories. "There was a time when the only worry thousands of hard working civil and public servants had on budget day was whether petrol or taxes would go up, nowadays the worry is whether they will have a job by the end of it." He said Mr Brown had made welcome announcements on closing tax loopholes and extending the New Deal, while cutting "the very people who deliver them." The Treasury also announced plans to reduce the number of public sector workers on sick leave with a new system of checks and tougher measures against those suspected of abusing the system.
| In his Budget statement, the chancellor said the first 12,500 civil service jobs had been cut, on target.Unions oppose the plans but Mr Brown said £2bn savings had already been made and more jobs had been cut than had been expected at this stage.Chancellor Gordon Brown said 12,500 jobs had gone while 7,800 were being moved out of the South East.Thousands of civil service jobs have already been cut or moved out of London as part of a major cost-cutting drive.Mark Serwotka, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services Union said: "In last year's budget we had the day of the long knifes as the chancellor kicked off the crude game of who could cut the most civil service jobs between the government and the Tories.A further 200 jobs at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been earmarked to be cut. |
Brown names 16 March for Budget
Chancellor Gordon Brown will deliver his Budget to the House of Commons on 16 March, the Treasury has announced.
The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at about 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time. The annual event is when the chancellor outlines the government's taxation and broader economic predictions. The Tories say it is likely the Budget will contain measures to attract votes. The election is expected on 5 May.
Next month's Budget will be Mr Brown's ninth since Labour came to power in 1997. If a May election is called, there could be as little as 18 days between the Budget and the announcement of a date for the election. A shortened Finance Bill would have to be rushed through Parliament with all-party support to allow the Government to continue collecting revenue.
The full Finance Bill, with the Budget measures in it, would then be returned to the Commons after the election, if Labour secures another term in office. Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "We can be sure of two things: the Budget will contain measures to attract votes, and it will not contain the £8 billion of tax rises which independent experts say are inevitable if Labour wins the election." As Mr Brown announced the Budget date in a short ministerial statement, accountancy firm Ernst & Young urged him to put politics aside and focus on the long-term requirements of the economy. "In the Budgets that were given immediately before the last six elections, taxes were cut by the incumbent chancellor and, in many cases, taxes were increased soon after the election result," said Aidan O'Carroll, E&Y's UK head of tax.
| The full Finance Bill, with the Budget measures in it, would then be returned to the Commons after the election, if Labour secures another term in office.If a May election is called, there could be as little as 18 days between the Budget and the announcement of a date for the election.Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "We can be sure of two things: the Budget will contain measures to attract votes, and it will not contain the £8 billion of tax rises which independent experts say are inevitable if Labour wins the election."The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at about 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time.The Tories say it is likely the Budget will contain measures to attract votes. |
Plan to give elderly care control
Elderly and disabled people would choose how their own budget for personal care was spent and organised under government plans.
Ministers say elderly and disabled people themselves, not social workers, should be able to decide on their care and stay in their own homes. They also plan a supremo for adult services in each English area to get different agencies working together. But the government shunned opponents' calls for free long-term care.
There are 1.7m people needing care in England and ministers suggest the number could quadruple by 2050. Monday's consultation paper on social care for adults in England is aimed at ending a system which generates dependency. Health Minister Stephen Ladyman said: "This document is the antithesis of the nanny state.
"It's about taking power away from the state and giving it to individuals and saying that we will help you make these decisions but we are not going to make them for you any more." The government has already allowed local councils to give people money so they can pay for their services directly but take-up of the scheme has been "disappointing".
Ministers say the new plans would make direct payments simpler and try to counter reluctance in some local councils to use the payments. They also want to set up a new "half-way house" where social workers tell people how much money is available for their care and help them choose how to spend that "individual budget". The scheme will be funded on existing budgets set until 2008. But Mr Ladyman said the plans could deliver savings in some areas, such as freeing up NHS beds and preventing illnesses. He ruled out free personal care in England - which is on offer in Scotland and Wales, saying it was "unsustainable".
David Rogers, from the Local Government Association, said agencies were working together on the kind of innovation proposed by the government. And Tony Hunter, president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said the plans could improve dignity and well-being for thousands of people. But Age Concern argued social care was chronically under-funded and older people were being offered choice in principle, but not in practice. Its director general, Gordon Lishman, said: "Direct payments will not work if there are no services for people to choose from locally."
The Tories say people who pay for three years' long-term care directly or through insurance should be guaranteed free care for the rest of their lives. Tory spokesman Simon Burns said more than 80,000 long term care places had been lost since 1997. "After eight years of persistent change, dogmatic enforcement of regulation, and overbearing government initiatives - we need action, not a vision," said Mr Burns. The Lib Dems say they would fund free personal care by a new 50% tax rate on incomes over £100,000. Health spokesman Paul Burstow said: "Promoting independence sounds good and helping people to live in their own homes is a goal we share. "But the risk is that independence can turn into isolation if the right support and care is not available."
| Elderly and disabled people would choose how their own budget for personal care was spent and organised under government plans.The Tories say people who pay for three years' long-term care directly or through insurance should be guaranteed free care for the rest of their lives.They also want to set up a new "half-way house" where social workers tell people how much money is available for their care and help them choose how to spend that "individual budget".Ministers say elderly and disabled people themselves, not social workers, should be able to decide on their care and stay in their own homes.There are 1.7m people needing care in England and ministers suggest the number could quadruple by 2050.But the government shunned opponents' calls for free long-term care.But Age Concern argued social care was chronically under-funded and older people were being offered choice in principle, but not in practice.And Tony Hunter, president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said the plans could improve dignity and well-being for thousands of people.The Lib Dems say they would fund free personal care by a new 50% tax rate on incomes over £100,000.He ruled out free personal care in England - which is on offer in Scotland and Wales, saying it was "unsustainable". |
Act on detention ruling, UK urged
The government must act quickly on the Law Lords' ruling that detention of foreign terror suspects without trial is unlawful, Mary Robinson has said.
The former UN commissioner for human rights and Irish president told Radio 4's Today the government's response would be scrutinised internationally. "It would be very troubling if the government did not accept the judgement and then work within it," she said. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said detainees will not be freed at present. Speaking to Parliament on his first day in office as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year. "In the meantime, we will be studying the judgement carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."
Mrs Robinson said the Law Lords' ruling was "in line with international legal opinion" and praised their "very decisive" eight to one majority. "What the Law Lords did was acknowledge the role of the government, but say that there had been a disproportionate use, that it amounted to executive detention and it was discriminatory because it didn't apply to British citizens," she said.
Mrs Robinson warned that a lack of action by the British government could lead to further action in legal arenas such as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. "If the government were not to accept this ruling then there is further redress, including possible damages for the individuals who could claim that the government either was tardy or was resisting the implications of the judgement of the Law Lords." She said a meeting of the Club of Madrid - a group of former world leaders - to be held in the Spanish capital on the March anniversary of the train bombings there would probably discuss the ruling and its implications. "I have no doubt that this judgement will be looked at, both as a very positive step in clarifying the law and restating the fundamental principles, but also the response of the British government will be under quite a clear international scrutiny there."
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. The Law Lords 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". The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.
| The government must act quickly on the Law Lords' ruling that detention of foreign terror suspects without trial is unlawful, Mary Robinson has said."If the government were not to accept this ruling then there is further redress, including possible damages for the individuals who could claim that the government either was tardy or was resisting the implications of the judgement of the Law Lords.""What the Law Lords did was acknowledge the role of the government, but say that there had been a disproportionate use, that it amounted to executive detention and it was discriminatory because it didn't apply to British citizens," she said.Mrs Robinson said the Law Lords' ruling was "in line with international legal opinion" and praised their "very decisive" eight to one majority.The Law Lords 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"."It would be very troubling if the government did not accept the judgement and then work within it," she said.Mrs Robinson warned that a lack of action by the British government could lead to further action in legal arenas such as the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. |
Lib Dems stress Budget trust gap
Public trust in the handling of the economy can only be restored if Gordon Brown opens up his books for unbiased inspection, say the Lib Dems.
City experts say there is a £10bn "black hole" in the public finances, a claim denied by the chancellor. Lib Dem spokesman Vince Cable said the public did not know who to believe and the National Audit Office should judge. Responding to the pre-Budget report, Mr Cable also attacked Labour's "unfair" and over-complicated taxes.
In his report, Mr Brown insisted he was on course to meet his "golden rule" of borrowing only to invest, rather than for day-to-day spending, over the course of the economic cycle. Mr Cable said people did not know whether to believe the chancellor or the consensus among experts which said the rule would be broken. "There is an issue of credibility and trust," he said. "We cannot have a continuation of a situation where the chancellor sets his own tests and then marks them. "What we need is the equivalent of a thorough Ofsted inspection of the government's accounts." He asked what the government had to hide.
Mr Cable also accused the chancellor of ducking tough choices. He argued: "There are serious challenges ahead from the falling dollar and from the rapid downturn in the UK housing market and rising personal debt. But they have not been confronted." Mr Brown confirmed he was setting aside another £520m for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Cable compared that new cost with the £500m needed for Britain's role in the entire first Gulf War - when 80% of the bill had been met through help from European and Arab nations. He suggested keeping British troops in Iraq could cost another £1bn with the government also planning to spend at least £3bn for identity cards. The current economic climate meant Britain could not afford the "reckless, George Bush-style tax cutting spree" planned by the Tories, he said. Instead, what was needed was simple and fair taxation rather than the "complete mess" produced by Mr Brown's endless tinkering.
Mr Cable said 40% of all pensioners were now paying marginal tax rates of 50%. And one-and-a-half million hard working families were paying 60% marginal tax rates. With that record, he asked why ministers attacked Lib Dem plans for a new 50% tax rate for the "very rich" - those earning more than £100,000 a year. Mr Brown earmarked £1bn to help keep down council tax rises next year. But the Lib Dem spokesman questioned whether that money was being found from cuts to education and health. He urged the government to scrap the "grossly unfair" tax completely. The Lib Dems want it replaced with a local income tax. In response, Mr Brown stressed the Iraq money came from a reserve funds. It was because he had rejected previous Lib Dem proposals, such as scrapping the New Deal, that Britain's economy was successful, claimed Mr Brown.
| Mr Cable said 40% of all pensioners were now paying marginal tax rates of 50%.It was because he had rejected previous Lib Dem proposals, such as scrapping the New Deal, that Britain's economy was successful, claimed Mr Brown.Mr Cable said people did not know whether to believe the chancellor or the consensus among experts which said the rule would be broken.Mr Brown earmarked £1bn to help keep down council tax rises next year.Mr Cable also accused the chancellor of ducking tough choices.Mr Brown confirmed he was setting aside another £520m for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.Lib Dem spokesman Vince Cable said the public did not know who to believe and the National Audit Office should judge.With that record, he asked why ministers attacked Lib Dem plans for a new 50% tax rate for the "very rich" - those earning more than £100,000 a year.Responding to the pre-Budget report, Mr Cable also attacked Labour's "unfair" and over-complicated taxes.Public trust in the handling of the economy can only be restored if Gordon Brown opens up his books for unbiased inspection, say the Lib Dems.In response, Mr Brown stressed the Iraq money came from a reserve funds. |
Minimum wage increased to £5.05
The minimum wage will rise in October, benefiting more than 1m people, the government has announced.
Adults must be paid at least £5.05 an hour, up from £4.85, while 18 to 21 year olds will be paid £4.25. The recommendations came from the Low Pay Commission which said the number of jobs had continued to grow since the minimum wage was introduced in 1999. Businesses wanted it frozen, warning more rises could damage competitiveness but the unions want a £6 rate.
A further increase in the adult rate to £5.35 an hour is provisionally scheduled for October 2006. According to the commission, many businesses had found the last two significant increases in the minimum wage "challenging". "We have therefore recommended only a slight increase above average earnings, and concentrated it in the second year to allow business more time to absorb the impact," said chairman Adair Turner. The government says most of those on the minimum wage are women - with many working in cleaning, catering, shops and hairdressing.
Unveiling the latest increase, Mr Blair said he wanted the minimum wage to become a "symbol of decency and fairness". "For too long, poverty pay capped the aspiration and prosperity of far too many hard-working families," he said. "Too often, people were told to make a choice between the indignity of unemployment or the humiliation of poverty pay." Chancellor Gordon Brown and Transport Secretary Alistair Darling promoted the news in Edinburgh, Wales Secretary Peter Hain and Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan in Cardiff and Northern Ireland Minister John Spellar in Belfast. The government has not accepted the commission's recommendation that 21-year-olds should be paid at the adult rate, but says it will look again at the rate later on. Mr Brown said: "We want to do nothing that can damage the employment opportunities for young people, particularly young people entering the labour market for the first time." The government has said it will look at tougher action against the small number of employers who consistently refuse to pay the minimum wage.
The national minimum wage is currently set at £4.85 per hour for those aged 22 and above, and at £4.10 for those aged 18 to 21. A £3 per hour minimum wage was introduced last October for 16 to 17-year-olds, but apprentices are exempt. The Trade Unions Congress welcomed the increase, but has called for a £6 minimum wage by next year. But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called for a "pause year" to assess the impact of the above inflation rise in the minimum wage in October. And David Frost, director of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "The level of increase each year has increased by rates far outstripping the rates of inflation. "What employers are saying to us now is that it's at a level where it's starting to bite into the competitiveness of companies right across the country."
The Liberal Democrats' economics spokesman Vincent Cable said he supported the move to raise the minimum wage. "It's not just good for the workers themselves but it lifts them out of benefits and therefore is good for the Exchequer too," he said. Conservative leader Michael Howard said he accepted the principle of the minimum wage and would not "seek to disturb" the increase. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, Mr Howard hinted the Tories might go into the general election with a promise to cancel income tax for the lowest-paid workers. "There are people on very low salaries, very low incomes indeed who really shouldn't be paying income tax," he said.
It would be better to decrease taxes on earnings below £12,000 a year, with say no tax on below £6,000. The losses in tax can be recouped by having a 50pc tax band for people making over £100,000. Our minimum wage is going to be effectively almost twice the US minimum wage, yet our economy per person is only 2/3rds of the US! Perhaps, we have to really starting questioning why some products cost 50-60% more here than they do in the US. This combined with the tax decreases would make the pounds the low-paid people do make go much further.
It's still not good enough! I got a part time Job at 16 when I was doing my A-levels in an attempt to get a little money saved for Uni. This was only 2 years ago and I was getting paid £2.75 an hour, and working as hard as any of the older staff, maybe it's about time 16 - 21 year olds got a fair wage!
We must remember that the minimum wage is only part of the picture and must not rise to a level that makes employing people unattractive and encourages businesses to send work and therefore jobs abroad. Still government and local councils employ staff via their contractors that pay at the minimum wage or very close to it. An easy way for the government to do as it preaches would be to insist on floor pay levels for all government workers and take tens of thousand of civil servants out of the social security system all together.
Any increase is certainly welcome news. However for all those whining about the pressures of an increase in the minimum wage I would simply ask them: "Would you be happy to work for less than £5.05 an hour?". Thought not ... so then, don't expect others to either.
I can't believe that so many of these comments are against the minimum wage! Also I personally take great offence at the insinuation that people earning minimum wage were lazy at school if everyone went to university then who would serve you in the supermarkets and clean up after you? It's about time that these hardworking people are rewarded with only what they deserve and have earned fair pay and a bit of respect wouldn't go a miss either. br />
This is good news. The minimum wage has put a sense of equality back into a worker's relationship with their employer. Wages are supposed to be a fair reflection of an employee's efforts. For too long wages were a point of exploitation - what could an employer get away with. In very simplistic terms this put a pressure to keep low-paid wages low. With the minimum wage this downward pressure is at least partly removed.
It is also interesting to read the comments from so called business leaders. They are the first to defend the rights and privileges of boards to award fat-cat salaries, bonuses and pension rights to the select few but they are the first to attack policies that are put in place to merely defend the rights of those that really make those fat cats purr!
I feel there are both negatives and positives to the increase, on one hand some businesses will struggle to stay afloat but on the other hand in today world many young people can't afford to move out as property costs too much and only by earning more will they be able to get on in life. Its true many may get complacent but the minimum wage could be looked at as more of a stepping stone rather than a hand out.
Here come the usual whines about how difficult it will be for businesses! We all remember Michael Howard's protestations that the minimum wage would cost a million jobs when it was introduced - funny how he's gone quiet on that one! Jobs have continued to increase since this humane legislation was brought in. I think if any job is worth doing then it's worth being paid a fair wage for, and £5.05 is hardly a fortune. If your business cannot pay its workers a decent wage then maybe it's not being run properly and if it folds, a better-run company will take over its duties and employ more people, so everybody wins except incompetent business owners!
Great keep at it Tony, I remember the despair of the 80s and the low wages employers got away with. At last we can make a difference to people and reward them for working. We can't afford not to pay a decent wage. It's not a jobs at any price economy, goodbye sweatshops hello decency.
The increase in minimum wage is a good thing. Living in the southwest where house prices and rent have increased hugely (like the rest of the country) over the past 5 years has made living for you average 18-21 years old very difficult. In the south west the increase in living costs have not been matched by an increase in pay, for example a job I did in Plymouth was underpaid to an equivalent worker in Exeter by 75p an hour. Hopefully the increase in the minimum wage will bring in to balance pay on a regional and national level, and in turn allow people like myself who do work hard, but might never earn a 6 figure salary the chance to branch out on our own.
I work at a large Hospital where the contractors providing all ancillary services - domestic, catering & portering etc - pay the minimum wage of £4.85 as the basic rate. Someone has to do these unglamorous jobs and earn enough to live decently. How dare people suggest we are lazy or complacent for accepting these jobs and these wages? Who do they think will be carrying out these public service jobs if contractors are allowed to pay as little as their consciences allow?
This is definitely the right step in the right direction. It shows that this government cares for the low income earners as well. This is a million votes more. Good strategy isn't it?
Although I would not deny people the minimum wage increase, its timing stinks. I am quite prepared for a raft of 'bribes' to come from the government before the election and a raft of taxes afterwards, they are playing us for the fools they think we are.
This is extremely bad news for any business - whether they are small and medium enterprises or even large companies. By increasing overheads, for business, there will be an almost certain rise in costs to the consumer who while they openly welcome the idea of an increase in the minimum wage are the same people who still want to buy that shirt, or that pair of trainers for next to nothing. The extra cost this increase will bring, will only be reflected in the price of the goods we buy, which, in turn will only serve to discourage companies from setting-up business in the UK, or encourage those companies already based here to look elsewhere. The jubilation felt by "low-paid" workers here will soon give way to misery as they lose their jobs.
This will only lead to a reduction in jobs. Why have many of the call centre jobs gone to India. Blair say's the economy is "strong and stable economy" however consumer debt and the country's debt is at its highest and now they heap this onto businesses, that will have no choice but to cut the workforce.
The timing cannot be coincidental. This is blatant electioneering and should be exposed as such.
Andrew in Derby complains that raising the minimum wage is 'blatant electioneering'. I don't mind if it is. In our degraded democracy, elections are the one time when elites really have to worry about doing something concrete for the majority. My only complaint is the paltry figures being discussed. If my maths is right, a 35 hour week at £5.05 gives you an annual income just over £9,000 and raising it to £6 leaves it under £11,000. The unions should be putting the Government under pressure for much more. Businesses complaining might like to take a look at corporate pay, shareholder payouts and profits before wondering if paying a living wage is really a controlling factor in the viability of their firm.
I am all for lifting the minimum wage of workers to a reasonable level, but we have to accept that with this will come competition from overseas workers. Also small businesses will have to be able to afford this manpower cost. We are already seeing a sweeping change in IT work being lost to India where people are paid much less. It is difficult for me to understand that only five years ago cheap labour abroad was classified as 'sweat shop', but now we are told it is global competition. With our manufacturing industry in serious decline the country cannot be entirely service industries without something tangible to serve. There has to be something at the top of the food chain and that is manufacturing. The whole picture needs to be looked at.
This is great news, but that might be because I work for minimum wage. Seems a good idea and will hopefully be an incentive to those who live to claim to actually get a job. When you can "earn" more from claiming than you can from work, there is no incentive. Perhaps a step in the right direction.
If the TUC get their way a very large number of SMEs will have to close - this will put more people out of work. How then will the government fudge the unemployment figures! The government know it is not big business that keeps the economy going but the SMEs but we always get overlooked, they will only take notice if these large corporations close and move to other countries, after all they are predominantly owned by foreign companies. We are a specialist company but with these increases have already had an effect on us and we have lost work another one will close us.
While I'm delighted for those on low pay that this increase is being put forward, I am extremely concerned at the implications for small businesses. As an employee for a small nursery, I know this increase will cause great hardship for my employer, who has been unable to increase salaries for higher paid employees because of last October's increase for the lower paid employees - who were originally being paid slightly above the minimum but are now on the minimum. This latest increase of 20p an hour will cause even more financial hardship. If the rate rises to £6 then I can foresee many small businesses having to pay off employees.
The increase in minimum wage will have a serious effect on my business. Although we pay above the minimum level we will have to increase our pay rates to maintain the differential. The raise is well above inflation and without significant increases in sales, it will mean that I will not be taking on a new member of staff as planned and I will be looking to reduce the total hours worked by the other members of staff, overtime being the first to go.
I currently employ 42 staff whose wages mirror the national minimum wage. Increases above inflation are fine but all of my business is conducted with local authorities who will not accept above inflation rises in my service delivery. 80% of my costs are labour. The other aspect that is always hidden is that the thresholds for tax credits do not move in line with these increases so that all that happens is that employees tax credit support is reduced by the amount of the increase, thereby saving the government money but increasing the financial burden on small to medium businesses
It is very good that the government has decided to increase the minimum wage - this should hopefully motivate people to undertake the "lower status" jobs.
I know about this great idea - don't bother getting qualifications, laze about at school, no need to do anything other than attend so your parents don't get fined because remember, when you do eventually start working, doesn't matter how lazy you are, you'll be guaranteed a decent wage. The ones who suffer are the employers.
I hope that if industry and business have to pay this new rate that Mr Blair and Mr Brown will increase tax allowances and raise national insurance thresholds so that the treasury won't take some of this increase off the people they say they are helping, or is this just another form of stealth tax on business through the back door?
I don't believe in the minimum wage at all! I think jobs should create their own wage value and that if people want higher wages they should earn them. Now, before everyone thinks that I am some "rich-kid", I can assure you I am not. I came from a very much working class background and started work 20 years ago on a Youth Opportunity Program earning £25 per week. I worked hard, went to college part time, got my A-levels and degree & bettered myself. I now earn a 6 figure salary. I did that through hard work and getting off my backside. A minimum wage just makes people complacent.
To Ashley, of Swindon: when you earned £25 per week, it was worth something. These days that £25 would need to be near to £60 to have the equivalent buying power. I might add, that thanks to successive governments holding down the tax allowance threshold below inflation, people earning the minimum wage are paying taxes that they never would have done 10 years ago at equivalent wages. "In my day" type arguments are a view that belong in the 'your day' - 20 years ago!
As a graduate working for minimum wage, I welcome any increase of pay I can get. I disagree with Ashley, Swindon saying I have to work harder to get more pay. I have my GCSE's A-Levels and A degree and have chosen to work for a small business that can't afford the wages I should be getting, I should be on at least 3x what I'm getting but they can't afford it. We all work hard but the money is just not there. But on the plus side I love my job and wouldn't change it just to get more pay.
As an employer of staff in several shops the last rise in the minimum wage cost my company an additional £5000 per year. These next rises will cost me more. I have to get the money from somewhere so pass it on to customers. So no one really wins in the end.
In answer to Emma from Sleaford regarding no one really wins in the end... on the contrary Mr Blair wins - he wins because he obviously has announced this to be a vote winner and his treasury wins because as an employer you will know that the amount of tax and national insurance that the government will receive from all the minimum wage increases will rise and of course not only will be paying out higher wages but as an employer higher Employer NI Contributions as well. If the minimum wage increases again and if it hits anywhere near the £6.00 mark there will be 12 more people on the employment line and one more small business going bankrupt - namely mine. Think of us employers as well Mr Blair, we are not all big corporations earning millions.
All workers should be entitled to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. How many people on the minimum wage have any hope of obtaining a mortgage or saving towards retirement?
It is good news for many Asians living in UK. Students who do odd jobs can increase their income and can help there family in their home country. I thank Mr. Blair and his government for increase in the national minimum wage.
| The increase in minimum wage is a good thing.As a graduate working for minimum wage, I welcome any increase of pay I can get.The increase in minimum wage will have a serious effect on my business.A minimum wage just makes people complacent.Although I would not deny people the minimum wage increase, its timing stinks.I thank Mr. Blair and his government for increase in the national minimum wage.The minimum wage will rise in October, benefiting more than 1m people, the government has announced.I don't believe in the minimum wage at all!This is great news, but that might be because I work for minimum wage.Hopefully the increase in the minimum wage will bring in to balance pay on a regional and national level, and in turn allow people like myself who do work hard, but might never earn a 6 figure salary the chance to branch out on our own.The other aspect that is always hidden is that the thresholds for tax credits do not move in line with these increases so that all that happens is that employees tax credit support is reduced by the amount of the increase, thereby saving the government money but increasing the financial burden on small to medium businesses It is very good that the government has decided to increase the minimum wage - this should hopefully motivate people to undertake the "lower status" jobs.I think jobs should create their own wage value and that if people want higher wages they should earn them.The Trade Unions Congress welcomed the increase, but has called for a £6 minimum wage by next year.The government has said it will look at tougher action against the small number of employers who consistently refuse to pay the minimum wage.If the minimum wage increases again and if it hits anywhere near the £6.00 mark there will be 12 more people on the employment line and one more small business going bankrupt - namely mine.I currently employ 42 staff whose wages mirror the national minimum wage.According to the commission, many businesses had found the last two significant increases in the minimum wage "challenging".We must remember that the minimum wage is only part of the picture and must not rise to a level that makes employing people unattractive and encourages businesses to send work and therefore jobs abroad.However for all those whining about the pressures of an increase in the minimum wage I would simply ask them: "Would you be happy to work for less than £5.05 an hour?".I can't believe that so many of these comments are against the minimum wage!As an employer of staff in several shops the last rise in the minimum wage cost my company an additional £5000 per year.Our minimum wage is going to be effectively almost twice the US minimum wage, yet our economy per person is only 2/3rds of the US!By increasing overheads, for business, there will be an almost certain rise in costs to the consumer who while they openly welcome the idea of an increase in the minimum wage are the same people who still want to buy that shirt, or that pair of trainers for next to nothing.The recommendations came from the Low Pay Commission which said the number of jobs had continued to grow since the minimum wage was introduced in 1999.Still government and local councils employ staff via their contractors that pay at the minimum wage or very close to it.I might add, that thanks to successive governments holding down the tax allowance threshold below inflation, people earning the minimum wage are paying taxes that they never would have done 10 years ago at equivalent wages.We all remember Michael Howard's protestations that the minimum wage would cost a million jobs when it was introduced - funny how he's gone quiet on that one!In answer to Emma from Sleaford regarding no one really wins in the end... on the contrary Mr Blair wins - he wins because he obviously has announced this to be a vote winner and his treasury wins because as an employer you will know that the amount of tax and national insurance that the government will receive from all the minimum wage increases will rise and of course not only will be paying out higher wages but as an employer higher Employer NI Contributions as well.Unveiling the latest increase, Mr Blair said he wanted the minimum wage to become a "symbol of decency and fairness".Conservative leader Michael Howard said he accepted the principle of the minimum wage and would not "seek to disturb" the increase.How many people on the minimum wage have any hope of obtaining a mortgage or saving towards retirement?Although we pay above the minimum level we will have to increase our pay rates to maintain the differential.The government says most of those on the minimum wage are women - with many working in cleaning, catering, shops and hairdressing.A £3 per hour minimum wage was introduced last October for 16 to 17-year-olds, but apprentices are exempt.I work at a large Hospital where the contractors providing all ancillary services - domestic, catering & portering etc - pay the minimum wage of £4.85 as the basic rate.Andrew in Derby complains that raising the minimum wage is 'blatant electioneering'.The minimum wage has put a sense of equality back into a worker's relationship with their employer.With the minimum wage this downward pressure is at least partly removed.We can't afford not to pay a decent wage.As an employee for a small nursery, I know this increase will cause great hardship for my employer, who has been unable to increase salaries for higher paid employees because of last October's increase for the lower paid employees - who were originally being paid slightly above the minimum but are now on the minimum.But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called for a "pause year" to assess the impact of the above inflation rise in the minimum wage in October.Its true many may get complacent but the minimum wage could be looked at as more of a stepping stone rather than a hand out.I hope that if industry and business have to pay this new rate that Mr Blair and Mr Brown will increase tax allowances and raise national insurance thresholds so that the treasury won't take some of this increase off the people they say they are helping, or is this just another form of stealth tax on business through the back door?This was only 2 years ago and I was getting paid £2.75 an hour, and working as hard as any of the older staff, maybe it's about time 16 - 21 year olds got a fair wage!Also I personally take great offence at the insinuation that people earning minimum wage were lazy at school if everyone went to university then who would serve you in the supermarkets and clean up after you?I am all for lifting the minimum wage of workers to a reasonable level, but we have to accept that with this will come competition from overseas workers.In the south west the increase in living costs have not been matched by an increase in pay, for example a job I did in Plymouth was underpaid to an equivalent worker in Exeter by 75p an hour.The national minimum wage is currently set at £4.85 per hour for those aged 22 and above, and at £4.10 for those aged 18 to 21.If your business cannot pay its workers a decent wage then maybe it's not being run properly and if it folds, a better-run company will take over its duties and employ more people, so everybody wins except incompetent business owners!The Liberal Democrats' economics spokesman Vincent Cable said he supported the move to raise the minimum wage.I think if any job is worth doing then it's worth being paid a fair wage for, and £5.05 is hardly a fortune.I feel there are both negatives and positives to the increase, on one hand some businesses will struggle to stay afloat but on the other hand in today world many young people can't afford to move out as property costs too much and only by earning more will they be able to get on in life.If the rate rises to £6 then I can foresee many small businesses having to pay off employees.For too long wages were a point of exploitation - what could an employer get away with.I have my GCSE's A-Levels and A degree and have chosen to work for a small business that can't afford the wages I should be getting, I should be on at least 3x what I'm getting but they can't afford it.In very simplistic terms this put a pressure to keep low-paid wages low.Great keep at it Tony, I remember the despair of the 80s and the low wages employers got away with.Businesses complaining might like to take a look at corporate pay, shareholder payouts and profits before wondering if paying a living wage is really a controlling factor in the viability of their firm.While I'm delighted for those on low pay that this increase is being put forward, I am extremely concerned at the implications for small businesses.We are a specialist company but with these increases have already had an effect on us and we have lost work another one will close us. |
Child access law shake-up planned
Parents who refuse to allow former partners contact with their children could be electronically tagged under plans being considered by ministers.
Curfews and community service orders were other options which could be used if court orders to allow parental access were defied, Lord Falconer said. The constitutional affairs secretary outlined some of the plans on Tuesday. He denied fathers' activists had forced the changes, telling the BBC "there is a recognition that something is wrong". Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve access disputes each year, although in nine out of 10 separations there is no court intervention.
Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he hoped voluntary mediation could help solve disputes before they reached court. But he opposed compulsory mediation, saying that it would lead to many people taking part with the wrong attitude. Other plans include:
- Parenting plans to give advice on access arrangements, based on real-life examples that have worked in the past
- Extending in-court conciliation - more informal hearings before contested court cases
- Better access to legal, emotional and practical advice by telephone and internet
- Legal aid changes to give incentives for early resolution of disputes.
Judges can already jail parents who breach contact orders but that was a "nuclear option" which was rarely used as it was not seen as being in the child's interests, a spokesman said. The aim of the new legislation was to provide a "medium range" of penalties, such as fines, community service orders, compulsory anger management or parenting classes or curfews.
Failure to comply with these measures could result in offenders being electronically tagged. On the possibility of tagging uncooperative parents, Lord Falconer said: "Tagging may be going too far, but let's have a debate about that." Full details of the new powers will not be revealed until a bill is published "in the next two weeks," a spokesman said.
The government's proposals have met with disapproval from fathers' rights groups. John Ison, from the controversial group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "It is very disappointing. What we have got is a cynical case of recycling existing legislation." Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the new proposals "lacked compulsion".
"We would like to see couples develop a plan and then have it as a source of a court order - then you know where you stand, you know what the minimum access is. "Otherwise, you see people make agreements which then fall apart." Mr Parton said he had been told by Children's Minister Margaret Hodge there was not enough time to pass the bill through parliament before the general election, which is likely to take place in May.
The Conservatives have called for an equal split between parents on access to be made law. Theresa May, shadow secretary for the family, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's plans were "inadequate" and were "papering over the cracks of the current system". She said a Conservative government would bring a "radical reform" of the family courts, as well as enforcing a "legal presumption of co-parenting and compulsory mediation". "We want to make courts the last resort, rather than the first resort," she added. The government says children cannot simply be divided up "like property" when a marriage collapses. The Liberal Democrats have argued for flexibility in deciding access rules, rather than having "rigid targets".
| Curfews and community service orders were other options which could be used if court orders to allow parental access were defied, Lord Falconer said."We would like to see couples develop a plan and then have it as a source of a court order - then you know where you stand, you know what the minimum access is.Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he hoped voluntary mediation could help solve disputes before they reached court.Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the new proposals "lacked compulsion".Other plans include: - Parenting plans to give advice on access arrangements, based on real-life examples that have worked in the past - Extending in-court conciliation - more informal hearings before contested court cases - Better access to legal, emotional and practical advice by telephone and internet - Legal aid changes to give incentives for early resolution of disputes.Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve access disputes each year, although in nine out of 10 separations there is no court intervention.She said a Conservative government would bring a "radical reform" of the family courts, as well as enforcing a "legal presumption of co-parenting and compulsory mediation".Theresa May, shadow secretary for the family, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's plans were "inadequate" and were "papering over the cracks of the current system".Parents who refuse to allow former partners contact with their children could be electronically tagged under plans being considered by ministers.Judges can already jail parents who breach contact orders but that was a "nuclear option" which was rarely used as it was not seen as being in the child's interests, a spokesman said.John Ison, from the controversial group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "It is very disappointing. |
Tory candidate quits over remark
A Conservative election challenger is quitting after being quoted as wanting a "period of creative destruction in the public services".
Danny Kruger, who also works in the Tory research unit, had been due to take on Tony Blair in Sedgefield. He says his remark last week was misrepresented but he will not contest the election for fear of damaging the Conservative cause. Tory leader Michael Howard accepted his decision "with regret". Mr Kruger was quoted in the Guardian newspaper saying: "We plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services."
In a statement, the party said the comment had been taken out of context. "He fully supports the party's policies on, and approach to, the public services," said the statement. "However, in order to avoid any further misrepresentation of his views and any damage to the Party, he has decided not to stand in the Sedgefield constituency at the next election." Mr Kruger is continuing in his job at the Tory campaign headquarters. Labour election coordinator Alan Milburn claimed Mr Kruger had exposed the Tory agenda for £35bn of cuts to public services. Mr Milburn said: "He is not some unknown hopeful fighting an unwinnable seat. He is a man who has worked at the heart of Conservative policy development... "His claim that the Tories were planning 'a period of creative destruction in the public services' is not a rogue claim. "It is the authentic and shocking voice of the Conservative Party. It reveals the true picture of what they would do."
| Labour election coordinator Alan Milburn claimed Mr Kruger had exposed the Tory agenda for £35bn of cuts to public services.A Conservative election challenger is quitting after being quoted as wanting a "period of creative destruction in the public services".Mr Kruger was quoted in the Guardian newspaper saying: "We plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services."He is a man who has worked at the heart of Conservative policy development... "His claim that the Tories were planning 'a period of creative destruction in the public services' is not a rogue claim."He fully supports the party's policies on, and approach to, the public services," said the statement.Mr Kruger is continuing in his job at the Tory campaign headquarters. |
Brown's poll campaign move denied
The government has denied reports that Gordon Brown is preparing to oust Alan Milburn as Labour's election supremo.
Work and pensions minister Alan Johnson said it was wrong to suggest the chancellor would usurp Mr Milburn, adding they would "work as a team". A report in the Sunday Business claimed Mr Brown has been asked to take charge of media strategy, while Mr Milburn would move to a behind-the-scenes role. Labour has always maintained Mr Brown would have a central campaign role.
But many Labour backbenchers are said to be dissatisfied with the way election campaigning has gone and have said they wanted to see the chancellor take a bigger role. Some commentators say the Tories have grasped the initiative, putting Labour on the back foot, having to respond to Conservative policy announcements. These claims follow various opinion polls which suggest the Tories have been gaining on Labour. Party strategists are believed to want to bring Mr Brown to centre-stage having seen support rise, in private polling, after his Budget last week. But another report in the Sunday Telegraph claims Mr Milburn is unwilling to allow any new role for the chancellor to come at his expense. Mr Johnson told BBC News: "Gordon Brown will play a central role in any election campaign. "They were wrong when they said Milburn was ousting Brown and they're wrong now if they are saying Brown is ousting Milburn. We work as a team." Mr Milburn has repeatedly said the chancellor was key to the campaign and dismissed claims of a rift. Neither Downing Street nor the Labour Party would comment directly on the reports.
| Labour has always maintained Mr Brown would have a central campaign role.Work and pensions minister Alan Johnson said it was wrong to suggest the chancellor would usurp Mr Milburn, adding they would "work as a team".A report in the Sunday Business claimed Mr Brown has been asked to take charge of media strategy, while Mr Milburn would move to a behind-the-scenes role.Mr Milburn has repeatedly said the chancellor was key to the campaign and dismissed claims of a rift.Mr Johnson told BBC News: "Gordon Brown will play a central role in any election campaign.But another report in the Sunday Telegraph claims Mr Milburn is unwilling to allow any new role for the chancellor to come at his expense. |
Tories reject rethink on axed MP
Sacked MP Howard Flight's local Conservative association has insisted he will not be its candidate at the general election.
Russell Tanguay, agent for Arundel and South Downs Tories, said Mr Flight was ineligible to be a candidate and the association was seeking a substitute. The news comes despite Mr Flight's allies saying they had enough support to hold a meeting to discuss his fate. Mr Flight landed in trouble over remarks on Tory tax and spending plans. He quit as Tory deputy chairman after apparently suggesting the Tories planned extra spending cuts - but he wants to continue as an MP.
Tory headquarters says he cannot stand as a Conservative candidate because he is no longer an approved candidate. Mr Tanguay backed that view on Tuesday, saying: "Howard Flight is ineligible to stand as a Conservative Party candidate. "The association is in the process of selecting a new candidate."
But the local Tory chairman made similar comments on Friday and dissent continues. Two local councillors who back Mr Flight met Mr Tanguay and the local association's chairman in Arundel on Tuesday afternoon but did not comment as they left the meeting. Mr Flight says he will not stand down as a candidate unless his local party instructs him to do so at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). The MP, who is consulting his lawyers, told BBC News: "They selected me and they, if you like, dispose of me or keep me." Mr Flight's supporters also say they have the 50 signatures needed to trigger the EGM.
At a news conference, Mr Howard insisted he had played by the party's rules. The Tory leader, who argues he is ensuring honesty, said: "We do not say one thing in private and another thing in public."
Labour election campaign coordinator Alan Milburn said the Tories were in "turmoil" because Mr Flight had exposed their hidden plans. The comments were not a "one-off", he said, claiming Mr Howard and other senior Tories were obsessively committed to cutting public spending. Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said: "Whilst I disagree with Howard Flight's views, it seems extraordinary to sack somebody for telling the truth."
It has also emerged Mr Howard has suspended Slough's constituency Conservative association for refusing to deselect its candidate. Adrian Hilton was abandoned after suggesting the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, under John Major's government, was an act of treason. The Catholic Herald also highlighted articles he wrote about the role of Catholicism in the European Union. Mr Hilton was chosen to fight the seat after the previous candidate, Robert Oulds, was sacked for being pictured with a range of guns and a hunting knife. Slough Conservative Association has now been placed on "support status" and is being run from Conservative campaign headquarters, says a senior party spokesman.
Mr Hilton on Tuesday said he was considering taking legal action against his deposal. He said the local party had only learned of the final decision on the BBC News website on Monday evening. "There are people at Central Office who are behaving like little dictators and seemingly people who are ordinary members are being treated with contempt," he said. The party says it did try to contact the local Conservative chairman.
| Mr Flight says he will not stand down as a candidate unless his local party instructs him to do so at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM).Mr Tanguay backed that view on Tuesday, saying: "Howard Flight is ineligible to stand as a Conservative Party candidate.Russell Tanguay, agent for Arundel and South Downs Tories, said Mr Flight was ineligible to be a candidate and the association was seeking a substitute.Sacked MP Howard Flight's local Conservative association has insisted he will not be its candidate at the general election.Two local councillors who back Mr Flight met Mr Tanguay and the local association's chairman in Arundel on Tuesday afternoon but did not comment as they left the meeting.It has also emerged Mr Howard has suspended Slough's constituency Conservative association for refusing to deselect its candidate.The comments were not a "one-off", he said, claiming Mr Howard and other senior Tories were obsessively committed to cutting public spending.Tory headquarters says he cannot stand as a Conservative candidate because he is no longer an approved candidate.The party says it did try to contact the local Conservative chairman.Mr Hilton on Tuesday said he was considering taking legal action against his deposal.Mr Flight's supporters also say they have the 50 signatures needed to trigger the EGM. |
Profile: Gordon Brown
The ultimate prize of 10 Downing Street may continue to elude him but, as he prepares to deliver a record-breaking ninth budget, Gordon Brown can at least console himself with the thought that he is the longest serving chancellor of modern times.
He reached that milestone last June, when he overtook David Lloyd George, who served for seven years and 43 days between 1908 and 1915. How much longer Mr Brown will continue in the job is not clear (he once said there are two types of chancellor: "those who fail and those who get out in time.") There are rumours he will be moved to the Foreign Office if Labour wins the general election. But, for now, Mr Brown dominates the domestic political scene like few chancellors - or politicians - before him.
Gordon Brown was born in Glasgow on 20 February 1951, the son of a Church of Scotland Minister in the small Fife town of Kirkcaldy. At 12, he was canvassing for Labour and by his 20s he was a leading political activist in Scotland. He achieved a first class degree in history from Edinburgh University, where he went on to complete a PhD. His early career was spent lecturing, working in television and making a name for himself in the Scottish Labour Party.
His first attempt to enter Westminster, for Edinburgh South in 1979, was thwarted by the present Tory spokesman on foreign affairs, Michael Ancram. But in 1983, he took Dunfermline East, a new constituency including Rosyth naval base, pit villages and coastal towns.
Entering Westminster, he came to share an office with the newly elected MP for Sedgefield, Tony Blair. Within four years, Mr Brown had gained his first frontbench post as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury. He became shadow chancellor under John Smith's leadership in 1992. After the death of leader John Smith in 1994 he stood aside, agreeing to give Tony Blair a clear run at the leadership during a now infamous meal at the Granita restaurant in Islington.
The other part of the deal, that Mr Blair will one day stand down in favour of the chancellor, is the stuff of Westminster legend. Mr Blair's supporters say such a deal never existed and endless newspaper columns - and even a television film - have been devoted to the alleged deal. But if his leadership ambitions were at least temporarily thwarted in 1994, Mr Brown continued his devotion to politics. During the 1997 election campaign, he is said to have worked an average of 18 hours a day, six days a week after running on a treadmill for an hour each morning.
This dedication to his career was underlined by a comment by Mr Brown's former girlfriend of five years, Princess Marguerite of Romania, the eldest daughter of ex-King Michael of Romania, who said a relationship with him was "politics, politics, politics".
If that was true then, Mr Brown, who married PR executive Sarah Macaulay in 2000, changed his perspective when the couple were hit by tragedy early in 2002. Their daughter Jennifer died in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, 10 days after being born seven weeks prematurely. A year later, in October 2003, the couple had a son - John - an event which again gave the chancellor an opportunity to show his softer side. A trip to Africa earlier this year, to publicise his scheme to cancel the debt of poor nations, also gave the chancellor an opportunity to show his more human side.
The ideological differences between Mr Brown and Mr Blair remain relatively modest. The chancellor opposes the further encroachment of the market into the NHS and is seen as being more "Old Labour" than Mr Blair in his approach to wealth redistribution. But their shared belief that market economics are compatible with social justice continues to form the ideological heart of the New Labour project. Yet they are portrayed by the media as being locked in almost permanent conflict, with Mr Brown supposedly nursing resentment at being betrayed by his younger Downing Street neighbour over the succession. Mr Blair, for his part, is said to be frustrated that his public service reforms are being thwarted by a vengeful Mr Brown, who reportedly delights in keeping the prime minister in the dark over the contents of his Budget until the last possible minute. After a recent run of negative headlines, Labour MPs took the unprecedented step of making a direct appeal to the two men stop bickering, for the good of the party. Events like this, and the testimony of former ministerial colleagues, make it impossible to dismiss the Brown/Blair feud as just journalistic hearsay, cooked up by hacks and camp followers in the hothouse atmosphere of Westminster. How much it damages the ability of government to do its job is open to question.
A truce appears to have been called in the run up to the general election after a fresh spat was sparked by Blairite Alan Milburn being brought in over the head of Mr Brown to run the election campaign. But with the Tories having appeared to get the better of the pre-election campaign thus far there are reports that Mr Brown - using the Budget as a springboard - is to revitalise Labour's campaign. Amid all this it is easy to forget that Mr Brown remains the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader. There may be no shortage of possible contenders for the crown - including Mr Milburn - but none can command the sort of support in the parliamentary party and beyond that Mr Brown can. And Mr Blair's decision to name his own retirement date has at least given Mr Brown something to aim for - even if the prime minister's intention to "serve a full third term" if elected, took the shine off the announcement for the chancellor and his supporters.
| The ideological differences between Mr Brown and Mr Blair remain relatively modest.Amid all this it is easy to forget that Mr Brown remains the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader.How much longer Mr Brown will continue in the job is not clear (he once said there are two types of chancellor: "those who fail and those who get out in time.")But, for now, Mr Brown dominates the domestic political scene like few chancellors - or politicians - before him.Mr Blair, for his part, is said to be frustrated that his public service reforms are being thwarted by a vengeful Mr Brown, who reportedly delights in keeping the prime minister in the dark over the contents of his Budget until the last possible minute.The other part of the deal, that Mr Blair will one day stand down in favour of the chancellor, is the stuff of Westminster legend.And Mr Blair's decision to name his own retirement date has at least given Mr Brown something to aim for - even if the prime minister's intention to "serve a full third term" if elected, took the shine off the announcement for the chancellor and his supporters.There may be no shortage of possible contenders for the crown - including Mr Milburn - but none can command the sort of support in the parliamentary party and beyond that Mr Brown can.But if his leadership ambitions were at least temporarily thwarted in 1994, Mr Brown continued his devotion to politics.The chancellor opposes the further encroachment of the market into the NHS and is seen as being more "Old Labour" than Mr Blair in his approach to wealth redistribution.A truce appears to have been called in the run up to the general election after a fresh spat was sparked by Blairite Alan Milburn being brought in over the head of Mr Brown to run the election campaign.If that was true then, Mr Brown, who married PR executive Sarah Macaulay in 2000, changed his perspective when the couple were hit by tragedy early in 2002.Within four years, Mr Brown had gained his first frontbench post as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.But with the Tories having appeared to get the better of the pre-election campaign thus far there are reports that Mr Brown - using the Budget as a springboard - is to revitalise Labour's campaign.This dedication to his career was underlined by a comment by Mr Brown's former girlfriend of five years, Princess Marguerite of Romania, the eldest daughter of ex-King Michael of Romania, who said a relationship with him was "politics, politics, politics". |
Howard hits back at mongrel jibe
Michael Howard has said a claim by Peter Hain that the Tory leader is acting like an "attack mongrel" shows Labour is "rattled" by the opposition.
In an upbeat speech to his party's spring conference in Brighton, he said Labour's campaigning tactics proved the Tories were hitting home. Mr Hain made the claim about Tory tactics in the anti-terror bill debate. "Something tells me that someone, somewhere out there is just a little bit rattled," Mr Howard said. Mr Hain, Leader of the Commons, told BBC Radio Four's Today programme that Mr Howard's stance on the government's anti-terrorism legislation was putting the country at risk. He then accused the Tory Leader of behaving like an "attack mongrel" and "playing opposition for opposition sake".
Mr Howard told his party that Labour would "do anything, say anything, claim anything to cling on to office at all costs". "So far this year they have compared me to Fagin, to Shylock and to a flying pig. This morning Peter Hain even called me a mongrel. "I don't know about you, but something tells me that someone, somewhere out there is just a little bit rattled." Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett rejected Mr Howard's comment, telling Radio 4's PM programme that Labour was not "rattled". "We have a very real duty to try to get people to focus on Michael Howard's record, what the proposals are that he is trying to put forward to the country and also the many examples we are seeing now of what we believe is really poor judgement on his behalf."
Mr Howard said Tory policies on schools, taxes, immigration and crime were striking a chord with voters.
"Since the beginning of this year - election year - we've been making the political weather," he told the party conference. Mr Howard denied he had been "playing politics" by raising the case of Margaret Dixon, whose operation had been cancelled seven times, which grabbed headlines for the party two weeks ago. And he hit back at Labour claims he had used Mrs Dixon as a "human shield". "She's not a human shield Mr Blair, she's a human being." Mr Howard said his party plans for immigration quotas, which have also been the focus of much media coverage, were not "racist" - just "common sense".
He pledged cleaner hospitals and better school discipline, with a promise to get rid of "political correctness" in the national curriculum and give everyone to the same chance of a "decent" state education as he had. "I come from an ordinary family. If the teenage Michael Howard were applying to Cambridge today, Gordon Brown would love me."
And he stressed his party's commitment to cut taxes and red tape and increase the basic state pension in line with earnings. He finished with a personal appeal to party activists to go out and win the next election. "One day you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren as I will tell mine, 'I was there. I did my bit. I played my part. I helped to win that famous election - the election that transformed our country for the better'." Labour election co-ordinator Alan Milburn said: "Michael Howard's speech today confirms what we have always said - that his only strategy is opportunism but he has no forward vision for the country. In reference to the appearance of Mr Howard's family on the conference stage with him, Mr Milburn said: "Michael Howard is perfectly entitled to pose with his family today. "But it is the hard working families across Britain that will be damaged by his plan to cut £35bn from public spending."
| "Something tells me that someone, somewhere out there is just a little bit rattled," Mr Howard said.In reference to the appearance of Mr Howard's family on the conference stage with him, Mr Milburn said: "Michael Howard is perfectly entitled to pose with his family today.Michael Howard has said a claim by Peter Hain that the Tory leader is acting like an "attack mongrel" shows Labour is "rattled" by the opposition.Mr Hain, Leader of the Commons, told BBC Radio Four's Today programme that Mr Howard's stance on the government's anti-terrorism legislation was putting the country at risk.Labour election co-ordinator Alan Milburn said: "Michael Howard's speech today confirms what we have always said - that his only strategy is opportunism but he has no forward vision for the country.Mr Howard said his party plans for immigration quotas, which have also been the focus of much media coverage, were not "racist" - just "common sense".Mr Howard said Tory policies on schools, taxes, immigration and crime were striking a chord with voters.Mr Howard told his party that Labour would "do anything, say anything, claim anything to cling on to office at all costs".Mr Hain made the claim about Tory tactics in the anti-terror bill debate.Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett rejected Mr Howard's comment, telling Radio 4's PM programme that Labour was not "rattled"."Since the beginning of this year - election year - we've been making the political weather," he told the party conference.Mr Howard denied he had been "playing politics" by raising the case of Margaret Dixon, whose operation had been cancelled seven times, which grabbed headlines for the party two weeks ago. |
'EU referendum could cost £80m'
It could cost £80m to run a UK referendum on the European constitution, ministers have revealed.
In a written parliamentary answer, Constitutional Affairs Minister Chris Leslie said the poll was likely to cost the same as a general election. Mr Leslie said the cost could not be compared with the only previous British referendum, held 30 years ago. Ministers say the constitution would make the European Union work better but critics fear creating a "super state". Labour MP John Cryer, whose question revealed the price estimate, said the cost surprised him but was not a central factor as it was important people had their say. But he said it would have been better to have rejected the constitution so avoiding the need for a referendum. The 2001 election cost £80m. No date for the vote has been set but Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has suggested it is unlikely to be held until early 2006 - after the predicted date for the next election. Most voters said the UK should stay in the Common Market in the 1975 referendum.
| It could cost £80m to run a UK referendum on the European constitution, ministers have revealed.Mr Leslie said the cost could not be compared with the only previous British referendum, held 30 years ago.In a written parliamentary answer, Constitutional Affairs Minister Chris Leslie said the poll was likely to cost the same as a general election.But he said it would have been better to have rejected the constitution so avoiding the need for a referendum. |
Lib Dems predict 'best ever poll'
The Lib Dems are set for their best results in both the general election and the local council polls, one of their frontbenchers has predicted.
Local government spokesman Ed Davey was speaking as the party launched its campaign for the local elections being held in 37 English council areas. The flagship pledge is to replace council tax with a local income tax. The Tories say the Lib Dems would make people pay more tax and Labour says the party's sums do not add up. Looking to the coming elections, which are all expected to be held on 5 May, Mr Davey said: "We are going to be winning more votes and winning more seats. "I think we are going to have the best general election results and local election results we have ever had under [party leader] Charles Kennedy. "I couldn't think of a stronger endorsement of a leader."
| "I think we are going to have the best general election results and local election results we have ever had under [party leader] Charles Kennedy.The Lib Dems are set for their best results in both the general election and the local council polls, one of their frontbenchers has predicted.Local government spokesman Ed Davey was speaking as the party launched its campaign for the local elections being held in 37 English council areas. |
'Last chance' warning for voters
People in England, Scotland and Wales must have registered by 1700 GMT to be able to vote in the general election if it is held, as expected, on 5 May.
Those who filled in forms last autumn should already be on the register - but those who have moved house or were on holiday may have been left off. There will also be elections for local councils and mayors in parts of England on 5 May. The deadline for voters to register in Northern Ireland expired on Thursday.
Completed registration forms can be handed into local authorities throughout the day on Friday, and some will accept them by fax. As well as for English county councils, polls for unitary authorities at Bristol, Isle of Wight and Stockton-on-Tees and mayors at Doncaster, Hartlepool, North Tyneside and Stoke-on-Trent are also scheduled for 5 May. Last week Preston City Council reported that more than 14,000 of its voters were not registered. Its electoral roll fell by 17.5% in a year - the biggest dip in the UK. An Electoral Commission spokeswoman said: "Political decisions are made on your behalf every day but only by using your right to vote at an election can you really have a say on the issues you care about. "If you want your voice to be heard on 5 May you will need to have registered by Friday 11 March." Council tax payers are not eligible to vote without registration, officials have stressed.
| There will also be elections for local councils and mayors in parts of England on 5 May.People in England, Scotland and Wales must have registered by 1700 GMT to be able to vote in the general election if it is held, as expected, on 5 May.Last week Preston City Council reported that more than 14,000 of its voters were not registered."If you want your voice to be heard on 5 May you will need to have registered by Friday 11 March."Those who filled in forms last autumn should already be on the register - but those who have moved house or were on holiday may have been left off. |
Boateng to step down at election
Paul Boateng, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is to step down as a Labour MP at the forthcoming general election.
Mr Boateng, 53, is to become the UK's high commissioner to South Africa. He was the UK's first black cabinet minister when appointed to his post in 2002, promoted from the Home Office, where he had been prisons minister. Mr Boateng served on the Greater London Council before being elected to Parliament in 1987, declaring "today Brent South, tomorrow Soweto". He will succeed the previous High Commissioner, Ann Grant, shortly after the next election, which is widely expected to be held on 5 May. The appointment is dependent on Labour's re-election.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "Paul has been both a valued colleague and a trusted friend for many years. "He has made an immense contribution to public life in Britain and I am delighted that he has agreed to continue that service to the people of Britain by acting as their representative in South Africa." Chancellor Gordon Brown said: "Over the past eight years Paul's contribution to the Treasury and the government has been exceptional - and it has been my privilege to have worked closely with him closely at the Treasury. "I congratulate Paul on his new appointment. "He has displayed huge dedication to the cause of African development for many years and it is fitting that, in this year of challenge and opportunity for the African continent, Paul has been given such a pivotal role in our fight against poverty and injustice. "I look forward to continuing to work with Paul on this vital agenda."
Mr Boateng said: "I am honoured to be asked to take on this role, especially as it comes at such an integral time for our relationship with South Africa and the African continent. "There shall be many new challenges and opportunities ahead and I look forward to embracing them with great anticipation." Asked if he was appointed as the result of a "fair and open" competition, he replied: "I have been appointed as a result of a process that's been used before by Labour and Conservative governments to appoint people of all parties who have relevant experience." Mr Boateng also laughed off suggestions that his re-election in Brent South seat had been in danger saying it was "one of the safest Labour seats in the country". Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said that, if in government, he would refuse to approve either Mr Boateng's appointment or that of ex-Cabinet minister Helen Liddell as high commissioner to Australia. "Mr Blair's appointment of Paul Boateng is the latest example of a worrying trend of failed Tony's cronies being appointed to senior diplomatic posts," he said.
| Mr Boateng, 53, is to become the UK's high commissioner to South Africa."Mr Blair's appointment of Paul Boateng is the latest example of a worrying trend of failed Tony's cronies being appointed to senior diplomatic posts," he said.Mr Boateng said: "I am honoured to be asked to take on this role, especially as it comes at such an integral time for our relationship with South Africa and the African continent.Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said that, if in government, he would refuse to approve either Mr Boateng's appointment or that of ex-Cabinet minister Helen Liddell as high commissioner to Australia.Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "Paul has been both a valued colleague and a trusted friend for many years."I congratulate Paul on his new appointment.Paul Boateng, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is to step down as a Labour MP at the forthcoming general election.Mr Boateng also laughed off suggestions that his re-election in Brent South seat had been in danger saying it was "one of the safest Labour seats in the country". |
Howard's unfinished business
"He's not finished yet," whispered the Conservative Party person as your reporter attempted to slip quietly from the hall. And indeed he wasn't. Michael Howard had already broken away from the printed text of his speech, at his party's spring conference in Brighton, to deliver a smart rebuff to Peter Hain's description of him as an "attack mongrel", claiming such personal abuse meant Labour was "rattled" by the Tory challenge. And here he was again, moving to the front of the stage as the party faithful rose to their feet in applause, to make a personal, ad-libbed appeal to them to go out and fight for victory. "One day you will be able to tell your children and grandchildren as I will tell mine, 'I was there. I did my bit. I played my part. I helped to win that famous election - the election that transformed our country for the better'." The speech, which was peppered with references to Mr Howard's humble beginnings as the "child of immigrants", had been introduced by his son Nick, a trainee vicar, who praised his father's honesty. "I always know where I am with him because all my life he has meant what he has said to me," he said. Mr Howard was also joined on stage by his wife Sandra, daughter Larissa and stepson Sholto.
The audience's reaction to all of this was a little muted by party conference standards.
But Mr Howard's overall message - that the Tories have Labour on the run and that they can win the next election - did not sound quite as hollow as it might have done six months ago. Mr Howard claimed, with some justification, that the Tories' campaign has got off to a "great start". They have had Labour on the back foot over immigration, with Tony Blair hastily adding a sixth promise on the issue to his latest pledge card, and have even managed to score points in traditional Labour territory such as health and education. The stunts involving Margaret Dixon with her postponed operation and Maria Hutchings with concerns about her son's special needs education may not have been to everyone's taste, but they succeeded in bringing the issues alive and forcing Labour to react. Senior Tories believe they are, at long last, starting to tap into the public mood, cutting through the background noise to connect with the ordinary voter. Their latest poster campaign flags up a range of policies from better school discipline, cleaner hospitals ("I mean, how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?") and immigration ("It's not racist to impose limits on immigration") - under the headline "are you thinking what we are thinking?" This, they say, contrasts with Labour's negative campaigning, such as its now infamous "flying pigs" poster.
Oliver Letwin, one of the men lampooned in the Labour poster, affects bewilderment at what he believes is Labour's loss of its once sure footing on the campaign trail. The Peter Hain "mongrel" attack, he says, is just the latest example of the party getting the tone wrong - a by-product, he claims, of the Tories setting the agenda.
"I have to say I don't understand what they are doing. The Labour machine appears to be in some kind of state of shock, it doesn't seem to know what to do." A few weeks of positive headlines have also done wonders for Tory activists' morale - likely to be a crucial factor at an election which, most analysts seem to agree, will hinge on which party can get their core support out. "It has been a fantastic few weeks," said 20-year-old politics student Nick Vaughan. "Our policies have been getting in the media and there is a sense that we can win. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think we could." Some delegates even spoke of the next election being like 1970, when Ted Heath, behind in the polls and written off by the pundits, snatched victory from Harold Wilson's Labour Party.
They all insisted it was not going to be a re-run of 2001. "We thought in 2001 we were going to dent that massive majority but it just didn't happen," said John Murray, of Aldridge Browhills Conservatives. "It was very disappointing. This time it really is different. "Whoever is running our strategy from the top has got it bang on. Blair is on the back foot." Much of the credit for the Tories' recent change of fortune must go to Lynton Crosby, the Australian strategist who succeeded in turning political veteran and apparent no-hoper John Howard, of Australia's Liberal Party, into a serial election winner. The Tories still have a mountain climb if Michael Howard is to walk through the doors of Number 10. Even allowing for the natural bias against the Tories in some opinion polls, they are still behind, when to have a chance of overturning Labour's whopping majority, they should really be ahead. But as they gear up for the start of the campaign proper, the party at least has reason to hope that, like his Australian namesake, Mr Howard really isn't finished yet.
| Mr Howard claimed, with some justification, that the Tories' campaign has got off to a "great start".But as they gear up for the start of the campaign proper, the party at least has reason to hope that, like his Australian namesake, Mr Howard really isn't finished yet.But Mr Howard's overall message - that the Tories have Labour on the run and that they can win the next election - did not sound quite as hollow as it might have done six months ago.They have had Labour on the back foot over immigration, with Tony Blair hastily adding a sixth promise on the issue to his latest pledge card, and have even managed to score points in traditional Labour territory such as health and education.Some delegates even spoke of the next election being like 1970, when Ted Heath, behind in the polls and written off by the pundits, snatched victory from Harold Wilson's Labour Party.Michael Howard had already broken away from the printed text of his speech, at his party's spring conference in Brighton, to deliver a smart rebuff to Peter Hain's description of him as an "attack mongrel", claiming such personal abuse meant Labour was "rattled" by the Tory challenge.And here he was again, moving to the front of the stage as the party faithful rose to their feet in applause, to make a personal, ad-libbed appeal to them to go out and fight for victory.The audience's reaction to all of this was a little muted by party conference standards.Mr Howard was also joined on stage by his wife Sandra, daughter Larissa and stepson Sholto.Much of the credit for the Tories' recent change of fortune must go to Lynton Crosby, the Australian strategist who succeeded in turning political veteran and apparent no-hoper John Howard, of Australia's Liberal Party, into a serial election winner."It was very disappointing."I always know where I am with him because all my life he has meant what he has said to me," he said.They all insisted it was not going to be a re-run of 2001.The Peter Hain "mongrel" attack, he says, is just the latest example of the party getting the tone wrong - a by-product, he claims, of the Tories setting the agenda.Even allowing for the natural bias against the Tories in some opinion polls, they are still behind, when to have a chance of overturning Labour's whopping majority, they should really be ahead.Oliver Letwin, one of the men lampooned in the Labour poster, affects bewilderment at what he believes is Labour's loss of its once sure footing on the campaign trail. |
Subsets and Splits