HomeBlogBusinessCrimeEntertainmentHealthIreportLivingOddPoliticsPopularRecentScienceSportsTechTopTravelUkUsVideoWorld
The House counsel argued that federal prosecutors and the FBI repeatedly violated the Constitution's speech or debate clause.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson became the first Hispanic selected by Barack Obama for nomination to his Cabinet Wednesday as ...
CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is weighing whether to ask Congress for the remaining $350 billion of the financial bailout fund, with White House aides approaching President-elect Barack Obama's transition team about the idea, an Obama aide said on Wednesday.
Despite auto plea for $34 billion, Reid cites lack of support from Congress.
Martin hints Met police acted illegally in search of MP's parliamentary office
Late-night talk show ribbing aside, the multigenerational Obamas could help make extended families visible again. The family ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has done too little to fight the spread of weapons of mass destruction, U.S. Vice President-elect Joe Biden said on Wednesday, as he got a congressional report warning of their pressing threat.
Letters: Damian Green was arrested for allegedly conspiring to commit 'misconduct in a public office'
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says he is interested in the seat that Sen. Mel Martinez is vacating.
This week a Cabinet office document was produced, knitting Labour's list of Queen's speech bills into a rubric of "fairness". Brown mentioned variations on the word "fair" in his party conference speech more than 40 times, and there is talk of the next Labour election manifesto also leaning on the "F word". But though Brown might like to copyright all permutations of the word, George Osborne has made a grab for fairness, as has Nick Clegg. The British Attitudes Survey shows more than half of people think "ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation's wealth". (It was 66% in the 80s.) All parties want to be seen to be fair, but which is the fairest of them all is unclear, and space around the Westminster mirror is limited. For Labour, fairness has history: at the time of the 1998 Queen's speech, it was a key part of their agenda. But it goes back further. According to Paul Routledge's biography of Brown, work he did on fairness (assisted by Ed Balls and Ed Miliband) is an intellectual casualty of the 1994 death of John Smith, pictured; it "got lost" in mourning the former leader. No matter. The eventual Fabian pamphlet, Fair Is Efficient, in 1994 made the argument the role of government was not simply to compensate people for poverty, but that it was only fair to tackle poverty at source - equipping people with better skills and reforming the welfare state. Anyone watching Breakfast With Frost that August would have seen a young Brown tell Frost: "Fairness will be the theme, indeed the agenda, of a Tony Blair administration." Government pollsters say fairness is something of a silver bullet. But the two parties fight over its meaning. Conservative ideas of fairness are sometimes cast as "fair dues"; the success of David Davis, son of a single parent raised on a council estate, is cited as its apogee. This is instead of a fair society, a levelling of the playing field. If the Conservatives adhere to the former, then though they pursue fairness, it doesn't come with a policy programme. Fairness is not a word universally cherished within Labour, and one senior centre-left activist sighs if she hears it. She said: "I didn't join the party for things to be 'fair'. I joined to get nearer to utopia. That's why I prefer the word 'aspiration'."Queen's speechEconomic policyWelfareGordon BrownLabourConservativesNick CleggGeorge Osborneguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
A £1m TV and online anti-cocaine advertising campaign featuring "Pablo the drug mule dog" is to be launched by the government today.The campaign advertisements, voiced by comedian David Mitchell, are targeted at 15- to 18-year-olds to make them more aware of the risks and harms of cocaine use.Pablo, a dead dog, wakes up to find he's been used as a drug mule to smuggle cocaine into the country. In an attempt to find out what led to his demise Pablo interviews key players from the world of the drug - the dealer, the user, a bag of cocaine, a heart, a nostril and a bank note. They highlight the addiction, heart attacks, personality changes, fear and violence involved in the process.Sarah Graham, spokeswoman for the government drugs information service Frank said: "No animals were hurt in the creation of this ad - unlike in the cocaine trade. "Some young people may perceive cocaine to be a harmless party drug but they don't realise the destruction it causes. "Users can suffer serious harm to their mental and physical health, while the cocaine supply chain also harms people and the environment."The television and online advertising is a new departure in government drugs education work. Despite the latest British crime survey figures showing overall illicit drug use declining, cocaine use amongst 16- to 24-year-olds continues to remain stable, with about 5% having used the drug in the past year - equivalent to 320,000 teenagers a year.The number of drug-related deaths in which cocaine has been cited on the death certificate as a contributory factor has risen to 196 in 2007 - the highest number since 1993.Drugs and alcoholAdvertisingTelevisionguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
A look at those involved in the controversial arrest over leaked documents of the Tory MP Damian Green
What the implications are for all those who were involved in the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green
BankingAllow the Bank of England to lend to troubled banks on an anonymous basis in the short term in the wake of the collapse of Northern Rock. More coordination between authorities in the regulation of banks, and implement the increase in savers' protection from £35,000 to £50,000.Controversy rating: 3/3Saving gateway accountsUp to 8 million people on benefits or tax credits will get new savings accounts from 2010. Designed to kickstart a saving habit among working-age people on lower incomes. The government will make a 50p contribution for each pound saved, up to a maximum of £12.50 a month. Controversy rating: 1/3Policing and crimeThis will include proposals to criminalise men who pay for sex with trafficked women, a crackdown on lapdancing clubs, and a new mandatory code for the drinks industry giving local authorities the power to ban cutprice "irresponsible" promotions in individual pubs and bars that are linked to disorder. The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, has made clear the bill would include a "strict liability" offence of paying for sex with a trafficked or pimped woman which means that ignorance will be no defence for those accused. The Conservatives have already indicated they are likely to oppose this, making tackling prostitution one of the more unlikely flashpoints in politics over the coming months. Most of the legislation centres on reforms to the police service including the proposal to introduce directly-elected police authorities.The less contentious elements include minimum national standards for neighbourhood policing teams and a new structure for police pay after last year's mass police rally and protest at Westminster. The bill will also include powers to enable police officers to take fingerprints while they are out on the beat and to use technology while on patrol, including handheld computers and other devices to cut down on police paperwork. Changes to the recovery of assets obtained through criminal means and to the procedures for judicial cooperation in extradition cases are likely to raise some civil liberty concerns.Controversy rating: 3/3Coroners and justiceModernises the law on assisted suicide so it explicitly applies online as offline. It reforms the criminal law on homicide by improving the partial defences of provocation and diminished responsibility, complicity in relation to murder, and infanticide. A new sentencing council is intended to enhance consistency in sentencing across England and Wales.Controversy rating: 2/3Borders, immigration and citizenship billThis will end the automatic right to stay in Britain after five years residence and replace it with "earned citizenship".All new migrants are to be required to demonstrate good English ability and a knowledge of life in the UK before becoming citizens. Those who work here legally, pay taxes, get involved in their communities and do not acquire a criminal record will be able to be become citizens within six years of arrival. Those do not do any voluntary work will only qualify after eight years and those who become unemployed will be asked to leave the country. Those who come to Britain because of family links will also be required to leave if their relationships cease. The bill will also deny full access to benefits, including social housing, to those yet to complete a new period of probationary citizenship of between one and five years.It will also contain powers to set up a levy on all new migrants to finance a fund to help local services deal with the short-term pressures of rapid population change triggered by migration.Controversy rating: 3/3Welfare reformThe welfare reform bill marks a big change in the right to claim benefits by insisting that jobseekers, single parents and the disabled take active steps to seek work before being paid benefits. It will abolish income support and move claimants on to either jobseeker's allowance or, if they are sick, employment and support allowance.Benefit offices and private companies in charge of programmes to get people back to work will insist individuals sign a contract promising to go on retraining courses and attend parenting classes. Claimants who fail to cooperate will face reduced benefits. The move has been criticised by charities, trade unions and left-of-centre Labour MPs, suggesting there will be a rebellion when it comes before parliament. But the government is likely to get strong support from the Tories, who want to introduce similar but even tougher reforms.The moves include a crackdown on benefit claimants by the government including lie detector tests and the loss of benefits for a month for those who fiddle the system. The bill brings in joint birth registration to ensure that wherever possible both parents are named on a child's birth certificate. It is designed to ensure that separated parents, mainly absent fathers, pay maintenance for their children after the failure of many parents to properly contribute to the costs of bringing up their children. The government says it will also help give unmarried fathers the right to have a say in their child's life.Controversy rating: 2/3HealthGives the NHS in England its first written constitution, setting out the rights and responsibilities of patients and staff. The bill will allow hospitals to be paid according to the quality of their work, not just quantity. The government promised measures to tackle smoking by young people: the Department of Health said proposals to ban cigarette displays in shops are still under consultation.Controversy rating: 2/3Child povertyThe government's targets of eradicating child poverty by 2020, which the Tories have refused to sign up to, would now be legally binding. Save the Children said yesterday ministers had to make sure the move "isn't an empty gesture".Controversy rating: 2/3Marine and coastal accessMarine conservation zones will protect nationally important habitats and species. Walkers will be given the right to walk around the English coast.Controversy rating: 1/3Children, skills and learning billLocal authorities will be required to consider intervening if a school is underperforming. The bill will transfer funding for 16- to 18-year-olds who are taught in colleges to local authorities, and complete government plans to split the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and create a exams watchdog, Ofqual.Controversy rating: 1/3Equality billConsolidates nine pieces of legislation and almost 100 statutory instruments on equality. Public bodies will be under an obligation to consider diversity issues in developing employment policies and planning services. Abolishes the use of secrecy clauses by public bodies which prevent employees uncovering gender pay gaps by discussing their pay. Permits political parties to use all-women election shortlists until 2030.Controversy rating: 2/3Local democracy, economic development and constructionPlaces a duty on local councils to promote democracy, respond to petitions and strengthen the powers of joint committees to look at a wider range of issues raised by citizens. Regional development authorities and local authorities will produce a single regional strategy.Controversy rating: 1/3Business rates supplementsDesigned to give town halls power to raise and retain local supplements of up to 2p in the pound on the national business rate by 2010 in order to promote economic development. The move was condemned by the Institute of Directors for imposing an additional burden on business during the recession.Controversy rating: 2/3Political parties and elections billCarried over from last session, the bill will strengthen the Electoral Commission, regulate spending by candidates and parties and require more clarity about the source of donations.Controversy rating: 3/3Constitutional renewalThe Queen said the government would "continue to take forward" proposals on constitutional renewal without committing to a bill this session. But ministers indicated a bill would be introduced next year. The measures have been dismissed as a "ragbag of retreats" by some MPs, botching reform of the role of the attorney general. Controversy rating: 2/3Queen's speechUK banking sectorBank of EnglandSavingsPoliceCrimeCriminal justiceImmigration policyWelfareHealthChildrenEconomicsEqualityguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
A constitutional crisis was sparked yesterday when Michael Martin, the Speaker of the House of Commons, all but accused the Metropolitan police of breaking the law by failing to follow proper procedures before searching the parliamentary office of Damian Green MP.Amid growing cross-party criticism of his handling of the affair, the Speaker took the unprecedented step in modern times of censuring the police. In a nine-minute statement he expressed his "regret" at their failure to produce a search warrant - and their failure to explain to the Commons authorities that the officials were entitled to demand such a warrant before allowing the search to take place.There were signs last night that the Speaker's statement had failed to stabilise his position as the government refused to offer him support and the Tories said he was "severely damaged".Asked repeatedly on BBC2's Newsnight whether she had confidence in the Speaker, the Commons leader Harriet Harman said: "Well I'm not saying I've got full confidence in anything or anybody."Harman's intervention capped a dramatic day at Westminster. There were gasps when the Speaker said the police may have breached the law when they searched the parliamentary office of Green after simply persuading Jill Pay, the serjeant at arms, to sign a "consent form". Green, who is suspected by police of encouraging a junior Home Office official to leak a series of embarrassing documents, was arrested last Thursday and detained for nine hours.To cries of protest, Martin told MPs: "I was not told that the police did not have a warrant. I have been told that the police did not explain, as they are required to do, that the serjeant was not obliged to consent or that a warrant could have been insisted on."Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said last night the police had failed to follow proper procedures. "They should convey to the individual that consent can be withheld. It doesn't appear to be the case that they did that," he said.The statement by the Speaker set the scene for noisy parliamentary exchanges and prompted demands for police to be summoned to the Commons to explain their actions. The Speaker responded to these concerns with three commitments: that the police will never be allowed to search the Commons again without a warrant and his personal approval; that a Commons debate would be held on Monday; and that he would appoint a seven-strong committee, composed of senior MPs, to review the police action.Harman said she may push for even tougher restrictions. She told Radio 4 that MPs might be put "on the same footing as judges, which is not just a magistrate's warrant but perhaps a warrant granted only by a high court judge".Her comments came after the Tories attempted to turn the pressure on to Gordon Brown, and Green used the occasion to defend his actions. "An MP endangering national security would be a disgrace," he said. "An MP exposing embarrassing facts about Home Office policy which ministers are hiding is doing a job in the public interest."David Cameron, the Tory leader, offered support. "Parliament is here to call the government to account, to question, to challenge and to publish information that is in the public interest," he said.Boris Johnson, the London mayor, said he had a "hunch" Green would not be charged. Speaking as chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, he admitted speaking to Green after his arrest and said he had yet to be convinced police did not act "disproportionately", adding that he knew the arrest would cause "huge political convulsions".Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, who has faced Tory accusations that she is presiding over a police state, will attempt to wrest control of the agenda today when she makes a statement to MPs on the incident.She will outline a two-pronged approach: an acknowledgment that serious questions were raised by the search, but also attack on the Tories for encouraging an official to leak documents.This approach was outlined by Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, who said the anger of many Tory MPs was a "smokescreen" to hide their party's role in colluding in law-breaking. Mandelson told the Today programme: "The separate and equally important issue is the apparent relationship between the opposition and a Home Office official who, in an attempt to pursue his political ambitions in the Conservative party, allegedly systematically passed sensitive and classified Home Office papers to the Conservative party."Conservative frontbenchers conceded last night that Cameron was "skating on thin ice" in this area after former home secretary John Reid mocked him for endorsing the leaks. "He is announcing in advance that [as prime minister] he will be perfectly happy that any civil servant on their own judgment can release any information and he will support that in terms of publishing that," Reid said.The prime minister made clear Smith would stand by her insistence that it would be wrong to question a police operation. He said: "You cannot pick and choose whether you support the operational independence of the police."MPs believe the Speaker has bought himself some time but he has been damaged by his failure to ask more searching questions and his attempt to blame Pay.Michael MartinDamian GreenConservativesPoliceguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Obituary: Tax lawyer turned politician charged by Thatcher with cutting public spending
Homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages were given a reprieve by Gordon Brown yesterday when he unveiled a plan to let people affected by the economic downturn take a two-year mortgage interest payment holiday.The intervention was aimed at removing the prospect of an increase in home repossessions before a general election and to give people breathing space if they lose their jobs or take a big cut in their income. It is also designed to show that Labour would help middle Britain through the recession.Brown's surprise move came amid reports that without the government's intervention, repossessions were set to increase to 75,000 next year, hitting levels last seen in 1991, the worst year of the previous recession.Eight banks and building societies, covering 70% of the mortgage market, have agreed to allow families struggling with mortgage payments the right to defer all, or part, of their interest payments for two years. The government will underwrite the scheme.Brown's surprise was sprung during the debate on a relatively sparse Queen's speech and followed secret Treasury talks with the building societies and banks. Many details, including the qualification rules, have yet to be finalised but officials denied the institutions had been bounced into a premature agreement to provide Brown with some gloss on a grey Queen's speech, which was almost overshadowed yesterday by the war of words between police and parliament over the raids on Conservative MP Damian Green's office.The prime minister said the scheme would cover any household which suffered a redundancy or "significant loss of income". This would, for the first time, extend help to households where one family member loses their job and the other remains in work.The Treasury plans for the scheme to apply to mortgages up to £400,000, and would probably kick in where the applicants have savings of less than £16,000.The government has estimated that the cost of guaranteeing the delayed mortgage payments would add a £1bn contingent liability to government borrowing, but only cost £100m directly in eventual defaults. Building societies and banks would act as gatekeepers of the scheme, deciding whether the request to defer mortgage payments was justified. No definition of "a significant loss of income" was provided yesterday, but government officials said it might cover someone forced to take a less well-paid job or less in overtime.Treasury officials said the numbers liable for help would not be so large as to damage the mortgage insurance industry. The help was designed to lift the fear of repossession for those facing job insecurity. Those in safe jobs were going to enjoy falling mortgages, officials said.The move comes as the Bank of England is expected to cut its base rate today. The markets expect a cut of one to two percentage points from the current rate of 3%. A cut of 1.5 points would take the rate lower than it has been since the Bank was formed in 1694.Brown told MPs: "Hardworking households that experience a redundancy or severe loss of income as a result of the downturn will be able to defer a proportion of their interest payments for up to two years as they get their family finances back on track."The Council of Mortgage Lenders said: "It is not a charter for 'won't pay' borrowers to avoid their responsibilities, but it will provide welcome reassurance to the vast majority of borrowers that the government and lenders are doing all they can ... to help those customers who 'can't pay' due to a change in circumstances."Brown said the measure was in addition to protection for the unemployed, who can claim help to meet interest payments after 13 weeks.Treasury officials said banks and building societies would not suffer a serious loss of income as a result of the deferment. Brown also confirmed that the code on how banks treat business would be put on a statutory basis. Banks who fell foul of the code could face a range of sanctions, including fines.A total of 14 bills were revealed in the Queen's speech yesterday, including two carried over from the previous parliament. Overall, it represented the shortest legislative programme since the government came to power.The programme takes in a new constitution for the NHS, confirmation of a right to seek flexible working for parents, and wider sanctions on the unemployed to make themselves "job ready". There was also a clamp down on "all you can drink" offers in pubs as well as lapdancing and prostitution in what one government official described as "action on the whole night out". Health department officials denied ministers had dropped plans to ban cigarette machines.But internal disputes led to a delay in the constitutional reform bill, seen in 2007 as Brown's flagship legislation.Queen's speechGordon BrownMortgagesFirst-time buyersHouse pricesConsumer affairsState benefitsEconomic policyCredit crunchBorrowing & debtWelfareHousing marketguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Opposition leaders staged a hostile attack on the Queen's speech, with the Conservative leader David Cameron dismissing the slimmed-down document as "technocratic tinkering" and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg deriding its ideas as of "no use or help to anyone".In response to what could be the last Queen's speech before a general election is called, both leaders pointed out the 14 bills were less than those proposed in the draft legislature programme announced by the prime minister in May and that the government's small clutch of bills was proof of worsening economic times. The Tory leader, claiming there was "no government money left", said: "It's last year's Queen's speech from yesterday's prime minister." Clegg had a slightly different line of attack, criticising the welter of Labour ideas: "The non-stop drumbeat of initiatives from this government has become like legislative Muzak - an irritating hum in the background, of no use or help to anyone," he said.The programme of bills, which may include a constitutional renewal bill should time become available later in the term, will be debated in 128 days of parliamentary time - already held up by critics of the government to be the shortest number of scheduled parliamentary days since 1979. It fuelled speculation that the government was clearing the decks for a general election, something it has denied for the past few months. Instead the government insists that the sparse legislative agenda reflected a streamlining of government priorities to help it better cope with the downturn.Opening the Commons debate on the Queen's speech, Cameron said: "There is no recognition in the government's programme about how the world has changed. We are moving into an age where there is no government money left and so we need public sector reform to get better value for money. We are moving into an age of massive debt so we need to mend the broken society and reduce the demands of the state. But in this Queen's speech there is no serious reform, there's just bureaucratic bungling and technocratic tinkering."He also said that the absence of an insurance scheme for banks - to ensure they got banks lending - meant the central aim of the Queen's speech, to recast it as a "credit crunch" speech - failed by its own analysis. Cameron said that Brown needed to accept "what the whole country now knows" - that his bank recapitalisation was not working.Banks were not lending to small businesses and families and yet the government responded with "endless meetings" with bankers, he said."It's not making any difference. That's why we need in this Queen's speech a government insurance scheme to get the banks lending. That's long-term change not short-term politics."He said everyone now knew taxes would go up under Labour because of the "black hole in the public finances"."You assume the British people are stupid. You assume they won't realise that you'll have to fill the black hole with higher taxes, that they don't notice when you do a tax con budget not a tax cut, that they'll believe it when you say this all comes from America. You think they're stupid."He added: " If you take them for fools, they will never take you for their prime minister."Clegg said the speech was from a "fag end government". He said: "The Queen's speech ran to 650 words. Proposing 14 bills. Yet not one of those bills will help build one extra home. Not one will put a single penny in the pocket of people in need. Not one will lower a single family fuel bill."The Tories did, however, welcome much of the Queen's speech and claimed as their own ideas including an NHS constitution, an independent exam regulator, a savings scheme with matching contributions and more security for ports and airports.Clegg highlighted the government's decision not to bring forward policies that were expected in a constitutional renewal bill, including measures to protect the impartiality of the civil service. He also asked the government why it would not bring protection for whistleblowers who act in the public interest - both measures newly important in the light of the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green and the civil servant Chris Galley.Clegg said: "This isn't just about arcane Westminster belief in parliamentary privilege, a term most people have never heard of and probably care about even less. It's about defending the simple principle that anyone wanting to unearth information about the way this government runs things on our behalf should not live in fear of having the anti-terror police at their door. "This should not be a fight among parliamentarians. It's a fight to protect every citizen's right to tell the truth about our government - no matter who gets embarrassed."Queen's speechEconomic policyWelfareImmigration policyTax and spendingConstitutional reformTransport policyHealth policyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
After the flummery, the flannelling. The Queen, as she read out each leaden line through what sounded like a very tickly cold, gave the impression, even more than in previous years, that she had lost the will to live. The Speaker, by contrast, managed to stay alive another day. Just.The gist of his explanation to the Commons was that the dog had eaten his arrest warrant. He managed to stay just a few feet ahead of the pursuing pack by announcing a debate next week on the Damian Green arrest scandal. There is also to be an inquiry, by seven senior MPs whom he will choose. In other words, the Speaker's behaviour is to be investigated by a committee chosen by the Speaker. That's the way we do things here.It was an extraordinary day. As a flunkey bellowed "Mr Speaker!" every member sprang to his or her feet, for all the world as if he was the Queen. In a high, almost fluting voice he read out a statement, which had been printed up on plastic-coated paper, like the books children read in the bath. The two sides began rival cheering and jeering, like football fans watching the score changing. The affair was a matter of grave concern, said the Speaker, and the Tories went "Yee-arrr!" their way of agreeing. But, he said, parliamentary privilege never meant that any MP was above the law, and it was Labour's turn to cheer. Mr Green sat behind David Cameron, looking fairly miserable."The precincts of the House should not be a haven from the law," he went on, to more Labour cheers and at least one Tory cry of "Shame!"The police had explained the background to the sergeant-at-arms, Jill Pay (soon to be Jill "suspended on full" Pay, if the inquiry goes badly for her) without revealing the name of the member. But they hadn't explained that, since they lacked a search warrant, she had a perfect right to stop them coming in. "That's an outrage!" yelled a Tory, giving a fairly credible imitation of someone being outraged."I regret that consent was signed for by the sergeant-at-arms without consulting the clerk of the House ... I did not authorise the search," Mr Martin went on, neatly dropping an employee into the mire, or in his famous catchphrase, ordure, ordure! Having established his fragrant blamelessness, to his own satisfaction at least, he took points of order. Michael Howard - not the most unifying figure in the House - was outraged (Tory cheers). John Reid said that the independence of the police had to be maintained (Tory mockery). Damian Green thanked the public for writing in his support (Labour groans). Iain Duncan Smith assailed the Speaker for handing over the wording of next week's motion to the government, which was part of the problem. (Labour jeers, and, curiously, screeching).David Cameron devoted a large part of his speech to trying to find out what Gordon Brown's role in, or even his view of the whole affair - which had caused "nine anti-terrorism officers to enter [Mr Green's] home and reduce his family to tears". But the prime minister was far too wily to say anything at all on the matter. He will wait for the inquiry when, he will hope, the whole thing has died down.Over in the Upper House, Her Majesty had to wait for the Commons to attend upon her. Gordon Brown was at the front, and on TV we could see him haranguing David Cameron all the way. Damian Green was close behind, which was surprising, like seeing Captain Dreyfus feted on Bastille Day. "The strength of the financial sector is vital for the future vibrancy of the economy," she intoned. "Proposals to create savings gateway accounts." As she got on to training days, a peer went "Urghhh!", probably a cough suppressed, possibly the sound of someone actually dying of boredom.Gordon BrownMichael MartinHouse of CommonsConservativesLabourguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Angry staff and union officials say decision could 'seriously damage' reputation for independent journalism
The energetic buck-passing which followed the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green reached new depths yesterday after the Speaker, Michael Martin, joined the big buck-pass. At one point some MPs were keen to pin blame on Malcolm Jack's mobile phone instead of the police, Jacqui Smith or Green himself for trading with a serial Whitehall leaker.Dr Jack is clerk and chief executive of the Commons, and thus the brains behind the chair. He almost certainly wrote the Speaker's statement in which his own name did not feature and which ungraciously dumped blame on a subordinate, Jill Pay, new and inexperienced serjeant at arms. It did not say " I take full responsibility ..." When did Jack know the police were intent on raiding an MP's office and carrying off his files, let alone without a warrant? MPs wanted to know. Speaker Martin declined to say, prompting claims (unconfirmed) that Jack's mobile is famously switched off during a recess, one of which began - no coincidence, MPs agree - hours before the raids. Would his robust advice have prevented the unjustified assault on parliament's collective dignity? Possibly. And the Speaker's special committee of seven greybeards will ensure that steps are taken to prevent it happening again. But all the huffing and puffing after the event cannot disguise the fact that it has damaged confidence in parliament, MPs and officials alike. So are ministers damaged, from Gordon Brown and Smith down? Angry about the latest well-placed mole at the Home Office, whose identity (Tory activist and job-seeker Christopher Galley) the Met was asked to trace, they hid behind police "operational independence", ignoring the big civil liberty picture. After all, one of Brown's Whitehall leakers in opposition is now a Labour MP.Until Lord Mandelson let rip on the Today programme yesterday most ministers were too timid to say what they think and denounce Green for systematically "colluding with a Home Office official in breaking the law".So far he remains the injured party, his constituents' confidences the real victims. But both sides live on leaks and know they are on thin ice: one MP's patriotic source is another's thief. The Tories were too quick to play the row for party advantage. And, as John Reid pointed out, their complaints might have carried " a little more weight" if they had protested over dubious dawn raids on Tony Blair's staff last year. So Martin's revelation that the police arrogantly hookwinked Ms Pay into letting them in astonished only non-lawyer MPs. "Where's your search warrant?" is a staple line in TV cop shows and real-life criminal homes. But the Speaker also failed to ask questions or hit the panic button when Pay reported police intentions. Martin will retire soon. But the affair further illustrates a weakening of parliamentary authority in the name of modernisation that despises "men in tights" traditions. In the name of security Labour ministers have given the police the powers and inclination to throw their weight around, thoughtful MPs admit. But they too have sold the pass. Parliament is now safe from terrorism - but not from the police.Damian GreenMichael MartinConservativesPoliceguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The case against the government's plan for two-year mortgage holidays is easy to make. Doesn't the idea fail the "moral hazard" test? It could be interpreted as invitation to splurge your savings on a new car, safe in the knowledge that you won't lose your home if you lose your job. That's not a way to encourage prudent behaviour. And what are government estimates of the scheme's cost based on? The theoretical liability for the taxpayer is put at £1bn but the likely cost is estimated at £100m. That seems to assume that the overwhelming majority of people who lose their jobs will find new ones quickly. That hope could soon look heroic.From the point of view of the banks (half of which are owned in whole or part by us, the taxpayers, don't forget), the scheme could simply exaggerate losses. A homeowner may not be in negative equity at the moment he or she starts a mortgage holiday but, after two years, the arithmetic could be different if house prices continue to decline. If repossession happens anyway after two years, the bank will suffer a loss, increasing the chances that the taxpayer will be sucked into another round of recapitalisation.The instinct to ease the human pain of repossession is honourable. But the devil is in the detail of this scheme. There was little detail yesterday, which is not encouraging.Tied to the railsIt is only two months since Brian Souter said shares in Stagecoach were as close to gilts as one can get in the current economic environment.He's still right in a sense. Running buses and trains remains a cash-generative business - all those cash fares and season tickets mean that Stagecoach still feels confident in talking about 10% annual dividend increases. But a collapse in the share price from 236p in October to 143p is probably not what Souter imagined.The fears revealed yesterday are concentrated in the rail business, about 40% of Stagecoach's revenues, and specifically in the South West Trains franchise based in Waterloo. The equation is simple: fewer City workers means slower revenue growth.Next year's slowdown will also arrive at the worst possible moment for Stagecoach. Instead of this year's £21m subsidy, the firm will pay £42m for the privilege of running the franchise. Worse, an insurance arrangement - whereby the Department for Transport covers 80% of losses if passenger numbers fall off a cliff - doesn't kick in until 2010. Nor will fare increases save the day: most fares are regulated by a retail prices index plus 1% formula, meaning deflation in the economy is a rail operator's worst nightmare.The correlation between gross domestic product and rail travel has been close for decades, so perhaps the City should not have been surprised by Stagecoach's comments. But the frantic pace at which the entire sector is cutting jobs suggests companies are now desperately trying to rework their business models. Given that modern rail franchises run for a decade, the visibility on future earnings is poor. Until it improves, the City's thinking may not be more sophisticated than "buses good, trains bad". Stagecoach compares badly with most of its peers on that measure.From star to dufferSo farewell, John Duffield. Yesterday's debt-for-equity announcement from New Star Asset Management didn't say the founder and chairman would be bowing out, but his departure is surely only a matter of time.New Star is to be taken over by its banks and it is hard to see how Duffield could be described as a "key employee" who must be given an incentive to stay. He no longer manages money directly and his reputation for finding talented stock-pickers has been undermined by the turnover in chief investment officers at New Star. More importantly, Duffield will be linked forever with the disastrous £363m return of cash to shareholders, which imposed an intolerable debt on New Star. A clean break would be best for all parties.It is a sad end to a great City career. Sad, too, that Duffield could not admit that last year's refinancing was a mistake. "The cost of this restructuring is regrettably a substantial dilution for ordinary shareholders, including me," he said.That's true but, come on, John, the pain of your dilution is softened by the £150m you took out of New Star in the good days. And there was really no need to load a volatile fund management business with a level of debt that would not have embarrassed a water utility. The word you are searching for is not regrettable, it is avoidable.nils.pratley@guardian.co.ukMortgagesBorrowing & debtEconomic policyCredit crunchguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Tottenham Hotspur were the league champions. A little known actress called Audrey Hepburn was in the Broadway production of Gigi. More than six years after the end of the second world war, some goods were still rationed, while the first pop music chart was still a year away. This was Britain in November 1951, when the newly elected Conservative government under Winston Churchill raised interest rates from 2% to 2.5%.The move ended the cheap money policy followed by Labour, Tory and coalition governments during peace and war for the previous 19 years, and when official borrowing costs peaked at 17% in the high inflation days of the 1970s, few in the Square Mile would have bet on rates ever going so low again. That was true as recently as this summer, when oil prices were nudging $150 a barrel and the Bank of England was fretting about an inflationary spiral. Many analysts believed the MPC would wait until early 2009 before cutting rates from 5%. Some supported Tim Besley, one of the external members of the MPC, when he voted in August for a quarter-point rate rise. But the past three months have led to a complete change of mood. With the economy in apparent free-fall and financial markets still paralysed by the credit crunch, cheap money is back. Policy is no longer driven by the need to tackle inflation; interest rates are being slashed to avoid deflation and a 1930s-style slump.So, after a 57-year gap, the City expects the monetary policy committee to cut the bank rate from 3% to 2%. Dire news this week from manufacturing, construction and the services sector means it would come as little surprise should the Bank decide to repeat last month's 1.5 point reduction. That would be uncharted water for Threadneedle Street, which has never set rates below 2% in its 314-year history, and for those in dealing rooms today, since few of them can remember the last recession, let alone the world as it was when Clement Attlee led the Labour party and Alec Guinness starred in The Lavender Hill Mob.Andrew Smith, chief economist at the consultants KPMG, said: "Another substantial rate cut is likely. The minutes of the last MPC meeting showed a full two percentage point reduction was considered necessary to meet the inflation target, but only 1.5% was delivered. So a half-point cut is the least we can expect this time. "Desperate times call for desperate measures. The economic outlook is so dire that a larger move would not come as that much of a surprise. It is looking increasingly likely that interest rates are heading towards 0%, and sooner rather than later."EconomicsEconomic policyPolitics pastCurrenciesInterest ratesBank of EnglandInflationguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Imprisoned former WorldCom chief Bernard Ebbers has joined the list of high-profile corporate defendants petitioning for clemency ...
MIAMI (Reuters) - Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the younger brother of President George W. Bush, is considering running in 2010 for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by fellow Republican Mel Martinez, an aide said on Wednesday.