RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook
Blog > Archive by tag 'David Cameron'

Posts Tagged ‘David Cameron’

PM defends Afghanistan policy

July 13th, 2009 | No Comments

Prime minister says helicopter capacity has doubled over last two years, but David Cameron disputes this

Gordon Brown today delivered a robust defence of government policy in Afghanistan amid signs that the cross-party consensus on the issue is starting to break down.

In a statement to the Commons, the prime minister said that helicopter capacity in Afghanistan had almost doubled over the last two years and that commanders on the ground were satisfied that they had the manpower they needed.

But David Cameron, the Tory leader, said that in reality there had been “no increase in helicopter capacity at all” because the number of troops in Afghanistan who needed them had doubled since 2006.

Ministers have faced a barrage of complaints following the death of eight soldiers within 24 hours at the end of last week, which took the death toll in Afghanistan above the total for the number of British soldiers killed in the Iraq war.

The Tories and the Liberal Democrats support the Afghan mission, but they have been increasingly critical of the way it is being conducted.

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, told MPs that they should “try to make the maximum contribution to maintaining cross-party support” for what the troops were doing. But, during defence questions, several Labour MPs criticised the Tories for supposedly playing politics with the issue.

In his statement, Brown said that in the last two years the government had increased helicopter numbers by 60% and, taking into account the provision of extra crews and equipment, helicopter capacity had increased by 84%.

On troop levels, he said: “I have been assured by commanders on the ground and at the top of our armed services that we have the manpower we need for current operations.”

He said that three quarters of terrorist plots against the UK originated from the area around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that the case for intervention in Afghanistan now was the same as it was in 2001: “to prevent terrorist attacks here in Britain and across the world”.

He also said that he had been assured that Operation Panther’s Claw, the ongoing operation in Helmand, was having “a major impact on the Taliban” and the morale of British forces was “high”.

But, replying to the prime minister, Cameron said that “more needs to be done to set out and explain” British policy in Afghanistan. He also pointed out that, when Brown was chancellor in 2004, the Ministry of Defence’s helicopter budget had been cut by £1.4bn.

Earlier today, at the launch of a Tory policy document, Cameron described the lack of suitable helicopters in southern Afghanistan as “an extreme emergency”.

Cameron said: “The government made a historic mistake with a cutback of the helicopter programme, and they did it at a time when our troops were engaged both in Iraq and Afghanistan … In these conflicts, mobility is absolutely key.

“You have got to commit the resources so that they can do the job properly. The other thing we should do is [make] much more effort to go to every single Nato country and really hold their feet to the fire about why their helicopters are not there.

“If you do a desktop search on how many helicopters and troop-carrying helicopters different Nato countries have, you come up with a very significant number. When you see what’s actually in Afghanistan, it is a much less significant number.”

Cameron said that many of those helicopters would be “being repaired, being mended, deployed elsewhere, but I would like to see a real effort by the government to get around every single Nato capital and put a maximum amount of pressure on to beg, borrow or, frankly, steal those helicopters that are necessary for our troops in Afghanistan”.

Earlier today, Ainsworth accompanied Gordon Brown on a visit to the RAF Benson helicopter base, in Oxfordshire.

They met the chief of staff, personnel and families and were briefed on the timeline for the planned deployment of Merlin helicopters in Afghanistan at the end of the year.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron: helicopter deficit is scandal

July 13th, 2009 | No Comments

Conservative leader’s comments come as poll reveals backing for British involvement in war has grown

David Cameron today said it was a “scandal” that the British army did not have enough helicopters to transport troops around Afghanistan.

Speaking as a new poll suggested that the growing British casualty rate had not increased public hostility to the conflict, the Conservative leader said the government should deal with the helicopter problem “as a matter of urgency”.

Cameron will have the chance to challenge Gordon Brown on the issue when the prime minister makes a statement to the Commons, which will cover the latest deaths in Afghanistan, later today.

In a speech on international aid today, the Tory leader said the government should supply British troops with more equipment.

“Of course we must do that – it is a scandal in particular that they still lack enough helicopters to move around in Afghanistan,” he added.

“The government must deal with that issue as a matter of extreme urgency.”

Research carried out as news broke of the deaths of eight soldiers in 24 hours – taking the British death toll in Afghanistan to more than that in Iraq – revealed support for the war remained firm and backing for British involvement had grown.

The poll of 1,000 showed that people appear reluctant to turn against a conflict while soldiers are fighting and dying on the front line, and the increasingly high-profile nature of the war appears to have strengthened public backing.

Opposition to the war, at 47%, is just ahead of support, at 46%, according to the ICM poll for the Guardian and the BBC’s Newsnight.

Backing for Britain’s role in the conflict has grown since the last time an ICM poll was conducted on the subject in 2006.

It is up 15 points from 31%, while opposition has fallen over the same period by six points from 53%.

The poll also showed that 42% are in favour of the immediate withdrawal of British troops, and a further 14% want them home by the end of the year. These figures are almost identical to the results in 2006.

A further 36% want troops to stay as long as they are needed – again a similar proportion to 2006, when British casualties were lower.

The findings came as ministers drew up plans to devote more troops and resources to Afghanistan after dismissing repeated requests from defence chiefs for reinforcements.

The shift in approach follows the rising death toll, outspoken criticism from opposition politicians and the prospect of a long period of intense fighting against the Taliban.

Gordon Brown will today confirm that the number of British troops is increasing to 9,000 from a base of 8,300.

One favoured option, which has not been agreed, is for the number of troops to be kept at 9,000 after the next general election.

Today, Miliband told GMTV the government’s strategy in Afghanistan was clear.

“This is a mission that’s been developed with a very clear strategy: above all, to make us safer here because we know these areas of Afghanistan and its neighbour Pakistan are used to launch terrorism around the world,” he said. “So the mission for us is clear.”

Miliband admitted there had been a “terrible casualty toll” and paid tribute to those who were killed, but added that more helicopters alone were not the answer.

John Maples, the Tory deputy chairman, yesterday told the Guardian: “Increasingly, people are starting to ask whether this war is winnable and whether our military objectives are sensible given the number of troops and the amount of equipment we are prepared to commit.”

Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader who almost became the UN special representative in Afghanistan last year, was scathing about British and US conduct.

“The army were persuaded, for political reasons, to follow a Beau Geste strategy – putting our people out in forward forts largely because the politicians were persuaded by [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai that this was where his supporters and family lived,” he said.

“It led to a military error of major proportions. The army’s job in a war is to find and kill the enemy.”

After previously blocking requests by the chiefs of staff for 2,000 more troops to be deployed in southern Afghanistan, Brown has said in a letter to senior Commons committee chairmen: “We will of course continue to review our force levels based on the advice of commanders and discussions with our allies.”

The Treasury has previously blocked the defence chiefs’ request on the grounds of cost.

However, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, said over the weekend: “If [British troops] need equipment, whatever it is, to support them in the frontline then of course the government, through the Treasury, is ready to help.”

He told the BBC: “You can’t send troops into the frontline and not be prepared to see it through in terms of the … resources they need.”

Significantly, given the government’s past decisions to cap resources for Afghanistan, Darling added: “You’ve got to listen to what the chiefs of staff tell us.”

Commanders on the ground have made no secret of the fact that they want more helicopters and more British troops.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, was yesterday reported to have told a private dinner of MPs that too few troops and helicopters were available.

In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service on Saturday, Brown paid tribute to the “sacrifice” of the 15 troops who have died since the start of the month in the bloodiest fighting Britain has seen in the Afghan campaign.

“I know that this has been a difficult summer – it is going to be a difficult summer,” he said.

The prime minister said he had been assured, in a lengthy briefing by commanders, that Operation Panther’s Claw to drive the Taliban from central Helmand province was making “considerable progress”.

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, said troops were “attacking the Taliban in one of their heartland areas”.

“The reason they are standing and fighting is they know that what we are doing potentially hurts them seriously and strategically,” he said.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

A gift for the libel tourists

July 13th, 2009 | No Comments

Britain’s libel laws are killing investigative journalism. But the News of the World scandal makes reform even more unlikely

Why is it that grubby journalists have to sully the reputation of the good? The furore surrounding the News of the World and its use of private detectives to delve into the mobile phones and other records of public figures could not have come at a worse time for journalism.

I say this not to defend the practitioners – I am not one to defend the status quo. This profession needs far greater accountability, on issues such as conflicts of interest, and a strong and formal code of conduct to guide the working practices of reporters and editors.

But the consequences of this scandal are far more important than the future of a tabloid newspaper and a spin doctor. It is intriguing to watch the Labour party attack Andy Coulson, not for his former role as one of Rupert Murdoch’s chosen sons, but for his present role as David Cameron’s director of communications. This government, and the next Tory government, will stop at nothing to appease Murdoch and his business interests. Both parties have form on this.

The problem with British journalism is that it shouts a great deal, throws many bricks, but uncovers precious little. Investigative journalism is a declining art. Much of that is due to economics. It costs a considerable amount to deploy a team to unearth information about, say, a dodgy arms deal or collusion in torture. Sometimes months of probing leads to nothing, and with newspapers in their current parlous position, editors are under pressure to account for every penny.

But the main impediment comes from Britain’s horrific libel laws. Britain has become the libel capital of the world, home of what has come to be known as “libel tourism“, the destination of choice for Russian oligarchs and others to prosecute not just journalists, but book authors, even NGOs. The chilling effect is hard to quantify, because beyond the prosecutions lies the self-censorship that is affecting so much journalism. The new mantra, from the BBC to most newspapers, even to some bloggers, is: “Why cause trouble?”

The Commons select committee on culture, media and sport is due in a few weeks to publish its report on “press standards, privacy and libel” – note the order. They will be tempted to use the latest scandal to do the opposite of what they should. Instead of loosening libel, they are likely to harden rules on privacy.

At Index on Censorship, in conjunction with English PEN, we have been conducting our own inquiry into libel. We have spoken to editors, lawyers, publishers, bloggers and NGOs in a unified campaign for changes in the libel law. The main areas we are looking at are costs (which have spiralled out of all proportion), areas of jurisdiction and balance of proof.

When Tony Blair, in his dying days as prime minister, derided journalists as “feral beasts”, my response was to laugh. I remember a conversation a few years earlier with a friend, a former political journalist who had made the familiar journey to government service, becoming a senior information officer. He told me that, no matter what a headline might scream, he had been shocked to find out how little journalists ever found out.

On a good day, he said, the public might learn around 1% of what was going on. And now, thanks to the News of the World and others, in their pursuit of salacious gossip about celebrity, we are in danger of finding out even less.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

A gift for the libel tourists

July 13th, 2009 | No Comments

Britain’s libel laws are killing investigative journalism. But the News of the World scandal makes reform even more unlikely

Why is it that grubby journalists have to sully the reputation of the good? The furore surrounding the News of the World and its use of private detectives to delve into the mobile phones and other records of public figures could not have come at a worse time for journalism.

I say this not to defend the practitioners – I am not one to defend the status quo. This profession needs far greater accountability, on issues such as conflicts of interest, and a strong and formal code of conduct to guide the working practices of reporters and editors.

But the consequences of this scandal are far more important than the future of a tabloid newspaper and a spin doctor. It is intriguing to watch the Labour party attack Andy Coulson, not for his former role as one of Rupert Murdoch’s chosen sons, but for his present role as David Cameron’s director of communications. This government, and the next Tory government, will stop at nothing to appease Murdoch and his business interests. Both parties have form on this.

The problem with British journalism is that it shouts a great deal, throws many bricks, but uncovers precious little. Investigative journalism is a declining art. Much of that is due to economics. It costs a considerable amount to deploy a team to unearth information about, say, a dodgy arms deal or collusion in torture. Sometimes months of probing leads to nothing, and with newspapers in their current parlous position, editors are under pressure to account for every penny.

But the main impediment comes from Britain’s horrific libel laws. Britain has become the libel capital of the world, home of what has come to be known as “libel tourism“, the destination of choice for Russian oligarchs and others to prosecute not just journalists, but book authors, even NGOs. The chilling effect is hard to quantify, because beyond the prosecutions lies the self-censorship that is affecting so much journalism. The new mantra, from the BBC to most newspapers, even to some bloggers, is: “Why cause trouble?”

The Commons select committee on culture, media and sport is due in a few weeks to publish its report on “press standards, privacy and libel” – note the order. They will be tempted to use the latest scandal to do the opposite of what they should. Instead of loosening libel, they are likely to harden rules on privacy.

At Index on Censorship, in conjunction with English PEN, we have been conducting our own inquiry into libel. We have spoken to editors, lawyers, publishers, bloggers and NGOs in a unified campaign for changes in the libel law. The main areas we are looking at are costs (which have spiralled out of all proportion), areas of jurisdiction and balance of proof.

When Tony Blair, in his dying days as prime minister, derided journalists as “feral beasts”, my response was to laugh. I remember a conversation a few years earlier with a friend, a former political journalist who had made the familiar journey to government service, becoming a senior information officer. He told me that, no matter what a headline might scream, he had been shocked to find out how little journalists ever found out.

On a good day, he said, the public might learn around 1% of what was going on. And now, thanks to the News of the World and others, in their pursuit of salacious gossip about celebrity, we are in danger of finding out even less.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

A gift for the libel tourists

July 13th, 2009 | No Comments

Britain’s libel laws are killing investigative journalism. But the News of the World scandal makes reform even more unlikely

Why is it that grubby journalists have to sully the reputation of the good? The furore surrounding the News of the World and its use of private detectives to delve into the mobile phones and other records of public figures could not have come at a worse time for journalism.

I say this not to defend the practitioners – I am not one to defend the status quo. This profession needs far greater accountability, on issues such as conflicts of interest, and a strong and formal code of conduct to guide the working practices of reporters and editors.

But the consequences of this scandal are far more important than the future of a tabloid newspaper and a spin doctor. It is intriguing to watch the Labour party attack Andy Coulson, not for his former role as one of Rupert Murdoch’s chosen sons, but for his present role as David Cameron’s director of communications. This government, and the next Tory government, will stop at nothing to appease Murdoch and his business interests. Both parties have form on this.

The problem with British journalism is that it shouts a great deal, throws many bricks, but uncovers precious little. Investigative journalism is a declining art. Much of that is due to economics. It costs a considerable amount to deploy a team to unearth information about, say, a dodgy arms deal or collusion in torture. Sometimes months of probing leads to nothing, and with newspapers in their current parlous position, editors are under pressure to account for every penny.

But the main impediment comes from Britain’s horrific libel laws. Britain has become the libel capital of the world, home of what has come to be known as “libel tourism“, the destination of choice for Russian oligarchs and others to prosecute not just journalists, but book authors, even NGOs. The chilling effect is hard to quantify, because beyond the prosecutions lies the self-censorship that is affecting so much journalism. The new mantra, from the BBC to most newspapers, even to some bloggers, is: “Why cause trouble?”

The Commons select committee on culture, media and sport is due in a few weeks to publish its report on “press standards, privacy and libel” – note the order. They will be tempted to use the latest scandal to do the opposite of what they should. Instead of loosening libel, they are likely to harden rules on privacy.

At Index on Censorship, in conjunction with English PEN, we have been conducting our own inquiry into libel. We have spoken to editors, lawyers, publishers, bloggers and NGOs in a unified campaign for changes in the libel law. The main areas we are looking at are costs (which have spiralled out of all proportion), areas of jurisdiction and balance of proof.

When Tony Blair, in his dying days as prime minister, derided journalists as “feral beasts”, my response was to laugh. I remember a conversation a few years earlier with a friend, a former political journalist who had made the familiar journey to government service, becoming a senior information officer. He told me that, no matter what a headline might scream, he had been shocked to find out how little journalists ever found out.

On a good day, he said, the public might learn around 1% of what was going on. And now, thanks to the News of the World and others, in their pursuit of salacious gossip about celebrity, we are in danger of finding out even less.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Authors revolt against school checks

July 10th, 2009 | No Comments

Philip Pullman condemns ‘outrageous, demeaning’ scheme, and says it will stop him going into schools

Philip Pullman has led a chorus of protest from prominent children’s authors over a new scheme that will require them to be vetted before they can visit schools. He called the plans “outrageous, demeaning and insulting” and said he wouldn’t be appearing in schools again because of it.

Set up in response to the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells by school caretaker Ian Huntley in 2002, the Independent Safeguarding Authority will vet all individuals who work with children from October this year, requiring them to register with a national database for a fee of £64. Pullman compared the scheme to the notorious piece of legislation section 28, which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools and for which David Cameron offered a public apology last week.

“It seems to be fuelled by the same combination of prurience, sexual fear and cold political calculation,” the author of the bestselling His Dark Materials trilogy said today. “When you go into a school as an author or an illustrator you talk to a class at a time or else to the whole school. How on earth – how on earth – how in the world is anybody going to rape or assault a child in those circumstances? It’s preposterous.”

The Carnegie medal-winning author and screenwriter Frank Cottrell Boyce agreed with Pullman. “As an author you’re never alone with a class,” he said. “There’s no possible reason for this, unless it’s a revenue-raising scam.”

Both Pullman and former children’s laureate Anne Fine said the legislation would mean that they would not speak in a school again. “I refuse – having spoken in schools without incident for 32 years, I refuse to undergo such a demeaning process,” said Fine. “It’s all part of a very unhealthy situation that we’ve got ourselves into where all people who are close to children are almost seen as potential paedophiles.”

“If someone says we won’t have you in our school, of course I’m not going to,” agreed Pullman. “It’d be a great shame for me but I’m not going to under these circumstances. I went into a primary school in Oxford earlier this year and thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s a very enjoyable thing I can do occasionally – I don’t have to do it very often because fortunately I can earn enough from my writing. But other authors depend on the income it brings in. For them the crowning insult is to have to pay to clear their name from something they haven’t done.” He believes the legislation will also have a longer-term effect. “It damages in a much deeper way the trust and social cohesion we ought to be able to rely on,” he said. “You ought to be able to trust people, so to say to a child that you’re having someone to talk to you but don’t worry, we’ve checked him out and he’s not a paedophile, implies that everybody who isn’t checked is.”

Children’s author Adele Geras called the scheme “lunatic”. “They ought to be able to refine this legislation to make exceptions for people who see huge groups together,” she said. “One is never alone with a single child – one is never alone with a vast number of children. The smallest number would be 32, and there are always two to three teachers.”

But Geras said she would be prepared to register and pay the £64 in order to continue speaking in schools. “I would love to take a principled stand but I enjoy doing it,” she said. “And there are an awful lot of people who’ll feel more strongly that I do who can’t afford to take a principled stand because school visits will be the bread and butter of their work.” She suggested that the money being spent on establishing the scheme should instead be used to buy some more books for schools.

A statement from the Home Office confirmed that the ISA scheme would apply to authors visiting schools, but made no comment on the authors’ concerns.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Politics Weekly: phone hacking

July 10th, 2009 | No Comments

The morning we meet for Politics Weekly, the Guardian had just broken news that another paper, the News of the World, may have hacked into the phones of thousands of public figures, paying off one victim, with a cool £700,000… Observer columnist Henry Porter tells us what it means.

We cover the pressing political angle: the editor of the paper until 2007 – Andy Coulson – is the current press adviser to Cameron and as things go, could be spinning from number 10 within the year. Henry knows Coulson and – after vouching for Coulson’s likeability – thinks that whether he knew about or not his position may be untenable. Porter’s co-columnist from the Obs has a different point. For Nick Cohen, the story sets back the campaign for freedom speech being waged against overly powerful libel laws.

Then we cover attempts to reform two almighty institutions – the boys in blue and peers with blue blood (translation of florid description: the police and the Lords).

In the wake of another report into police responsibility for the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, Porter believes the lack of transparency surrounding how the police made their decision makes the case for elected police officials even more pressing. Cohen questions how much the mayor of London Boris Johnson knew – after all the mayor sits on the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Then to reform of the House of Lords. They’ve spent 13 years promising it and next week we will finally get their last attempt at it – a bill will be published that will, at the very least, abolish the principle of hereditary peers. But is that enough? And even if the government were to propose further reforms, do they have the political time, capital and chutzpah to get any more fundamental reforms through? Michael White marvels at the Lords energy and commitment and thinks they will survive. But aroud the table, the answer all round has only two letters.

And as the death toll continues to rise in Afghanistan, we ask is there a a plan? Nick thinks they are fighting a just war, but wonders if Afghanistan can afford its level of commitment. Henry Porter thinks the problem is that there is no clear strategy.

Tuck in.


Read More »

Tory top brass stand by their man

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

David Cameron and George Osborne threw a protective arm around Andy Coulson today as the Tory high command insisted that their communications director would not be forced to stand down.

Amid unease among some backbenchers at the party’s determination to stand by Coulson, Cameron, the Tory leader and Osborne, shadow chancellor, praised Coulson for “upright” conduct in his work for the party.

The leadership decided on Wednesday, soon after the story broke on guardian.co.uk, that they would protect Coulson, a key member of the Cameron and Osborne inner circle.

A message was sent out that there was “no question” of removing Coulson after he reiterated an undertaking he had given in the lengthy negotiations which preceded his appointment as communications chief in 2007. Coulson made clear once again that he knew nothing of the phone hacking at the News of the World but had resigned as editor because he took ultimate, but not personal, responsibility.

“There was extensive due diligence done into Andy before he was appointed,” one senior party figure said. “It became clear that he had paid a price by standing down as editor. That is the line we are sticking to.”

A bullish Tory leadership intensified its defence of Coulson today by sanctioning an aggressive attack on the Guardian and the Labour party after the Metropolitan police said they would be taking no action over the phone hacking.

Tory sources were so sure of Coulson’s position that they issued a point-by-point rebuttal of the Guardian’s claims. They said the Guardian had uncovered nothing new, apart from the payment to Taylor.

“Little is new,” a source said of the Guardian reports. “Much of its claims have already been considered by the Metropolitan police, the information commissioner and the high court.”

The Tory leadership decided to rally round Coulson for three broad reasons:

• Cameron believes Coulson is an invaluable asset, who has played a key role in sharpening the Tories’ act in the last two years.

• Losing such a senior figure would raise questions about Cameron’s judgment.

• A determination not to allow Labour – which was severely damaged by the resignation of Damian McBride, an adviser to Gordon Brown – to exploit the new allegations to damage the Tories.

Cameron agreed to step up the Tory operation to protect Coulson after finding himself in the rare position this morning of having to answer hostile questions on his doorstep. The Tory leader, who has enjoyed a relatively easy ride in the media over the last two years, criticised the News of the World for invading people’s privacy and said it was right that Coulson had taken ultimate – but not personal – responsibility by resigning as editor. “Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job,” Cameron said. “But I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives, he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times.”

Osborne spoke in almost identical terms. “Andy Coulson has conducted his job in a totally upright and proper manner and will continue to do so,” he said.

While the leadership is determined to protect Coulson, there is unease in the party on two levels.

• Some MPs fear that the continuing revelations about the News of the World’s tactics could mean that Coulson will break a famous rule established by Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s director of communications. This states that a press officer is finished the moment they become the story. One senior Tory said: “This is a breathtaking story. What the hell has happened? Andy Coulson seems to have a very narrow definition of what he did and did not know. I can’t imagine as editor he did not know what was happening.”

• Some backbenchers said the decision to stand by Coulson highlighted a pattern of behaviour by Cameron: that he protects members of his inner circle while doing little to support other Conservatives. There was particular anger at Cameron’s claim that he believed in giving people a second chance, something he did not show to veteran Tory MPs who were ordered to stand down by the leadership when embarrassing details of their expenses were published.

“There does seem to be one rule for the golden circle and another for everyone else,” a senior MP said. “Sir Peter Viggers [MP for Gosport] made a silly claim for a duck island which was actually refused. But he was told as soon as the story appeared that he would have to stand down as an MP. Is that fair?”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

CPS to ‘urgently review’ News of the World case

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

• Metropolitan Police rules out new investigation
• News International: ‘Confidentiality obligations’ prevent comment on ‘certain’ Guardian allegations
• Andy Coulson may face Commons culture select committee
• David Cameron defends his communications chief
• Gordon Brown: ‘This raises serious questions’

The Crown Prosecution Service today said it would undertake an urgent review of evidence in the News of the World phone hacking case, after the Metropolitan Police revealed it did not plan a further investigation of the allegations.

However, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, now the Tory communications chief, could be grilled by MPs for a Commons inquiry into the affair.

Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said he had ordered an “urgent examination” of material provided by the police in the News of the World case three years ago. He added that the process will take time but he hopes to make a further statement in coming days.

“I have no reason to consider that there was anything inappropriate in the prosecutions that were undertaken in this case,” Starmer added.

“In the light of the fresh allegations that have been made, some preliminary inquiries have been undertaken and I have now ordered an urgent examination of the material that was supplied to the CPS by the police three years ago.

“I am taking this action to satisfy myself and assure the public that the appropriate actions were taken in relation to that material.”

John Yates, the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner, said that no further evidence had come to light since Scotland Yard’s original investigation, which led to the News of the World’s royal editor, Clive Goodman, and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, being jailed for four and six months respectively in January 2007 after they were found guilty of hacking into the mobile phones of royal household staff. Coulson also resigned after Goodman was jailed in January 2007.

Speaking outside Scotland Yard in central London, Yates said he was not involved in the original Mulcaire and Goodman investigation and had reviewed the facts of the case with “an independent mind”.

He added that Mulcaire and Goodman targeted potentially “hundreds” of people, but the pair “used the tactic [of phone-hacking] against a … small group of individuals”. He said all those individuals were notified that their phones had been targeted. “Where there was tapping they were contacted by police,” Yates said.

“In the vast majority of cases [the Met originally looked into] there was insufficient evidence to show that tapping had actually been achieved. No additional evidence has come to light since this [case] was concluded … no further investigation is required.”

Yates added that the original investigation had “not uncovered any evidence that John Prescott’s phoneline had been tapped”.

John Whittingdale MP, the Conservative chair of the Commons culture select committee, said today it was “highly likely” to call Coulson to give evidence as part of an investigation into how journalists at the paper obtained information and whether executives knew about the methods they employed.

The investigation has been prompted by the Guardian’s revelations that News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that publishes the Sunday tabloid, has paid a total of £1m in out-of-court settlements to three people whose mobile phones were hacked into. They included Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, who received £700,000.

That has prompted a political storm today, with Home Office minister David Hanson forced to take emergency questions from angry MPs on the matter during a hastily-convened session at the House of Commons this morning.

News of the World parent company News International today broke its silence on the phone-hacking affair, but did not deny any of the Guardian’s allegations.

The company said its journalists fully complied with relevant legislation and codes of conduct since February 2007, after the Goodman case and Coulson’s resignation, but that it was legally bound to not discuss some of the Guardian’s allegations.

“News International is prevented by confidentiality obligations from discussing certain allegations made in the Guardian newspaper today,” the company said.

“Since February 2007, News International has continued to work with its journalists and its industry partners to ensure that its journalists fully comply with both the relevant legislation and the rigorous requirements of the PCC’s Code of Conduct. At the same time, we will not shirk from vigorously defending our right and proper role to expose wrongdoing in the public interest.”

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has also mentioned the row about phone-hacking today at a press conference in L’Aquila, Italy, where he is attending the G8 summit.

“I am not aware of the details of what is being talked about, other than that there is an issue on this in London,” Brown said. “I think this raises questions that are serious and will obviously have to be considered, but I understand that the police are looking at a statement later today and I do not think I should say any more than that.”

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is facing calls for Coulson to quit as his director of communications. This morning Cameron was forced to defend the former News of the World editor, telling reporters outside his home in London: “It’s wrong for newspapers to breach people’s privacy with no justification. That is why Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World two and a half years ago.

“Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job. But I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times.”

Some of the most powerful figures in Rurpert Murdoch’s News Corporation media empire will also be asked to give evidence by MPs on the culture select committee when they begin their phone-hacking investigation next Tuesday.

They include Rebekah Wade, the outgoing Sun editor who has been promoted to News International chief executive; Stuart Kuttner, the News of the World’s outgoing managing editor; Colin Myler, the current News of the World editor; and Les Hinton, the former chairman of News International.

Whittingdale also said that Nick Davies, the Guardian journalist who broke the story, will be asked to appear at the hearing about the controversy. Coulson will be asked to give evidence after that hearing has taken place.

The select committee quizzed Hinton, who ran Rupert Murdoch’s stable of British newspapers until the end of 2007, about phone hacking at the News of the World during an inquiry earlier that year into self-regulation of the press.

That was prompted, in part, by the arrest of former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman in August 2006 on charges of obtaining information illegally. Goodman was jailed in January 2007, prompting Coulson’s resignation.

Two months later, Hinton told MPs on the culture select committee: “I believe that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on.”

Hinton is now based in New York as chief executive of Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones, part of Murdoch’s News Corporation.

The Press Complaints Commission has today said it may reopen its 2007 investigation into phone hacking by newspaper journalists. The PCC also said it would investigate any new allegations about potentially illegal activity “without delay”.

Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw has said the affair raises questions for the Tory leader. “David Cameron, the police and the Press Complaints Commission all have questions to answer in relation to today’s Guardian revelations,” he said in a message posted on Twitter this morning.

The Guardian revealed yesterday that Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers, the News of the World’s parent company, has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists’ repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.

Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, received a £700,000 payment from News Group.

The methods used by the News of the World came to light after Goodman was jailed. Coulson was editing the paper at the time and resigned when Goodman was jailed.

News International executives, including Coulson, said they did not know about Goodman’s actions and that he was acting alone.

Former home secretary Charles Clarke told Radio 4′s Today Programme this morning: “I think it is outrageous. I think we do need action immediately.

“News International has to publish the full list of those that they have bugged. I think that David Cameron has to sack Andy Coulson because his denial is very narrow in the extreme. I think David Cameron himself has to be much clearer about the situation.”

Former cabinet minister Geoff Hoon said: “It is hard to see how in these circumstances Andy Coulson can continue as David Cameron’s communications chief while such a cloud hangs over his reputation. David Cameron must make clear what action he intends to take on this matter.”

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said: “At the very least Andy Coulson was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and at worst he was personally implicated.”

Clarke also told the BBC the police should be asked why they failed to take action after learning about the extent of the phone hacking and the number of people targeted by News of the World journalists.

They included Taylor, former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, celebrity PR Max Clifford, model Elle MacPherson and football agent Sky Andrew. News Group denied all knowledge of the hacking, but Taylor last year sued them on the basis that they must have known about it.

“I think that the home secretary should be asking the chief inspector of constabulary for a full report about the police behaviour in this whole incident,” Clarke said.

Former deputy prime minister John Prescott, one of the alleged targets of the hacking, also said he wanted answers from the police. “I find it staggering that there could be a list known to the police of people who had their phone tapped.

“I’m named as one of them. For such a criminal act not to be reported to me, and for action not to be taken against the people who have done it, reflects very badly on the police, and I want to know their answer.”

Prescott also called on Cameron to dismiss Coulson.

Coulson said yesterday: “This story relates to an alleged payment made after I left the News of the World two and half years ago. I took full responsibility at the time for what happened on my watch but without my knowledge and resigned.”

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture committee, said he wanted to summon newspaper editors to answer “serious” questions about the allegations.

“There are a number of questions I would like to put to News International on the basis of what the Guardian has reported,” he said.

His committee would examine the issue “as a matter of urgency” at a scheduled meeting later today, he said. “It may well be that we decide we wish to have somebody from News International to appear before us.”

He said he had seen no “direct evidence” that assurances previously given to the committee by the publisher on the matter had been untrue.

But Whittingdale added: “If that is the case it does beg the question why News International have apparently paid huge sums of money in settlement of actions in the courts. That is a question I would wish to put to News International.”

It is possible that Coulson could be called to give evidence if the committee decides to reopen its investigation into the affair.

News International executives told the committee in 2007 that they were unaware of Goodman’s activities or those of Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who worked for the company.

He was jailed along with Goodman in January 2007.

The Press Complaints Commission investigated the allegations but failed to find evidence of wrongdoing. It did not question Coulson as part of its investigation.

The payments to Taylor and two other individuals secured secrecy in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch’s journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.

The evidence unearthed by the Guardian may open the door to hundreds more legal actions by victims of News Group, the Murdoch company that publishes the News of the World and the Sun, as well as provoking police inquiries into reporters who were involved and the senior executives responsible for them.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron better be sure he’s right

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

Cameron has made a big call coming out so quickly in support of Andy Coulson, but he hasn’t answered the key questions

So David Cameron has pronounced that Andy Coulson is safe in his job.

Assuming Cameron does the basics of leadership, that means he has satisfied himself that his communications director did nothing improper or illegal, nor condoned, used or benefited from anything improper or illegal, in his time as editor of the News of the World. He has also satisfied himself that nothing is likely to emerge to cast doubt on that judgement. That is a big call to have made.

We have to assume he has asked Coulson some tough questions, and got some convincing answers. If not, he has made a big mistake in coming out so soon, and so forcefully, in support of his right-hand man.

But their comments so far have sought to focus very narrowly on the jailing of former royal reporter Clive Goodman, over which Coulson resigned but for which he denied any knowledge or responsibility, and on an out-of-court settlement with footballers’ leader Gordon Taylor, of which Coulson also denies knowledge.

I always thought at the time that it was unlikely that Goodman and a private detective who received large sums of money for his illegal activities were the only people in the paper who knew about the royal tapping. The Guardian story reveals something far more systemic and organised, targeted at all manner of newsworthy people.

Whatever anyone says about Coulson, his colleagues always spoke of him as a highly professional editor and journalist. But as Andrew Neil pointed out rather well last night, good, professional editors know what is happening in their papers. When they don’t know, they ask questions. They ask a lot of questions about where stories come from because that will often indicate the real strength of the story, and alert them to any possible legal problems.

People might just be able to acccept the Goodman incident was a one-off, and that therefore senior executives did not know about it. But if the central allegations in the Guardian are true – and there seems precious little pushing back on them – then it becomes impossible to believe that editors and others were not aware of what was going on. And if they weren’t, they were incompetent and negligent on the job, not qualities associated with Coulson or other Murdoch editors.

The statements from Cameron and Coulson go nowhere near answering the questions they have to answer. To his credit, John Whittingdale, the Tory chair of the relevant select committee, looks like he will want to ask those questions.

There are questions too for the Press Complaints Commission. Do not hold any of your breath in expecting them to be answered. It is a body for the media, by the media, a disgrace to the concept of meaningful self-regulation.

And John Prescott is right to demand that serious questions of the police are answered too. If there is a list of people known to have had their calls intercepted by the News of the World, all the people on that list have a right to know.

So, as I said last night, questions for the press, the cops and for Cameron. Those questions have not gone away. They are only just beginning.

This piece also appears on Alastair Campbell’s blog, here

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Tories would cut Ofcom powers, says Cameron

July 6th, 2009 | No Comments

Media regulator’s policy-making powers will be removed if Conservatives win next election, says leader

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said today that he would take away Ofcom’s policy making powers and cut back the communications regulator “by a huge amount” if his party wins next year’s general election.

Cameron told BBC Breakfast he planned to save taxpayers money by slimming down Ofcom, including axing its communications department, and other public bodies if he becomes prime minister next year.

“Give Ofcom, or give a new body, the technical function of handing out the licences and regulating lightly the content that is on the screens,” he said.

“But it shouldn’t be making policy, it shouldn’t have its own communications department, the head of Ofcom [Ed Richards] is paid almost half a million pounds,” Cameron added. “We could slim this body down a huge amount and save a lot of money for the taxpayer.”

Ofcom was established by Labour in the 2003 Communications Act and formally took over responsibility for regulating the broadcasting and telecoms sectors on 29 December that year, replacing five bodies – the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Oftel, Radio Communications Agency and Broadcasting Standards Commission.

The regulator has been heavily involved in the formulation of communications policy since then, including the recent Digital Britain report.

Cameron will expand on his party’s plans for cutting back on quangos and public bodies in a speech to the Reform think tank later today.

“This growth in the number of quangos, and in the scope of their influence, raises important questions for our democracy and politics,” he will say.

“Too many state actions, services and decisions are carried out by people who cannot be voted out by the public, by organisations that feel no pressure to answer for what happens – in a way that is completely unaccountable.

“The growth of the quango state is, I believe, one of the main reasons people feel that nothing ever changes; nothing will ever get done and that the state just passes the buck and sends them from pillar to post instead of sorting out problems.”

Cameron will add: “We must reduce the number of quangos in this country. But we must do so in a way that is responsible and which recognises that there are circumstances in which quangos have a useful and important part to play in democratic politics.”

“With a Conservative government any delegation of power by a minister to a quango will not mean a corresponding delegation of responsibility. Even when power is delegated to a quango, the minister remains responsible for the outcome. They set the rules under which the quango operates.”

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Is there pensions apartheid?

July 4th, 2009 | No Comments

False Tory outrage at fat-cat pubic sector benefits is a crude sleight of hand to divert voters’ attention from the real wealth gap

Indignation at “gold-plated” public sector pensions is the latest wave in the Conservative campaign to create a groundswell of support for spending cuts and shrinking the size of the state. Rightwing thinktanks, encouraged by David Cameron and even by the sainted Vince Cable in the Mail on Sunday, have just produced a series of reports attacking public-sector pensions. It is a deft diversion from the real fat-cat pensions of Fred Goodwin (now reduced to £342,500 a year) and his ilk on to the rather more modest pensions of nurses, teachers and care workers: the average public employee pension is £7,000.

It’s a well-timed assault, as private-sector employees still lucky enough to have an occupational pension open their statements and reel at seeing how very much less than expected they will get, with anything from a third to a half knocked off by the crash. Who should they blame? The bankers who bust the economy? Boardrooms who help themselves to vast pay, bonuses and pensions while closing company schemes for everyone else? No, the Tory hue and cry is turning them against public sector workers. If ever there were a deliberate creation of the politics of envy, this is it.

Rightwing thinktank reports have produced shock-horror numbers. Best was the British-North American Committee, which hit last week’s news with this: “UK public sector pension liabilities now 85% of GDP.” Good grief! Does that leave the rest of us just 15% to live on while the fat-cat retired dinner ladies, ward clerks and binmen live the life of Riley? It is, of course, a nonsense number, a statistical prestidigitation done by adding all public sector pension liabilities for those now retired to a life-time obligation to every existing state employee. Roll up all the money and describe it as a debt owed in one year and you get silly numbers. It’s like taking all your mortgage and all the interest you will pay over its course, and comparing that total debt with one year’s income. It will look wildly unaffordable.

The true figure is quite high, but rather less alarming. Public pensions cost 1.4% of GDP; and that will rise to 2% in 2027 and fall back below 2% thereafter. There is no inexorable upward trajectory. It may need adjustment, such as raising the pension age. As Adair Turner suggested this week, this needs to be done faster for everyone: we need to work longer. But dragging down public sector pensions won’t do anything to help those who have no private pension, or a much reduced one. Cutting public sector pensions would not save the state much either: many are low earners so what they lost on pension they would claim through pension credit.

The real problem is the devastation of private pensions. Company pensions have faced rising costs as people have lived longer: each year of life costs pension funds 3% more. Share values have not risen as fast as expected, while funding requirements were tightened by the Conservatives after the Robert Maxwell scandal. In the 1960s, 8 million private employees had occupational pensions; now it’s only 2 million.

What contributed to their mass closure was a culture change in the City as companies chased share price values to the exclusion of all else. A decent scheme used to be the norm for any respectable firm: many managers had not realised they could be ditched. But after the Big Bang, to have a good pension scheme was seen by City analysts as a sign of weak management, risking predatory takeover. So it happened that a country growing 30% richer every decade suddenly decided it could not or would not afford company pensions any longer. Last week’s Telegraph leader repeated the refrain that the “primary reason” for the closure of private pensions was Gordon Brown’s “raid” on pension dividends, but compared with the above factors and the stockmarket’s collapse, that £5bn a year was a bit-player.

The Turner commission has led to a new compulsory scheme where all employers will have to contribute 3% of pay into a pension while employees pay 4%. It’s a good start, but needs ratcheting up. In remaining private schemes employers pay an average of 10%, while public sector employers contribute 20% for better pensions.

Is that 20% too much, or is the private sector paying too little? A handful of headline-grabbing fat-cat public pensions for MPs, judges and a few others could be trimmed: as Michael Martin’s £1.4m pension hit the news, MPs wisely voted to freeze their own pensions last week. But the great majority of the cost of public pensions goes to the modestly paid, more of them women, which is why the average is just £7,000 a year. Any meaningful cut would push many back into pensioner poverty. Yet a cut is what David Cameron rashly proposed last year. “We’ve got to end the apartheid in pensions,” he told businessmen. The next day Conservative headquarters panicked and backtracked, fearing for public sector votes. But public employees have been warned.

The real pensions apartheid is not between public and private, but between the wealthy and the rest. Every taxpayer contributes heftily to the pensions of the rich, and half of tax relief goes to the top 10% of earners. A quarter goes to the less than 1% who earn more than £150,000. At last, along with the 50% tax band, incomes of more than £150,000 will from next year only get tax relief at 20%, not 40%. It was greeted with vociferous rage and the usual threats to leave the country, along with protests by the the very same wealthy people at the cost of modest public sector pensions. Tax relief still needs rebalancing to make sure most state encouragement to save goes to those with least.

Labour has a goodish pensions record – though you might not know it, as yet another report this week from the OECD put the UK bottom when comparing basic state pensions. Our basic was worth 26% of average earnings in 1979, but when the Conservatives decoupled it from earnings, it fell to 16%. But that’s misleading: nearly half of pensioners are eligible for Labour’s pension credit. Add in winter fuel allowance, housing and council tax benefit and free buses, and UK pensioners shoot up the league.

The state pension is due to be relinked to earnings in 2012 – though if the Conservatives are in power, will they do it? Labour’s new compulsory pensions for all employers will be a long-lasting legacy, and not appreciated for years. The Conservatives seem to be heading in the opposite direction.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron apologises for section 28

July 2nd, 2009 | No Comments

David Cameron has embarked on another major step in the modernisation of the Conservative party by offering a public apology for section 28, the notorious legislation which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools.

In a gesture hailed by gay rights campaigners as “historic”, Cameron condemned section 28 as “offensive to gay people” and predicted that a Conservative would become Britain’s first openly gay prime minister.

The Tory leader, who voted against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003, reached out to the gay community on Tuesday night at a Tory fundraising event linked to Gay Pride this weekend.

“Yes, we may have sometimes been slow and, yes, we may have made mistakes, including Section 28, but the change has happened,” Cameron said of the repeal of the legislation originally passed in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.

In remarks reported by the Pink Paper, he admitted that he did not have a “perfect record” on gay rights, a reference to his decision in 2003 to vote for the retention of section 28. But he added: “It does give me great pride to be standing here to celebrate Gay Pride and all you have achieved.

“If five years ago we had a Conservative and Gay Pride party, I don’t think many gay people would have come or many Conservatives would have come. In wanting to make the party representative of the country, I think we have made some real progress.

“If we do win the next election, instead of being a white middle class middle-aged party, we will be far more diverse. The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister.”

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, described Cameron’s speech as “historic”. He said: “We have heard the leader of the Conservative party say the words ‘section 28′ and ‘sorry’.”

Cameron’s apology shows how far the Tory party has moved in the past decade. Shaun Woodward, now Northern Ireland secretary, defected to Labour after he was sacked from the Tory frontbench by William Hague in 2000 for rebelling against the party’s support for section 28.

Cameron, who succeeded Woodward as MP for Witney at the 2001 general election, mocked his opposition to section 28. “Did Mr Woodward order a survey of local opinion about the issue that triggered his resignation – clause 28 and the promotion of homosexuality in schools?” Cameron wrote in a letter to the Daily Telegraph in September 2000.

The future Tory leader voted to retain Section 28 in the 2003 Commons vote which led to its abolition. Cameron, whose wife Samantha has long opposed section 28, later admitted that this was a mistake.

In his first conference speech as Tory leader, three years later in 2006, Cameron showed how he had moved on in what he called a “journey”. He said: “There’s something special about marriage. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important … You are making a commitment.

“And by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That’s why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I’m proud of that.”

However as recently as last year, Cameron alarmed gay and lesbian campaigners by voting to restrict access for lesbian couples hoping to conceive children through in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

To the surprise of Tory modernisers he supported a Commons amendment by the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith that would have strengthened existing laws to make IVF clinics consider the “need for a father and a mother” before allowing women to begin fertility treatment. The amendment was defeated.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron urges Brown to come clean

July 1st, 2009 | No Comments

Tory leader claims government’s own spending plans show they will have to make cuts of 13.5%

David Cameron today dubbed Gordon Brown “Mr 13.5%” as he told him to come clean over plans to cut spending after 2011.

Brown insisted current spending would continue to rise, though he acknowledged that capital spending would fall. The prime minister said current spending would continue to increase until a “0% rise” in 2012-13, to gales of laughter from the Conservative benches.

Brown has accused Cameron of being “Mr 10%” – the level of cuts he says is planned by the Tories – but Cameron called him “Mr 13.5%”.

Cameron said Tory calculations were based on the government’s own spending plans. Once debt interest and increases in unemployment – “which sadly is going to go up” – this left a 7% cut in every department. Once the NHS was exempted, it rose to a 10% cut. And with schools spending saved as well, this became a 13.5% cut. “That’s the prime minister – Mr 13.5 %. His own figures.”

Brown seized on Cameron’s claim that unemployment would continue to go up. “That is when they say unemployment is a price worth paying. Is he basing his assumptions on unemployment rising to 2014? No wonder he wants to cut public services. He is basing on unemployment continuing to rise, because he will do absolutely nothing about it.”

The heated exchanges between the two men at prime minister’s questions also saw Brown forced to defend the decision not to conduct a departmental spending review ahead of the next general election, which he said was due to the fact that it was not possible to forecast in the middle of a recession.

Cameron cited presentation notes from the Treasury, seen by the Conservatives, with a headline stating “reduction for mid-term spending”.

“If even the Treasury is going around giving presentations around the country saying public spending as a total is being cut why can’t he accept the truth?” asked Cameron.

Brown insisted that “current spending is going to rise and that capital spending, as I explained last week, will fall after 2011″.

He said: “The debate about public spending is about this: how we return to growth and to jobs in the economy.”

Brown said spending would continue so “we can spend to get out of recession”.

“This is precisely the way a government will act to take the country out of recession … his shadow chancellor [George Osborne] should explain why he was going in TV studios yesterday saying he was going to cut schools now, cut Sure Start now, cut the guarantee for school-leavers now and do nothing about unemployment. We cannot get out of recession unless we spend now on the services we need.”

He accused Tory spending plans of being based on unemployment continuing to rise “because you will do absolutely nothing about it”.

Cameron retorted that it was Labour policies putting people out of work, adding: “There’s only one person we want to put on the unemployment register and that’s the prime minister.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron pulls out of Gay Pride appearance

June 30th, 2009 | No Comments

• Conservative leader decides to stay in his constituency
• Boris Johnson comes under fire for performance at Gay Pride reception

David Cameron has pulled out of attending Saturday’s Gay Pride festival in London, saying he needs to attend an event in his Oxfordshire constituency.

Two months ago, the Daily Mail reported that Cameron was going to be the first Tory party leader to appear on an openly gay platform by attending the annual street festival celebrating London’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

Cameron, who has been keen to promote the Conservatives as an inclusive party, was set to follow in the footsteps of Boris Johnson, who turned up for Pride last year, just weeks after being elected mayor of London. He was persuaded to wear a pink stetson for the occasion.

The Tory press office confirmed Cameron would not now be attending due to a constituency event, but stressed he would be attending a private event marking Gay Pride this evening.

While the Tory leader will be a no-show, Johnson has lauded the fact that Sarah Brown, the wife of the prime minister, will attend. However, Johnson will not be present this year because the event clashes with his son’s birthday.

Johnson today faced criticism for leaving high-profile gay activist Peter Tatchell off the guest list for a Pride reception which took place at City Hall last night.

There was also criticism of Johnson’s speech, which some attendees felt lacked the necessary gravitas.

The Homovision site complained that a “bumbling speech by a clown-like politician” was not what the gay community needed at a time when hate crimes were becoming increasingly violent.

“The fact that some of Britain’s leading gay activists were prevented from attending the event, while Boris got away with making a half-hearted attempt at a speech – punctuated with broken Latin and Greek quotes that no one in the room had a clue what it meant – is a warning sign to all of us.”

Johnson, wearing a checked shirt and light grey suit, joked that he looked as if he was about to hotfoot it to a gay disco in the 1970s. He said he didn’t want to use the word tolerance, but wanted to stress the importance of the lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender community. The jovial mayor joked to his audience that he had cut the number of deputy mayors by half as part of his drive to make economies of scale, a reference to Ian Clement, the deputy mayor who quit Johnson’s mayoral administration last week after irregularities in his expenses surfaced.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron: Brown claims black is white

June 29th, 2009 | No Comments

There is a thread of dishonesty running through the government, says Tory leader

David Cameron today launched a blistering personal attack on the prime minister, claiming there was a “thread of dishonesty” running through his premiership.

The Conservative leader stopped short of calling Gordon Brown a liar but claimed the prime minister said “black is white” and his government had “lost touch with morality”.

He described the apparent postponement of the next government spending review as an attempt to “cover up the truth about Labour’s cuts”.

The Tory leader said the move was part of the government’s “pattern of deception” in the recent row over future spending on public services.

Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, indicated today that the government would not set out new public spending plans before the next general election, arguing it was currently impossible to forecast the economy two years ahead.

But speaking at a Westminster press conference today, Cameron said: “Cancelling the spending review is nothing to do with economic uncertainty and everything to do with political manoeuvring.

“It is a blatant attempt to cover up the truth about Labour’s cuts.”

Listing a catalogue of issues on which he claimed the prime minister had not told the truth, Cameron said: “There is now a huge amount of deceit about the government’s spending plans … I believe there is a thread of dishonesty running through this premiership.

“From cancelling the election and then saying it had nothing to do with the opinion polls, to his claim that abolishing the 10p income tax [rate] would have nothing to do in terms of hitting the poor.

“We’ve had his insistence that Alistair Darling is his first choice as chancellor. We all know that wasn’t true.”

Cameron added: “At the end of the day the truth will out. The prime minister is calculating that the public are too stupid to notice it. I have much more respect for the public than that.”

Asked whether he was prepared to go into the next election with the Conservative party proposing public spending cuts while the government pledged to increase spending, Cameron replied: “I don’t care what the government does any more. They can announce cuts, they can announce increases, they can set out whatever they want. Set the whole thing to music and do a karaoke. I have lost faith in a prime minister who stands up and says black is white. We will make our own decisions about what’s right for the country.”

Pressed further about Brown’s claims that a Conservative government would cut spending, Cameron referred to tactics he claimed were being used in the upcoming Norwich North byelection. “When you see the leaflets they have put out I don’t know how the prime minister gets out of bed in the morning,” Cameron said.

“At the end of a government like this I think they have lost not only touch with the public but all sense of morality. They have got to be honest about their own spending plans.”

Asked directly whether he thought Brown was a liar, Cameron said he had chosen his words carefully, but he added: “I have said there is a thread of dishonesty running through the government. We have got someone [the prime minster] who is not being straight with us. I cannot put it any clearer than that.”

During the hour-long press conference the Tory leader announced that from December all member of the shadow cabinet would give up their second jobs, and he published a list of shadow cabinet outside interests as of 1 July. He also challenged Lord Mandelson’s claim this morning that a controversial vote on Royal Mail would have to be postponed due to lack of parliamentary time.

He suggested extending the parliamentary sitting for an extra day to accommodate the debate and said he would look into whether it was possible to allot an opposition day debate to ensure the proposal gets a second reading.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

No new spending plan before election

June 29th, 2009 | No Comments

Business secretary’s statement follows Tory claims that Labour is trying to hide future cuts from voters

The government will not set out a fresh set of public spending plans before the next general election, Lord Mandelson confirmed today, as Gordon Brown prepares to launch the government’s programme for the year ahead.

The business secretary said future spending would depend on economic recovery but there would be a “reprioritising of expenditure both within and between departments”.

But pressed on whether it was correct that the government would not be setting out new spending plans before the election, Mandelson replied: “I believe that the chancellor has made that judgment, yes.”

The question, put to him on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, follows Tory claims that Labour was trying to hide future cuts from voters.

“The spending period currently operating in government stretches beyond the next election and therefore it is reasonable to review public spending at that time,” Mandelson said.

A boost in social and affordable housing would be part-funded by money switched from the Home Office and Department for Transport budgets, he said.

Mandelson said it was impossible to predict how the economy would perform over the next two years.

“We are not in a position, in June 2009, to be able to forecast what growth will be and what the performance of the economy will be in 2011. That is why we have to wait.”

Any spending review now “would be based on entirely speculative projections of what economic growth will be”, he suggested.

“Therefore, what we have decided to do is to link our spending plans to reality rather than to speculation.”

Asked how the government could afford its new pledges, Mandelson said: “We have to live within our means as a government, and being fiscally responsible is an important principle of New Labour.

“So the new policies that are being unveiled today by the prime minister reflect a reprioritising of expenditure both within and between departments.

“To give you one example: he will be announcing a major boost in the provision of social and affordable housing over the next two years. That reflects a switch in spending both within the relevant department but also between the Home Office and the Department for Transport to the other department.

“So there are things that can and should be done and, although future spending will be conditioned … by the need to rebalance public finances, to pay down borrowing, our ambition to sustain higher levels of spending will be linked to the performance of the economy on growth and our ability to generate employment.

“And the prime minister will be explaining how we believe we can generate both growth and employment in order to pay for the public spending and investment we want to sustain.”

Asked if the government planned to trim spending in real terms, he said: “The spending review that will take place after the next election when the current review period has ended will take account of the state of the economy at the time.”

He accused the opposition of being committed to cut “come what may” to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

And he said the Tories were selling their soul to the private sector.

“The Tories, in my view, have entered into a sort of Faustian pact with producer interests in the public services; they are saying they will spend less on public services and they are also saying they will require less of them.”

The business secretary made the comments ahead of the prime minister’s unveiling of what is expected to be a series of policy shifts designed to give people more power over public services.

Among the most radical moves being put forward by the prime minister will be giving patients cash to go private if NHS Trusts cannot meet the 18-week target between GP referral and treatment.

Cancer sufferers would be able to take their funding elsewhere if they are not given a specialist appointment within two weeks.

Similar “entitlements” are being considered for accessing an NHS dentist, late opening hours for GPs at weekends, and getting palliative care at home.

The amount of money would be equivalent to the cost of the treatment on the NHS, and trusts that fail to meet their obligations could also face other financial penalties.

The changes are likely to be portrayed as a climbdown by Brown, who battled against less drastic Blairite efforts to involve the private sector in public services.

There are similarities to the “patient’s passport” policy dropped by the Tories after the last general election. Currently, only elective surgery such as hip replacements and cataract surgery is provided through private treatment.

However, after a series of dire poll results and leadership speculation, aides hope that a new policy platform can counter criticism that the government is “drifting” and get Brown back on track.

The prime minister will attend a series of events today to launch the Building Britain’s Future document.

Other pledges are expected to include freeing up local authorities on housing allocation so priority can be given to people with ties to the community. The BNP exploited anger over the perception that immigrants are pushed to the top of housing lists during recent local and euro elections.

There will also be a “significant” expansion of funding for social housing, and the scrapping of “top-down” targets across services, according to government sources.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Two wheels good, t**t riding them sometimes not

June 11th, 2009 | No Comments

Bikes are out in abundance in London today on Day Two of the exciting Crowe vs Boris willie waving competition, er tube strike.
I am all for cycling. It’s good exercise, it’s environmentally friendly, and it can be relaxing. But not when the rider is a t**t.
Cycling may be carbon neutral, but the toxic smog [...]

Read More »
Page 5 of 512345