Met e-crime specialists on course to exceed target due to successful operations A Metropolitan police unit claims to have saved the economy more than £140m in the past six months and is on course to exceed its four-year “harm reduction” target, the force said on Sunday. The Met said the central e-crime unit had delivered nearly 30% of its £504m target during this period. The figure relates to the amount of money the UK has been prevented from losing through cyber crime and follows a number of successful prosecutions and operations. Funding of £30m has been provided over four years to support the development of the unit as it tackles computer intrusion, denial of service attacks and internet fraud. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams said: “In the initial six-month period the unit, together with its partners in industry and international law enforcement, has excelled in its efforts to meet this substantial commitment and has delivered in excess of £140m of financial harm reduction to the UK economy. We hope to be able to better this result in the future as we expand our national capability.” Cases include Operation Pagode, which resulted in £84m worth of harm saved. Five defendants were jailed for a total of nearly 16 years after an investigation into a group of fraudsters who set up an online “criminal forum” which traded unlawfully obtained credit card details and tools to commit computer offences. Another was Operation Dynamaphone, which resulted in £5.5m worth of harm saved. Three men were jailed for 13 years for their part in a concerted attack on the UK and international banking system. They are believed to be the first prosecutions in the UK involving such detailed evidence of an organised internet phishing operation. The investigation focused on a network of individuals who obtained large quantities of personal information, such as online bank account passwords and credit card numbers through online phishing in order to steal money from the accounts and use credit card details. Crime Metropolitan police London Police Cybercrime Computing Identity fraud guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Campaigners urge Britain to follow Denmark’s lead in fighting obesity by taxing unhealthy food products In a sunny park in Copenhagen, Mathias Buch Jensen was unimpressed. All around him, people were tucking into beer and chips. There were few signs that the latest offensive in the worldwide war on obesity was having much effect. But then Denmark might not be the best place to experiment with a “fat tax” on lardy products. “You know, Danes are big fans of butter,” Buch Jensen mused. “We love fat.” He added: “Knowing the Danes, it could have the opposite effect. Like naughty children, when they are told not to do something, they do it even more.” In a country known for butter and bacon, Denmark’s new tax is a body blow. Danes who go shopping today will pay an extra 25p on a pack of butter and 8p on a packet of crisps, as the new tax on foods which contain more than 2.3% saturated fat comes into effect. Everything from milk to oils, meats and pre-cooked foods such as pizzas will be targeted. The additional revenue raised will fund obesity-fighting measures. The move has parallels elsewhere in Europe. Hungary has recently imposed a tax on all foods with unhealthy levels of sugar, salt and carbohydrates, as well as goods with high levels of caffeine. Denmark, Switzerland and Austria have already banned trans fats, while Finland and Romania are considering fat taxes. But it is Britain which has the biggest obesity problem in Europe, and campaigners have urged the government to follow Denmark’s lead. Tam Fry, spokesman for the National Obesity Forum, said: “It is not a question of whether we should follow the Danes’ lead – we have to. If we don’t do anything about it, by 2050, 70% of the British population will be obese or overweight and that would result not only in the downfall of the NHS but also of our national workforce.” A recent study found that poor health and obesity costs the UK economy at least £21.5bn a year . Some experts argue that fat is the wrong target and that salt, sugar and refined carbohydrates should be tackled instead, but Dr Colin Waine, former chairman of the National Obesity Forum, welcomed the move. “All these things need to be looked at, but saturated fats have a higher calorie content than carbohydrates. I don’t think you can do everything all at once.” Fewer than 10% of Danes are obese, below the 15% European average , according to the OECD. Britain’s rate is 24.5%. Buch Jensen, for one, is not planning to change his eating habits. Asked if he would be giving up butter, he offered a compromise: “I would fry cabbage in butter, and add a little more butter at the end. That way at least I’m getting my vegetables.” Denmark Obesity Europe Food & drink Health Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Campaigners urge Britain to follow Denmark’s lead in fighting obesity by taxing unhealthy food products In a sunny park in Copenhagen, Mathias Buch Jensen was unimpressed. All around him, people were tucking into beer and chips. There were few signs that the latest offensive in the worldwide war on obesity was having much effect. But then Denmark might not be the best place to experiment with a “fat tax” on lardy products. “You know, Danes are big fans of butter,” Buch Jensen mused. “We love fat.” He added: “Knowing the Danes, it could have the opposite effect. Like naughty children, when they are told not to do something, they do it even more.” In a country known for butter and bacon, Denmark’s new tax is a body blow. Danes who go shopping today will pay an extra 25p on a pack of butter and 8p on a packet of crisps, as the new tax on foods which contain more than 2.3% saturated fat comes into effect. Everything from milk to oils, meats and pre-cooked foods such as pizzas will be targeted. The additional revenue raised will fund obesity-fighting measures. The move has parallels elsewhere in Europe. Hungary has recently imposed a tax on all foods with unhealthy levels of sugar, salt and carbohydrates, as well as goods with high levels of caffeine. Denmark, Switzerland and Austria have already banned trans fats, while Finland and Romania are considering fat taxes. But it is Britain which has the biggest obesity problem in Europe, and campaigners have urged the government to follow Denmark’s lead. Tam Fry, spokesman for the National Obesity Forum, said: “It is not a question of whether we should follow the Danes’ lead – we have to. If we don’t do anything about it, by 2050, 70% of the British population will be obese or overweight and that would result not only in the downfall of the NHS but also of our national workforce.” A recent study found that poor health and obesity costs the UK economy at least £21.5bn a year . Some experts argue that fat is the wrong target and that salt, sugar and refined carbohydrates should be tackled instead, but Dr Colin Waine, former chairman of the National Obesity Forum, welcomed the move. “All these things need to be looked at, but saturated fats have a higher calorie content than carbohydrates. I don’t think you can do everything all at once.” Fewer than 10% of Danes are obese, below the 15% European average , according to the OECD. Britain’s rate is 24.5%. Buch Jensen, for one, is not planning to change his eating habits. Asked if he would be giving up butter, he offered a compromise: “I would fry cabbage in butter, and add a little more butter at the end. That way at least I’m getting my vegetables.” Denmark Obesity Europe Food & drink Health Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian investigation reveals PM pressed for military action and Gaddafi secretly sought figurehead role A Guardian investigation into David Cameron’s six-month Libyan campaign has revealed how the prime minister overrode scepticism from his cabinet and MI6 to press for military action, and how Colonel Gaddafi secretly wanted to become a figurehead of the country “like the Queen of England”. In interviews with senior Whitehall figures and five ministers the Guardian has established that the National Transitional Council assured Britain that sleeper cells were ready to rise up in Tripoli once rebel troops entered the capital. Defence sources say Britain provided logistical support to the rebels in the capital, as well as in the Nafusa mountains, including a bombing campaign that cleared the way for the rebels to come down from mountains towards Tripoli. Britain also took the lead in pressing, in the early summer, for the military campaign to be used to put pressure on Gaddafi from the west of Libya. The French, who had led the way in pressing for a no-fly zone in February after Gaddafi besieged the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, believed that Gaddafi could be overthrown from the east. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, describes the shift, supported by the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, as “a tilt to the west”. Gaddafi told Britain in secret messages sent to the Foreign Office that he was willing to start a political process that would end with the Libyan leader becoming a head of state like the Queen. In a sign of his erratic and desperate negotiating strategy, which persuaded ministers that Gaddafi would eventually be overthrown, the Libyan leader indicated not just that he had been in power as long as the Queen , but that he was prepared to become a figurehead in the same way as her. “It would be like the Queen of England, is how they thought of it,” one minister said. “He would be a non-powerful president, not even in power. They would go as far as he would be a figurehead. But this was not on for the rebels, of course.” The Guardian investigation has also established that: • David Cameron overrode scepticism in his cabinet when he took one of the biggest gambles of his premiership in March to press for a UN security council resolution to authorise military force to protect civilians. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary who was described by one cabinet minister as the “biggest dove”, thought that partition was the “logical thing”. • MI6 was privately sceptical of military action, arguing “it is better to stick with the devil you know”. • The world was “48 hours from watching a humanitarian disaster unfold” in Benghazi before to the US, French and UK air strikes, according to Fox. Cameron did not want to allow another Srebrenica – the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia in 1995 – on his “watch”. Friends say he feared he would be remembered as the “pull up the drawbridge” generation” if he did not act to defend the Arab spring. • The US, which had initially been sceptical about a no-fly zone, ended up pressing for a tougher UN security council resolution. This led to UN resolution 1973 in March which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. Fox said: “The Nato operation would have been impossible without the contribution of the Americans.” The offer from Gaddafi to serve as a figurehead, plus intelligence from within Tripoli, was one reason the foreign secretary, William Hague, remained convinced that what he described as his “Anaconda strategy” would squeeze Gaddafi from power. Hague believes Gaddafi overplayed his hand, insisting he would agree only to a political process in the course of which he would retire to the role of state figurehead. The foreign secretary, who has described the Arab spring as the most important event of the 21st century, warned that there would have been grave consequences if Britain and France had not succeeded in persuading the UN to sanction military action. “If Benghazi had fallen it would have been a huge setback for the Arab spring in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. It would have shown that a dictatorial ruler can successfully fight back and entrench himself again. That would have carried a strong message. [Syrian president] Bashar al-Assad now would be feeling in a stronger position and probably getting active assistance from a well-entrenched Gaddafi regime.” Hague added that he was stunned by the success of the high-precision GPS-guided Brimstone missiles after Fox ruled that the collateral damage target – the risks to civilians – should be set at zero. “I saw in Tripoli one of the buildings where they managed to hit the top floor to stop the sniping from the roof without damaging at all the floors underneath. This is the amazing precision of the targeting. Things have really moved on even since the Iraq war. The criterion for targeting was zero civilian casualties and that was rigorously stuck to.” Some senior Whitehall officials interviewed by the Guardian confirm that the French and the UK might have taken military action, even if they failed to secure a UN resolution, on the basis of averting a humanitarian disaster. “We would have had to look at the humanitarian necessity option. We would have had to ask the attorney general whether the situation was so grave that we could act.” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, who was briefed by officials on Whitehall’s lessons from Iraq as soon as he was asked by Cameron to draw up a stabilisation plan, outlined a five-point plan on how to avoid mistakes from Iraq. It now forms the basis of the National Transitional Council’s plans. Mitchell praised Cameron for ignoring critics who said the military campaign would never work. “David was brave and proved right in the beginning, because he said we cannot allow a massacre to take place in Benghazi. All the soi-disant experts said, you can’t do it from the air, the Americans said it was naive – but he stuck to his guns.” David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Guardian investigation reveals PM pressed for military action and Gaddafi secretly sought figurehead role A Guardian investigation into David Cameron’s six-month Libyan campaign has revealed how the prime minister overrode scepticism from his cabinet and MI6 to press for military action, and how Colonel Gaddafi secretly wanted to become a figurehead of the country “like the Queen of England”. In interviews with senior Whitehall figures and five ministers the Guardian has established that the National Transitional Council assured Britain that sleeper cells were ready to rise up in Tripoli once rebel troops entered the capital. Defence sources say Britain provided logistical support to the rebels in the capital, as well as in the Nafusa mountains, including a bombing campaign that cleared the way for the rebels to come down from mountains towards Tripoli. Britain also took the lead in pressing, in the early summer, for the military campaign to be used to put pressure on Gaddafi from the west of Libya. The French, who had led the way in pressing for a no-fly zone in February after Gaddafi besieged the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, believed that Gaddafi could be overthrown from the east. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, describes the shift, supported by the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, as “a tilt to the west”. Gaddafi told Britain in secret messages sent to the Foreign Office that he was willing to start a political process that would end with the Libyan leader becoming a head of state like the Queen. In a sign of his erratic and desperate negotiating strategy, which persuaded ministers that Gaddafi would eventually be overthrown, the Libyan leader indicated not just that he had been in power as long as the Queen , but that he was prepared to become a figurehead in the same way as her. “It would be like the Queen of England, is how they thought of it,” one minister said. “He would be a non-powerful president, not even in power. They would go as far as he would be a figurehead. But this was not on for the rebels, of course.” The Guardian investigation has also established that: • David Cameron overrode scepticism in his cabinet when he took one of the biggest gambles of his premiership in March to press for a UN security council resolution to authorise military force to protect civilians. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary who was described by one cabinet minister as the “biggest dove”, thought that partition was the “logical thing”. • MI6 was privately sceptical of military action, arguing “it is better to stick with the devil you know”. • The world was “48 hours from watching a humanitarian disaster unfold” in Benghazi before to the US, French and UK air strikes, according to Fox. Cameron did not want to allow another Srebrenica – the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia in 1995 – on his “watch”. Friends say he feared he would be remembered as the “pull up the drawbridge” generation” if he did not act to defend the Arab spring. • The US, which had initially been sceptical about a no-fly zone, ended up pressing for a tougher UN security council resolution. This led to UN resolution 1973 in March which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. Fox said: “The Nato operation would have been impossible without the contribution of the Americans.” The offer from Gaddafi to serve as a figurehead, plus intelligence from within Tripoli, was one reason the foreign secretary, William Hague, remained convinced that what he described as his “Anaconda strategy” would squeeze Gaddafi from power. Hague believes Gaddafi overplayed his hand, insisting he would agree only to a political process in the course of which he would retire to the role of state figurehead. The foreign secretary, who has described the Arab spring as the most important event of the 21st century, warned that there would have been grave consequences if Britain and France had not succeeded in persuading the UN to sanction military action. “If Benghazi had fallen it would have been a huge setback for the Arab spring in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. It would have shown that a dictatorial ruler can successfully fight back and entrench himself again. That would have carried a strong message. [Syrian president] Bashar al-Assad now would be feeling in a stronger position and probably getting active assistance from a well-entrenched Gaddafi regime.” Hague added that he was stunned by the success of the high-precision GPS-guided Brimstone missiles after Fox ruled that the collateral damage target – the risks to civilians – should be set at zero. “I saw in Tripoli one of the buildings where they managed to hit the top floor to stop the sniping from the roof without damaging at all the floors underneath. This is the amazing precision of the targeting. Things have really moved on even since the Iraq war. The criterion for targeting was zero civilian casualties and that was rigorously stuck to.” Some senior Whitehall officials interviewed by the Guardian confirm that the French and the UK might have taken military action, even if they failed to secure a UN resolution, on the basis of averting a humanitarian disaster. “We would have had to look at the humanitarian necessity option. We would have had to ask the attorney general whether the situation was so grave that we could act.” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, who was briefed by officials on Whitehall’s lessons from Iraq as soon as he was asked by Cameron to draw up a stabilisation plan, outlined a five-point plan on how to avoid mistakes from Iraq. It now forms the basis of the National Transitional Council’s plans. Mitchell praised Cameron for ignoring critics who said the military campaign would never work. “David was brave and proved right in the beginning, because he said we cannot allow a massacre to take place in Benghazi. All the soi-disant experts said, you can’t do it from the air, the Americans said it was naive – but he stuck to his guns.” David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sometimes, size does matter, such as in spelunking or squeezing into a middle seat on economy class flights. “But the presidency? That’s ludicrous,” writes Frank Bruni in the New York Times , referring to recent sneering coverage of the portly Chris Christie and his presidential amibitions. There are plenty of reasons…
Continue reading …
The comic actor is starring in One Man Two Guvnors in the West End, but he fears people still associate him with the mis-steps he took after his hit with Gavin and Stacey. Will his new memoir redeem his public image? In a small side room at the Guardian, with Al Pacino glowering from a poster above us, James Corden is performing a masterclass in modesty. He is quiet, contained, thoughtful. He rubs his nose, strokes his chin, considering his answers; if he had a forelock, I suspect he’d tug it. The main message is how fortunate he is. He feels privileged to be an actor, he says, grateful to appear on television, surprised at the breadth of his career, dumbfounded to be starring at the National Theatre . “I just feel lucky that I’m able to do so many different things,” he says. “I feel constantly amazed that I’m allowed to, you know?” If he were a superhero, he would be Humility Man: leaping small molehills in a few stuttering, stumbling steps. This is not the Corden I expected to meet. It certainly isn’t the Corden that makes people shudder. Every time I tell someone I’m interviewing him they flinch visibly and a horrified noise explodes through their nose. The consensus seems to be that the actor, comedy writer, co-creator of hit sitcom Gavin and Stacey , presenter of sports gameshow A League of Their Own , is arrogant and loud, his humour laddish and dated, that he has an unappealing, thespy air of entitlement. Also, most essentially, he’s attention-seeking. The title of his new autobiography – May I Have Your Attention, Please? – confirms this last point. I had expected the book to be a mea culpa , an attempt to win people over, and it is in part. Corden emphasises that over the past 18 months or so he has changed enormously, since falling in love with charity worker Julia Carey and having baby son Max. But he certainly doesn’t hide the side of him that sucks the air from the room. In the first few pages he writes about his earliest memory, aged four, standing on a chair at his younger sister’s christening, pulling faces while people laughed. “This felt good. Really good,” he writes. “In my head it became simple: if people are looking at me, and only me, it feels amazing. And that was that. From that day forward, every day became a quest to be noticed. To have the attention of people. Of you.” I searched for some explanation for this overweening neediness, riffling the pages with rising desperation. A dead parent? Dead sibling? Dead tortoise? Nothing. Admittedly, his father was once an RAF musician, who was sent to Iraq in the early 1990s as a stretcher-bearer, and while Corden says the day this was announced was one of the worst of his life – and the day his dad arrived back the very best – it’s bizarrely flat in the telling. He writes about going to RAF Uxbridge for the homecoming, and launches into a grumpy aside about the catering. “Someone had tried to set up some kind of a ‘buffet’ in the mess, but they shouldn’t have bothered. There were just lots of little bowls of crisps – rubbish crisps – and two bowls of peanuts. Now that’s all right, but that’s not a ‘buffet’.” This continues for some time. As I’ve scrawled in the margin:
Continue reading …
As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …