| | | |
GUARDIAN Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:00:01 GMT
PM makes character key plank of election strategy as polls show women more likely to vote Conservative
Labour's election strategy will be underpinned by claims that "middle-class mainstream mums" will suffer most if the Tories win and launch spending cuts.
The party is targeting this group as polls show that younger women with families are still disproportionately likely to vote Conservative, even though polling in Labour focus groups suggests voters think David Cameron is a "mummy's boy".
The latest YouGov polls show men split evenly between Tory and Labour, but women 37% to 29% in favour of the Tories. Labour literature will warn middle-class mothers that they will lose valuable tax credits if they vote Conservative.
In a keynote speech , Gordon Brown said the budget would be announced on 24 March, effectively confirming that the election would be on 6 May. He also made clear he was not pushing the so-called Tobin tax, or transaction tax, but was instead supporting a levy on the banks that would work as a form of insurance fund so banks would have to bail themselves out if they failed again.
He said he would like to see talks on a world trade agreement revived by this summer and dismissed suggestions that the size of Britain's deficit endangered its triple-A credit rating, saying that he would make no apology for a deficit that had filled a gap created by the lack of private investment. He asked voters to see him as "the great helmsman," experienced enough to take the country through the storms to recovery.
"Together we are weathering the economic storm and now is not the time to turn back. We will hold to our course. And we will complete this mission and I will not let you down," he said. "While we have come through the worst of this dreadful storm, the waters are still choppy. There are still real risks to the recovery."
Brown claimed that Britain, partly through his leadership of the G20, had led the world away from the brink of another Great Depression. "We have pushed the world into a position from Britain where we have a better outcome than we could reasonably have expected from the events that were catastrophic two years ago."
He again warned that "recklessly and rapidly" withdrawing government support put in place after the financial collapse of 2008 would "risk driving our economy back into recession".
Character, he said, was the key test for a leader. "I believe that character is not about telling people what they want to hear but about telling them what they need to know," he said. "It's about having the courage to set your mission and the courage to take the tough decisions and stick to them without being blown off course, even when the going is difficult. With me, what you see is what you get."
He said he would not rule out using money from the higher than expected bonus taxes on banks, or a windfall from lower than expected unemployment claims, to spend on further recovery stimuli, as opposed to cutting the deficit faster than at present. He said: "We're not going to withdraw the stimulus until the recovery is assured. We're sticking to our four-year deficit reduction plan."
Talks between the Treasury and Number 10 on how to use any windfall tax would be stepped up.
Some cabinet members are also pressing for the government to look again at lowering the £150,000 threshold for the new 50p tax rate coming in this April to £100,000, a proposal backed by the work and pensions secretary, Yvette Cooper. Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, says the 50p rate should only be seen as a temporary measure. Alistair Darling, the chancellor, has said if he has any spare money at the budget, he will go further in cutting the deficit. Brown also came under pressure from left-of-centre MPs in a letter to the Guardian today to press ahead with a second fiscal stimulus.
Labour has edged ahead of the Conservatives on the issue of education, according to a ComRes survey for BBC2's Newsnight last night; 27% of.....
| | |
GUARDIAN Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:45:33 GMT
Banks are now being forced to look at whether they have enough capital to withstand a peak-to-trough fall in GDP of minus 8.1% between now and 2014
Britain's biggest banks are being subjected to new stress tests by the Financial Services Authority to ensure they can withstand another four years of difficult economic conditions.
As FSA chairman Lord Turner unveiled the regulator's financial risk outlook for 2010, he revealed that banks were now being forced to look at whether they have enough capital to withstand a peak-to-trough fall in GDP of minus 8.1% between now and 2014. That is a worse scenario than the tests for 2009 when the FSA ensured banks have enough capital for a peak-to-trough fall in GDP of 6.9% - the basis upon which Lloyds Banking Group was allowed to withdraw from the government's toxic insurance scheme.
Revised GDP figures last month showed a 6.2% peak-to-trough decline, making it the most severe downturn since records began.
Turner also revealed that the FSA would on Friday announce more details of regulating the products that are sold to consumers, rather than the current process of regulating the way in which the products are sold, and then working out ways of getting money back for consumers who have lost out.
"Every two or three years we have what is perceived to be a major misselling scandal at the end of which firms pay out damages," Turner said, indicating this was something the regulator wanted to avoid in the future.
He also made it clear that the FSA is working towards banning self-certified mortgage lending - which he said was a "very good indicator of default".
The FSA's risk outlook is concerned about how banks will deal with the £185bn of liquidity that is being supplied to the financial system by the Bank of England. Turner said the FSA was working with banks to ensure that they had a system to find ways to raise the necessary funds.
He noted that low interest rates had helped to keep mortgage arrears down and noted that household debt repayments were £20bn lower in September 2009 than a year ago. "£20bn is a non trivial increase in the amount of people have in their pockets," Turner said.
But a prolonged low interest rate environment could pose problems for retail banks and building societies - particularly those which have sold mortgage products which track base rates, currently stuck at historically low levels of 0.5%, Turner said.
"Building societies face capital generation and funding constraints as pressure on profitability and competition for retail funding remains high," the FSA's report said.
Turner stressed that the FSA's central forecast was the same as the Bank of England's - for GDP growth of 1.4% this year after a 5% fall in 2009 and unemployment rising to 5.4% from 4.7% now.
He said, though, that the "most problematic" scenario would be for UK growth to be slower than the rest of the world, with commodity prices rising and sterling depreciating, forcing the Bank of England to raise rates, with an inevitable impact on consumers.
He also reiterated that regulators should consider whether credit default swaps should face further regulation.
Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Regulators
Banking
Jill Treanor
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
| | | | |
GUARDIAN Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:04:24 GMT
• Conservatives hit out at Labour and Lib Dems' 'death tax'
• Tory proposal would force elderly to sell homes, say critics
The political parties traded blows over the vexed issue of how to pay for care of the elderly in the run-up to the first debate between the three main health spokesmen today.
The conference was organised by Age UK, Britain's largest charity representing older people, after weeks of angry exchanges between the parties and the collapse of consensus talks between Andy Burnham, the health secretary, and his opposite numbers, Andrew Lansley of the Conservatives, and Norman Lamb of the Liberal Democrats.
The charity said recent polls showed six out of 10 people think politicians are not working together adequately to improve the care and support for older people.
Yet yesterday the parties were quick to point out the inadequacies of each other's proposals. Labour and the Lib Dems appear to favour a compulsory, comprehensive scheme to cover health costs, which the Tories have called a "death tax" with a £20,000 bill. The Conservatives, meanwhile, propose an insurance scheme, where the elderly would voluntarily pay £8,000 into a fund to cover the cost of care.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats say the Conservative plan would force many elderly people to sell their homes to fund care. Figures obtained by the Lib Dems show that 3.5 million pensioner households do not have assets of £8,000, if their homes are excluded. This would leave two-thirds of households having to sell or release equity from their homes to pay for the private insurance scheme.
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, described the proposal as a poll tax. "Many people on modest means will be wondering how the Tories could think it's fair that they should pay the same amount for care as multimillionaires."
The Tories hit back, accusing the Lib Dems of resorting to "smear tactics", and said insurance fees would not be imposed on the poor. Wealthier pensioners could pay the premium by using their pension lump sum entitlement. "The average pension pot is worth around £25,000, indicating an average lump sum entitlement of around £6,250 which could fund the bulk of the joining fee," said a Conservative spokesman.
The Tories say the only way for Labour to pay for its scheme is to impose a £20,000 "death tax". Recent analysis shows the Treasury would raise more than £9bn a year at this level of taxation, which the Tories say is needed to cover the gap in funding. The spokesman said: "The government's own green paper admits that a compulsory, state insurance scheme would mean people need to pay around £20,000. It's not our figure, it's theirs."
Social care
Randeep Ramesh
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:00:01 GMT
Justice's position on a bill of rights depends on the form it takes. It is time for the three main parties to let us see their proposals
Austen Morgan takes issue with Justice's analysis on the impact of devolution on amendment or repeal of the Human Rights Act. Three points have to be made.
First, Trevor Phillips makes a vital point which is apparent from the headline of his contribution in the Guardian this week: "The parties' woolly thinking is putting human rights at risk."
All three major political parties say that they want a British bill of rights. The problem is in defining what they mean. The Liberal Democrats are fairly clear: they favour a bill of rights within a written constitution. We have yet to hear from the Labour government: it is attracted to some form of declaration of responsibilities and rights in addition to the Human Rights Act. We counsel against mixing justiciable statements of rights with symbolic declarations of responsibilities. The Conservative position is unclear. Morgan is a member of the Conservative commission on a bill of rights, which has been sitting for a couple of years, so publication of its advice would be helpful. David Cameron talks of scrapping the Human Rights Act, but his favoured replacement, if any, is unclear.
Morgan asserts that Justice initially favoured a bill of rights, but then changed its mind. This is a misunderstanding. We are not, and never have been, in favour of a British bill of rights. We are not, and never have been, against such a proposal. We say that it depends what you mean. In 2008, we presented a substantial report entitled A British Bill of Rights: Informing the Debate at a conference including an impeccably all-party platform – Shirley Williams, Michael Wills and Dominic Grieve – which discussed and welcomed our assessment of the relevant issues.
Last autumn, as part of an unprecedented exercise in democracy, we consulted our members on a draft paper on what was needed to support a bill of rights. As a result of this, our council agreed seven particular conditions that we think are vital. These include widespread public support throughout the UK and retention of the core mechanisms of the Human Rights Act.
Second, Morgan takes issue with a recently published paper on the legal and political issues relating to devolution. He argues that the sovereignty of the Westminster parliament is "really the beginning and end of the matter". Everyone agrees that Westminster has the ultimate legal option of cancelling devolution and re-asserting national sovereignty. However, it is also apparent that, to take the example of one devolved jurisdiction, the Scottish parliament also has some degree of competence. After all, it has legislated at least twice on human rights issues, once to set up the Scottish human rights commission.
The potential impact of amendment to the Human Rights Act on the devolution settlements is a constitutional, legal and political nightmare. This is because, as Morgan correctly says and as we argue, the Human Rights Act is built into the framework of devolution. In addition, there is undoubtedly a serious argument that the consent of the Scottish parliament may be required for amendments to be made to the Human Rights Act (depending on what they were). Regardless of that, there is an overwhelming political argument to the same effect. There needs to be a truly national debate on this issue.
Finally, Justice's fundamental concern has been that any party that chooses to invoke the language of the Glorious Revolution of 1689 meets the implied challenge of that comparison. A British bill of rights must be seen as a serious constitutional document that will stand for a considerable period of time (the precedent is three centuries plus) and not as a short-term party political project. It is time for all three political parties to let us see their detailed proposals and to expressly accept that this is a constitutional debate qualitatively...
| | | |
| Full List of Europe articles |
|
 Swissed-off: Outrage as 'Minaret ban' scandal flares up
YOUTUBE 1 Dec 2009
The UN human rights chief says Switzerland's minaret ban is discriminatory and puts it on a collision course with international law. This weekend Switzerland held a referendum on banning...
|
Paramilitary TSG Police Officer attacked Ian Tomlinson
YOUTUBE 9 April 2009
Ken Livingstone describes his surprise that the attacker of Ian Tomlinson was a Police Officer wearing a Balaclava to hide his face. He declares the Man to be a Paramilitary Officer from the...
|
PROOF that the Police LIED about the death of Ian Tomlinson
YOUTUBE 9 April 2009
The police are on tape LYING about the circumstances surrounding the Death of the G20 Victim Ian Tomlinson.
|
Police Brutality: Ian Tomlinson WAS attacked by the Police BEFORE his death
YOUTUBE 8 April 2009
Video has emerged that shows the Police LIED in regard to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 Protests. The Police claimed they had tried to protect Mr Tomlinson but had come under attack...
|
Alex Jones on Ian Collins' talkSPORT radio show Thursday 19 June 2008
SPIDEREDVIDEOS
Alex Jones on Civil Liberties, Europe, Conspiracies, Taxation, Imperialism, Globalization, Global Government, Puppet Governments, Global warming, Iraq, Afghanistan, Assassinations, Religious...
|
George Galloway Destroys Racist on Immigration and Asylum
YOUTUBE
George Galloway visited Swansea on Tuesday 13th March 2007 and was greeted by a racist asking about why we should let Immigrants in the UK, the questioner is completely destroyed and totally...
|
French president Nicolas Sarkozy drunk at G8
YOUTUBE
Obviously drunk. This video was recorded during a press conference held by recently elected french president Nicolas Sarkozy during the G8 summit on june 2007. This is the translation of the...
|
|
NEWS SUMMARY
Snooker stars await Crucible draw
Man, 83, dies in road collision
More cancer patients seek grants
Profits halve for Scotsman owners
Service to dedicate memorial wall
What the papers say
Fish mystery
Appeal as biker dies in van crash
Power behind the thrones...fans' reveal love for US TV series
Morrisons profit up on new stores
Rees eager to repay Wales faith
Four men arrested outside prison
Berlusconi lashes out at opposition
Voters are far ahead of the elite – so they'll get no say | Seumas Milne
'Spirit' guides needed at Tudor mansion reputedly haunted by ghosts
CCTV scheme for city's Holyland
Confusion over kidnap in Pakistan
Guardian Daily podcast: Authorities say sorry to rapist father’s victims; and rate of extinction of UK species revealed
Curtains up
Hain to discuss Toyota job losses
Doubts on Welsh Olympics legacy
Major fire guts Shoreditch block
Bureaucrats show Irish interest
Flat is destroyed in city blaze
Access to NHS dentists 'improves'
Police 'report card' to go online
Failings over rapist father examined
Afghan criticisms unfair, PM says
High-speed rail line plan awaited
Mosque plan thrown out by council
Hospital rap over medicine errors
Fire College 'failed fire safety'
GMP chief criticises report card
Council's finances 'concerning'
Rugby stars set to honour McLaren
IMPORTANT : Please use top right "PayPal Donate" link to help sustain SpideredNews.com. 
