04-Feb-12
-
Get Ready For a World of Connected Devices
Get Ready For a World of Connected Devices
-
Anonymous Shows How Easy it is to Intercept FBI Conference Calls
Anonymous Shows How Easy it is to Intercept FBI Conference Calls
Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.
Neil Williams has written an excellent post on the Government Digital Service blog about what constitutes a government policy and how the single gov.uk website (now in beta) should present information about it to citizens.
The post sets out how the gov.uk team is using as a working definition of policy "statements of the government's position, intent or action".
This includes mandatory information on the issue and actions being taken in response to it, plus optional information on the policy background, who is engaged with it, who is being affected by it, the legal framework, partner organisations and related news and publications.
It highlights just how much unpacking the simple word 'policy' seems to require.
Occasionally the government talks in a language that implies there are policies and meta-policies.
The original motivation behind the development of departmental business plans was not so much for Whitehall to achieve something itself, but for it to put in place the frameworks, systems and incentives for others to achieve it.
In which case the 'policies' may become more diffuse, being developed and implemented by a variety of local providers and getting blurred with the day-to-day decisions and delivery, operations and implementation.
Anyway, this post aims to suggest a couple of ways in which the presentation of policy information online could be used to significantly enhance political accountability, in line with my personal definition of eDemocracy.
There are two classes of information, open data and freedom of information releases, which might implicitly be covered by the phrases "statements about actions" or "related publications" but which would benefit from being explicitly mentioned given their potential importance.
They might not be relevant in every scenario, but as well as the statements and speeches about what the government says it is doing, policy pages should also include the datasets which might provide some kind of evidence about what it is actually achieving.
Given that some of the most significant policies (those in the departmental business plans at least) have targets or intended outcomes associated with them, and deadlines, it should be possible to pull out the data from the information strategies which is being used as an indicator for delivery success.
Progress on each of the business plan objectives is already being tracked in monthly updates, but more could be made of this information than is currently the case.
Some data visualisations of this information might also be a massive step forward for visibility and accountability, certainly on the headline commitments if not on every last detailed policy.
Further down the road, gov.uk could also go further on some of the other open data that's out there and relate spending figures to policies so everyone can see how much a policy costs.
Another significant step would be to publicly assign the policy to people or bodies in the departmental organograms which are available now, so it is also clear who is responsible for it.
Adding in this kind of information (gov.uk might be planning some of this already for all I know) - and making it available for re-use and publication anywhere else - could significantly transform the quality of information available to citizens about what their government is both trying to do and actually delivering.
© eDemocracyblog.com 2012. | Permalink | No comment |
Lib DemMP Jo Swinson scored another victory this week in her one-woman battle against the beauty industry. But is 'airbrushing' really the big issue during an economic crisis?
On the way to meet Jo Swinson I'm still unsure what to make of the Lib Dem MP's campaign for body confidence. Is this a gutsy, slightly risky move by a young woman on her way up, taking on an issue that proved calamitous for Labour in 2000, when its "body image summit" was widely ridiculed? Is it a subject simply too soft and fuzzy for the political arena? (The YMCA's website for their part of the campaign features pictures of barely clad people holding hearts saying "I love me" over their genitals, as if recently beset by Gok Wan, Trinny, Susannah and some unruly Care Bears.) Or is it an impressive example of a politician using techniques often associated with grassroots campaigners - the simple, straightforward letter of complaint - to secure surprising results?
Most importantly: is it what politicians should be focusing on right now? There's no doubt this week saw Swinson notch up another small triumph in her campaign. On Wednesday it was reported that a complaint she had made to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) had led to it ruling that an ad for a L'Oréal anti-wrinkle cream could never again appear in its current form. The ad showed a lovely photograph of the actor Rachel Weisz, her skin glassily, fantastically smooth. The ASA decided that although the ad didn't misrepresent the "luminosity or wrinkling" of Weisz's face, "the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even", and concluded it could therefore mislead the public as to the product's performance. This came after two rulings in Swinson's favour last year - ads featuring Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington were also deemed to have been digitally enhanced, and potentially misleading - and another in 2009, when an image of Twiggy was pulled.
All perfectly laudable. No one would argue in favour of misleading adverts, few in favour of the over-enthusiastic use of airbrushing - even if trying to stem this last tide seems Sisyphean in a digital age. And yet it still feels slightly odd to see an MP focusing on this issue in the midst of an economic crisis. Body confidence obviously affects both men and women, but primarily the latter, yet when I talk to women's campaigners it doesn't seem to be at the forefront of the issues they are worried about. The Fawcett Society, the UK's leading women's rights campaign, seems more concerned about the 23-year high in women's unemployment, and the way cuts to benefits will disproportionately affect women (a fifth of female income comes from welfare payments and tax credits, compared to a tenth of male income).
Others cite this week's news that local authority cuts to the domestic violence sector have led to women being advised to sleep in Occupy camps or police stations because all the shelters are full. Body image may have seemed a pressing issue before the recession, and it is very necessary, of course, for campaigners, doctors and academics to work together on eating disorders and associated problems. But is it a priority for the political arena?
I meet Swinson in a cafe in Kennington, south London, the area where she lives with her husband, fellow Lib Dem MP Duncan Hames. She bustles in from the cold, and we get straight to talking about the campaign. I ask why she feels so strongly about this issue, and she says she feels strongly about a lot of issues. This is certainly true. There can be no doubting Swinson's commitment.
In 2005, when she was elected MP for East Dunbartonshire, the area where she grew up, Swinson was 25, the youngest MP in the House. She made a decision, she says, "that I wasn't going to be afraid of the chamber, and I was going to make sure I spoke regularly and just didn't get scared of it". Since her first question at prime minister's questions - asking Tony Blair if it was time "to say goodbye to the Punch and Judy style of PMQs" - she has spoken up on everything from foreign affairs to the over-packaging of Easter eggs, and is now deputy leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
"So," she continues, "you know, when I went to Chechnya in 2010, and looked at the human rights situation, I think I arg-u-ably," she spaces out the syllables to give just the tiniest hint of sarcasm, "felt more strongly about that". She straightens up in her seat. "But [airbrushing] is a very important issue. It's important because it has an impact on health. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said very clearly that they think excessive retouching - and I would talk about this in a much wider context anyway, because it's not just about retouching cosmetics adverts, it's about the whole range of body image pressure on men and women - but this kind of culture creates a huge amount of pressure on people, and that can lead to self-esteem problems. At extreme ends, we have rising rates of eating disorders, and we [also] have a much larger section of the population that engages in what they would call disordered eating rather than eating disorders. And then, from an educational point of view, there's research that shows young people are less likely to participate actively in class on days when they're not feeling confident about their appearance."
She started working on this area in 2009, when it was part of a Lib Dem women's policy paper. She co-founded the Campaign for Body Confidence in March 2010, then became a leader of the all-party parliamentary group on body image in 2011. She says the campaign has "ambitious goals - to change the culture we're living in". What does she say to suggestions that body image isn't an appropriate area for politicians? "Well, it's not just politicians who are involved. After the policy paper was published ... I was contacted by lots of organisations, and so, on the Campaign for Body Confidence, we have Girlguiding, the eating disorders association Beat, Mumsnet, Susie Orbach and her AnyBody team, YMCA, All Walks Beyond the Catwalk, and political representation too."
The all-party group has been hearing evidence from experts over the past months. One interesting snippet came from an industry voice who said that what had been acceptable in advertising 12-15 months ago was not any longer, due to public pressure, so maybe Swinson's incremental, small-scale system of complaints is working. I ask what other measures Swinson thinks politicians can take to address body-image problems. There's a possibility of education on this issue becoming a part of the PSHE curriculum, she says; there's also the question of "What do you do about parents? So much of what young people perceive about their body image is taken from watching their parents ... I think we need to look at ways we can help parents pass on more positive messages to their children, and perhaps some of that can be done through health visitors, for example."
Another problem for young women, she says, is the paucity of strong women in the public eye. She and some other MPs are meeting with the head of sports at the BBC soon to discuss the fact that 2011's Sports Personality of the Year shortlist featured 10 men and no women. I ask whether there is any embarrassment in talking about this issue when there are only seven women Lib Dem MPs - just 12% of the party's total. The representation of women in the Lib Dems has long been disastrous - although not as disastrous as the fact that they have not a single non-white MP - and last year a report suggested they could potentially be left with no women MPs at all after the next election. Five of their women MPs are in marginal seats, including Swinson.
Swinson has opposed all-women shortlists in the past - at the 2001 Lib Dem party conference she wore a bright pink T-shirt saying I Am Not a Token Woman - but it's these shortlists that led to a sea-change in the representation of women in parliament: the breakthrough moment in 1997 when 101 female Labour MPs were elected. She speaks enthusiastically about the Lib Dem's leadership programme, which involves mentoring people from under-represented groups, but, speaking to experts in this field, there is scepticism about whether this will make much difference.
In many ways, Swinson is impressive, and the Lib Dems could do worse than to promote her - she is articulate, loyal, always willing to put her head above the parapet, and in a way that draws the focus to the issues rather than her as an individual. She is confident, a comprehensive school pupil who loved debating and went on to study management at the London School of Economics. But her devotion to politics can sometimes make it difficult to find out if there's much beneath the rhetoric. I ask about growing up in Milngavie, part of the area she now represents, and rather than any insight into her childhood, she talks about it being a middle-class, affluent area, with
This gesture politics won't combat the increasing inequality in society
Stephen Hester declines his bonus. Fred Goodwin is deknighted. Fine. But this is gesture economics. David Cameron remains convinced about the morality of free markets, and their natural ability to make everyone rich. This sharing out is ostensibly carried out by a kindly invisible hand, identified long ago by the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and in recent decades referred to as "trickledown".
New Labour did believe that the trickle had to be helped, but they were so busy actively redistributing, which in itself belied the trickledown theory, that they persuaded themselves that close scrutiny of the source of the largesse was not necessary or desirable. But figures in both Britain and the US show that huge increases in wealth at the top of society have not, in fact, led to any increase in affluence at the bottom. High salaries got much, much higher. Low wages, even average wages, stagnated. Underlying unemployment rose.
The neo-liberal concern is always that, left to its own devices, let alone deliberately channelled by "the state", a trickle can become a flood. But really, the growth in inequality in neo-liberal economies confirms the belief of neo-liberalism's critics - that a trickle is all too easy to dam up.
The debt crisis, quite simply, is the result of the huge efforts that have been made to hide the absence of trickledown. Cheap debt, in the form of mortgages, artificially inflated housing assets, encouraging people to take on more cheap debt, that they could treat like disposable income, created a consumer boom.
Even without a mortgage, you could still get credit cards, lots of them, and continually transfer your debts to the latest new deal. This meant that people felt as if they were becoming more wealthy and affluent, even when in reality they were not. Thus, an illusion was created - the illusion that concentrated wealth really was enriching everyone, when that was far from the case. Is Cameron really deluded, or just cynical? Either way, he is not going to find a solution while he remains so tremendously enthusiastic about the problem.
One year ago, a father's racist politics had poisoned the relationship with his son. Now, the birth of a child has brought about a subtle change
After more than a day of labour, Baby Finn forced his way into the world: 5lb 11oz, beautiful, healthy and wondrous. Dizzy with pride for my partner and son, I wanted to tell the entire world, one by one. Except, that is, for my own father.
He'd made clear his lack of interest in our mixed-race child, so what must be life's greatest phone call was taken from me by his irrational hatred of difference. In truth though, nothing could sully the joy of Finn's arrival. If the third world war had broken out, it would have been a footnote to my day.
Collecting myself in the autumn air outside St Thomas' hospital, London, where not even the gothic splendour of the Palace of Westminster could impress after seeing what Mira had gone through to bring Finn into the world, I rang Mira's mother. The happiness doubled and the news would be distributed among the Patels at a speed Twitter could only dream of.
Now for my lot. If I rang the family home, the only person in the world I didn't want to speak to would answer. We hadn't spoken in months and he didn't deserve - or desire - the good news. On this day, especially, I didn't want to hear his voice.
Given the length of the labour, I had been able to warn my mum that we were heading for the hospital and to turn her mobile phone on. (For reasons best known to the elderly, mobile phones are usually turned off when not in use to "save the battery", even when childbirth is imminent.)
Mum was overwhelmed to hear the news that she had a fifth grandchild. It was an unexpected treat for her late in life as it had been 16 years since the last one, and he's already shaving. She knew how happy Mira and I were, and hoped we'd bring her a baby to love. Her prayers and my father's fears were answered simultaneously.
For the first few weeks of Finn's life I'd pick my mum up to bring her to see the baby without speaking to my dad. She couldn't have been more delighted. Well, perhaps if her husband shared her profound glee, she could.
Mira's family were regular visitors and made a fuss of Finn, showering him with affection and gifts, as well as providing great support.
The situation with my father couldn't go on. He's approaching 90 and it was intolerable to think that Finn would not meet his grandfather. I don't know why he finally decided to get in touch, but détente was reached at his request.
He didn't apologise, but wanted us to put our differences aside. He said he had his reasons for his objections. I told him I didn't care what they were - they would make no sense to me. We were talking about an innocent baby, his grandchild, I told him. He agreed. A newborn baby was to be cherished. He wanted to meet him. We would not reach an understanding, simply a slightly chafing accommodation.
When Finn was three months old, I took him to see my father. When I put my son in his arms, even with his faltering eyesight and unsteady grasp, he was visibly moved to hold him, to gaze down on those big brown eyes and declare him handsome.
Now he regularly rings up to ask: "How's my beautiful grandson?" before telling me how alert and lovely he is, just like any proud grandad. It still surprises me, but I'm gratified and - more than anything - relieved. As an added bonus, he hasn't said anything offensively racist to me for months. I think of it as Babies 1, BNP 0.
He hasn't changed his politics, of course, but he has at least stopped his small-minded bigotry poisoning the bond with his own blood. Although our relationship will never be the same, it is at least cordial and Finn at last has a grandfather (Mira's father died some years ago).
Race was not an issue for Mira's family. Both her sisters are married to white Englishmen and have beautiful children. The family has had many happy mixed marriages since they came to England from east Africa in the 1970s.
It took a baby to shake my father from his rigid stance, and I suppose it is the same for many families. The thing you fear turns out to be nothing at all.
I still brace myself for an offensive outburst when we take Finn to see my parents. But he takes most of the attention, so the state of the modern world comes up less. Last time, my dad piped up: "It doesn't make sense. Our government has just given £4m to the starving Somalis ..." I tensed, fearing the rest of the sentence but he said, "Yet Manchester City has just spent £35m on a footballer." Perspective is the last thing I expected from him.
Mostly, though, I am glad that he is proud of the baby we made, a child we couldn't love more, who will grow up to hear that his grandad has some good points. I can tell him he was a war hero who risked his life and gave part of his sanity, in my opinion, to protect this country from the evil force of nazism.
It still shocks and saddens me that my father, along with others of his generation and experience, embraces the racist ideology they fought against in the battle that defined their lives. Do they really wish they had been on the other side?
"I didn't fight for this," he used to say about our multicultural society. I could never satisfactorily explain it to him, but he did fight for this - for Britain to determine its own future and for its people to be free to live their lives and love whoever they loved. And he fought for Finn, and all his grandchildren, so they need never fear a knock at the door from a regime based on hate, division and brutality. For that I will always be grateful.
Names have been changed
I normally give myself a day off on Fridays, since there isn't normally much in the way of polling, but I've just noticed a YouGov Welsh poll from last night. Topline voting intention figures for Westminster and the Welsh assembly are as below.
Westminster Voting intention: CON 25%, LAB 50%, LDEM 6%, PC 11%, Others 9%
Assembly consituency vote: CON 20%, LAB 49%, LDEM 7%, PC 17%, Others 7%
Assembly regional vote: CON 20%, LAB 45%, LDEM 7%, PC 15%, Others 13%
Ed is a formidable campaigner - fighting the 'unwinnable' Kingston and Surbiton seat in 1997 - with no central help and a 15,000 Tory majority. The selection for the Tory nomination (between Richard Tracey and Norman Lamont) was seen by the media as the decisive contest. In the end Ed won by just 56 votes, but carried on campaigning so just four years later romped home with a majority of more than 15,000.
He has been regarded as one of the most able ministers - piloting through a deal that has delivered a long term future for post offices and ending once and for all the post office closure programmes of the last two governments. He has also equalised parental leave so that new parents can choose how to take their statutory time off between them.
In February 1997 - he was tipped by the Independent as a future cabinet minister in 2020 - saying:
...Davey became politically active as a student "discussing the minutiae of energy conservation and green economics" and conservationism is his big issue. He believes citizens should be viewed as "custodians of the environment and not just consumers".
He has made it with eight years to spare to a post he is eminently qualified for.
03-Feb-12
Dafydd, Elin, Leanne and Simon are already showing buckets more vision than Captain Carwyn can muster, so it is crucial that whoever wins the contest has a party fit for purpose to offer a radical and exciting alternative - to a worryingly stale Labour party. This is why the recently published review is so important, and all its 95 recommendations.
There is a genuine momentum being created within the party this Winter, starting with a membership surge, a lively and exciting leadership contest and a Local Government election thrown in to spice things up a little more. Plaid is preparing to re-construct itself at all levels for the new Wales that will come out of the current UK constitutional dalliances and the party in Wales that adapts first, will gain most. Perhaps there was some truth in the comment that Plaid was the slowest party to adjust to devolution but with the new structural changes taking place, we do not intend to make that mistake again.
Malév Hungarian Airlines Airlines are folding rather like card houses on a rickety card table. Now its the turn of Malev, Hungary's national airline. Depending on what the Hungarian government does or does not do, this is still a case of less competition in the airline business. It would appear that the debts are far too big for a rescue. Tonight, the website of Malev says, "Dear Passengers, concerning your travel, we suggest that you ask other airlines about their offers or, if possible, you choose an alternative method of transport". That's how it is these days. Planes get grounded, passengers get stranded.
I see that Ryanair has had the foresight to start a service from Birmingham to Budapest. Starts 28th March. Ryanair will be flying anywhere and everywhere soon. Cattle class only. I'm watching Pan Am on the BBC. Those were the days! I remember as a teenager wondering what it would be like to fly like that. Never did. By the time I got in the air, everything was heading south. However, I've had the opportunity of flying business class with Delta and KLM in the Eighties. It was still something to be reckoned with then. Now everyone is cutting costs so much it's a miracle they get the planes going anywhere. Unless the airline is Ryanair. It's a sort of KwikSave of the airline industry. I hope there are no more airlines to add to the history books.
While the EDL are stomping around Leicester tomorrow, their bastard offspring the "Infidels" will be in Rochdale to in the eloquent words of their most literate (and deranged) member, "drive dem Pakis in2 d sea" (sic, sic, sic and yes, sick!)
We are of course being reminded constantly that snow is forecast for across the country tomorrow. Here at the HNH weather centre we reckon most of the "snow" in Leicester and Rochdale will most likely be consumed off mirrors and toilet seats by the competing gangs of drug dealers, crack-heads racists, weirdos, speed-freaks, narks and police informers that make up both of these rival gangs.
Of course, there is a competition between the two gangs as to not just who is the most lumpen, but as to who can get the most people at their demonstration.
Tin-Pot Tommy's EDL were just about shading it with their proposed march through Leicester until a Nazi big gun stepped up to the plate for the Infidels.
Not many of you will be aware of who David Jones is. He is a member of a tiny political sect called the British People's Party (BPP) whose main activity other than excessive consumption of Bostick, has been churning out paedophile Nazis who want to blow stuff up.
Jones has a reputation as a bit of a "village idiot" in the village of Todmorden, West Yorkshire from where he hardly ever ventures. As well as constantly putting out leaflets in the village warning that the local phone box could be turned into a Mosque, he also likes to trawl from pub to pub in long black rain coats trying to look like his hero George Lincoln Rockwell.
Well, it's off to Rochdale for Dave tomorrow. He's also bringing all of his friends with him. He's off the fence on this one almost as much as he is off the planet most of the time.
So, hats off to Dave and the BPP. Their tiny size could of course be the reason why Dave is actually and more truthfully always trying to save that village phone box. It's a bold move.
Keep your eyes peeled fashion watchers. Here's a few pics of Dave in action...
Chris Huhne's divorce spiralled into political crisis after claims by his former wife that she took speeding points on his behalf
The acrimonious divorce of Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce spiralled into a political as well as personal crisis when they were both charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, prompting Huhne's resignation as energy secretary and a call by Pryce for the case to resolved quickly.
Huhne described the director of public prosecutions' decision to charge him as deeply regrettable and vowed to prove his innocence in front of a jury.
Pryce, in a brief statement from her lawyer, did not declare her innocence or guilt, saying she would now spend some time with her family and adding: "Obviously I hope for a quick resolution of the case." It is not known what plea she will submit to the charges.
In a day of personal turmoil and suspense for Huhne and Pryce, Keir Starmer, the DPP, announced he judged that sufficient evidence existed to charge the former couple. It is alleged that Pryce has admitted taking speeding points on behalf of her former husband in March 2003, an allegation she initially made in the Sunday Times during their separation.
It is the first time a serving cabinet minister has been charged with an imprisonable criminal offence in modern times, and represents a devastating blow to one of politics' most resilient figures, as well as potentially weakening the Liberal Democrats at a time when the party is hoping to stage a recovery. Huhne has been described as "the grit in the oyster", self-confident enough to challenge his coalition partners across the policy range.
Lawyers for the former couple will be summoned to appear at Westminster magistrates' court on 16 February, with a full trial at the Old Bailey possibly in September, on the assumption that neither side pleads guilty or manages to get the case dismissed. There is a prospect that other Liberal Democrats could be summoned to give evidence.
In a letter accepting Huhne's resignation, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, said: "I fully understand your decision to stand down from government in order to clear your name, but I hope you will be able to do so rapidly so that you can return to play a key role in government as soon as possible."
David Cameron, however, made no mention of a possible return in his own letter accepting Huhne's resignation, saying only: "Like the deputy prime minister, I am sorry to see you leave the government under these circumstances and wish you well for the future." He added that Huhne had made the right decision to stand down in the circumstances, and praised his work on climate change.
In a typically robust response, Huhne said: "The Crown Prosecution Service's decision today is deeply regrettable. I'm innocent of these charges and I intend to fight this in the courts and I'm confident that a jury will agree.
"So as to avoid any distraction to either my official duties or my trial defence, I am standing down and resigning as energy and climate change secretary. I will of course continue to serve my constituents in Eastleigh."
Clegg spoke to Huhne on Thursday night and Friday morning. Clegg's wife, Miriam, spoke to Pryce to express her sadness and offer her support. It was being stressed by Lib Dem aides that the Cleggs were not taking sides, but making a human gesture to two people who as a couple had been the only Liberal Democrats to attend their wedding.
Pryce is said to be disappointed at the decision of the Sunday Times to succumb to a police court demand to hand over emails between herself and a journalist on the paper. The Sunday Times had initially resisted the release of the emails, but changed tack, prompting some of Pryce's friends to claim that it had not protected its sources as newspapers are expected to do. News International sources said it had a written agreement with Pryce that it would protect her but if the court demanded material, the Sunday Times could hand that material to the police.
Cameron was informed at 9.10am of Starmer's decision and spoke to Huhne by phone at 10.40am, little more than half hour an hour after Starmer's announcement.
In a rapid, long-prepared response to the resignation, Cameron appointed the Lib Dem business minister Ed Davey to succeed Huhne. Norman Lamb, Clegg's parliamentary aide, has taken on Davey's former brief.
Lib Dem officials praised Davey's quick grasp of policy and ability to get on with officials and said he would be his own man putting forward a strong green case. He said his three chief challenges were climate change, energy security and securing a better deal for energy consumers, a field in which he specialised while at the business department.
The prime minister's spokesman said he did not expect to see any substantial change in policy as a result.
But some environmentalists voiced dismay at the loss of Huhne, described by Greenpeace as "a vocal advocate for the green agenda in a government whose green credentials are looking more than a little tarnished".
Other government changes resulting from the resignation saw the Lib Dem MP Jenny Willott appointed an assistant government whip and Jo Swinson take Lamb's old post as parliamentary private secretary to Clegg. Despite speculation, there was no return for David Laws, who quit as Treasury chief secretary in May 2010 and was later suspended from the Commons for seven days after an expenses scandal.
Andrew Lansley says some trusts can no longer afford to honour PFI deals that were 'badly negotiated' by Labour ministers
Seven hospital trusts struggling with crippling private finance initiative debts are to receive £1.5bn in emergency funding from the government to help them avoid cutting patient services to pay their bills.
The Department of Health is making the £1.5bn available - in grants, not loans - to the seven hospital trusts in England with some of the heaviest PFI debts through a "stability" fund. Trusts will be able to use the money to meet PFI repayments, rather than their usual budgets, as long as they meet four conditions set out by the department.
The move will help trusts such as South London Healthcare NHS trust, which is facing a PFI repayment in 2012-13 of £66.8m under the terms of a deal agreed in July 1998, in the early days of Tony Blair's government. They will be able to access the £1.5bn over the next 25 years, until the PFI contracts end.
Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, said he had been forced to use taxpayers' money because certain NHS organisations could no longer afford to honour PFI deals that had been "badly negotiated" by Labour ministers.
"Labour left some parts of the NHS with a dismal legacy of PFI, and made them rely on unworkable plans for the future. They swept these problems under the carpet for a decade and left us with a £60bn postdated PFI cheque to deal with," Lansley said.
"The problems facing some parts of the NHS left to us by Labour now have to be sorted out. Tough solutions may be needed for these problems, but we will not let the sick pay for Labour's debt crisis."
The six other NHS trusts are Barking, Havering and Redbridge; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS foundation trust; St Helens and Knowsley; North Cumbria; Dartford and Gravesham; and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells.
Without the fund, there was a danger that services would be put "at severe risk" because of the weight of their PFI deals at a time of tightening NHS budgets, according to Department of Health sources.
South London faces the largest annual repayment in 2012-13. The Barking, Havering and Redbridge trust has to find £49.8m on its deal, agreed in January 2004, and the St Helens and Knowsley trust's payment will be £42.5m under the terms of its contract, signed in June 2006.
Lansley acted after 22 hospital trusts told him their PFI debts were endangering their financial or clinical future. Department of Health research established that PFI payments were one of the reasons for trusts' problems.
The department set four conditions for trusts to use the fund:
o The problems they face must be exceptional and beyond those faced by other organisations.
o The problems must be historic and they have a clear plan to manage their resources in the future.
o They must show they are delivering high levels of annual productivity savings.
o They must deliver clinically viable, high quality services, including delivering low waiting times and other performance measures.
Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, who was health secretary during Labour's time in office, has previously admitted in relation to the deals: "We made mistakes. I'm not defending every penstroke of the PFI contracts we signed."
The money will be available over the remaining lifetime of the seven trusts' PFI contracts. It will come from underspends over that time in different Department of Health budgets.
In December a report into NHS finances by the public accounts committee flagged up looming problems with PFI debt. It concluded: "The cost of private finance schemes is an additional challenge for a limited number of hospitals. Analysis commissioned by the department has identified six trusts that are unviable largely because of their PFI charges. Long-term private finance initiatives deals reduce the department's ability to establish a level playing field of financially sustainable, autonomous trusts.
"In many cases efficiency savings alone will not be enough to make unviable trusts financially sustainable. The department faces a particular dilemma about how to manage the debt of these hospitals as their long-term financial commitments make reconfiguration more difficult," it added.
The capacity of clubs such as Portsmouth to carry on in apparently hopeless positions is one of the game's phenomena
In football perspectives have obviously changed. There was a time when the merest hint of a famous old club threatened with extinction would have been regarded as a major crisis within the game. Now the news of Portsmouth being issued with a winding-up order by HM Revenue and Customs for unpaid taxes is greeted with a shrug.
So what. Portsmouth have been this way before, HMRC having filed a similar petition in December 2009 which was eventually withdrawn, leaving the club to face a nine-point penalty for going into administration.
Pompey have experienced a series of financial crises since the late 90s which have usually involved last-minute rescues by foreign investors, though with mixed results. Harry Redknapp's two spells as manager between 2002 and 2008 saw them gain promotion to the Premier League and win the FA Cup but their cash problems have only ever been put on hold.
Now Portsmouth's bank accounts have been frozen following HMRC's latest wind-up. The tax man is owed £1.6m which may seem trifling compared to the sums being paid to Premier League players and the debts run up by their clubs as a result, but is posing yet one more threat to the club's future.
The winding-up petition is due to be heard on 20 February. Portsmouth are seeking a validation from the court to have their accounts unfrozen so that wages and money owed to suppliers can be paid. Meanwhile their supporters will be wondering who will take over the club next, always assuming that there is anyone left out there likely to show an interest.
Elsewhere life goes on. The season's issues continue to grab the headlines ... the Mancunian arm-wrestling contest at the top and the struggles of the rest to keep up, John Terry, Carlos Tevez, red cards that should or should not have been shown, two-footed tackles ... and so on and so forth. Winding-ups are not big news.
Portsmouth will probably live to be wound up another day. The capacity of football clubs in apparently hopeless positions to carry on somehow is one of the game's phenomena.
In the mid-80s Middlesbrough were broke and had to borrow £30,000 from the Professional Footballers' Association to pay the wages. The gates at Ayresome Park were padlocked and Boro, then in the old Third Division, kicked off the 1986-87 season with a home game against Port Vale except that "home" on that day was at Hartlepool.
Ten minutes before the deadline for registering with the Football League, at a cost of £350,000 which up to that point Middlesbrough did not have, Steve Gibson, the present chairman, led a consortium to the rescue and Boro ended up winning promotion. In the early 80s Derek Dougan headed a similar salvage operation to bail out Wolverhampton Wanderers, again with minutes to spare.
Broadly speaking, football clubs live on so long as the will to live is strong. For Halifax Town read FC Halifax, riding high in the Blue Square Premier. Cast a glance through the Evo-Stik North Premier and there are Bradford Park Avenue, a point ahead of FC United of Manchester. Darlington's financial woes may have cost them 10 points in the Blue Square Premier but at least they are still there, the fans having rallied round to keep them going.
Older followers of Leyton Orient will remember Arthur Page, then the chairman, walking around the running track at Brisbane Road with a plastic bucket into which supporters were invited to drop contributions to ease a cash crisis. The will of the fans to ensure that their team stays in existence should never be underestimated.
The restoration of Brighton and Hove Albion as a serious footballing force, epitomised by the way Gus Poyet's side have just swept Newcastle United out of the FA Cup, owes much to the energy and vision of Dick Knight. But if Albion supporters had given up when, the Goldstone Ground having been sold from under them for development, they were asked to travel to the ends of the earth, otherwise known as Gillingham, to watch home games, the club might have faded away.
Maybe a franchise system, requiring those who would own a football team to stick to an agreed set of practices or lose control, might save clubs from themselves. At present the tendency is to apply the Billy Bunter principle in matters of finance : the Owl of the Remove was forever expecting a postal order. Either this or hope that the figure shimmering in the heat haze of an Arabian desert is Omar Sharif with oil wells and not merely a mirage.
A major factor in why US prisons are overflowing is the highly profitable privatised industry that has an incentive to fill them
In the past few decades, changes in sentencing laws and get-tough-on-crime policies have led to an explosion in America's prison population. Funding this incarceration binge has been an enormous drain on taxpayer dollars, with some states now spending more to lock up their citizens than to provide their children with education. It's difficult to spin anything positive out of that scenario, but as it turns out, even this blackest of clouds has a silver lining - silver as in dollars, that is, for the private prison industry.
In 2010, two of the largest private prison companies in America, GEO Group, Inc and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) generated over $4bn dollars in profit between them. Their respective CEOs, George Zoley and Damon Hininger, each earned well in excess of $3m in 2010. Although there have been some concerns that any relaxation of sentencing or drug laws might negatively impact their bottom line (profit), they remain confident in their ability to drum up new ways of generating their taxpayer-funded commodities (also known as inmates): lobbying California for their excess prisoners being one; caging juveniles on trivial charges another. But the favorite, by a long shot, is the accelerated drive to lock up America's immigrants.
So far, these strategies seem to be working nicely. In their 2011 third-quarter earnings report, the GEO group proudly announced an increase in profits from the previous year. This joyous news can be at least partially attributed to changes in immigration law, particularly in states like Arizona and Oklahoma, which allow for, among other things, the indefinite detention of illegal immigrants, including those whose asylum proceedings are underway. The majority of immigrants who are picked up by law enforcement officials, mostly on civil charges, like being caught with a broken tail light for instance, will end up in privately run prisons. In many of these facilities, they will be charged $5 per minute to call their loved ones, whilst earning $1 per day for their labor, from which the corporation running the facility will profit.
According to an investigation by NPR, in 2008, two men, allegedly from CCA, showed up in a small Arizona town, close to the Mexican border to pitch the construction of a new prison specifically to house women and children who were illegal immigrants. Local officials were not convinced that the prison could be kept full, but that is, perhaps, because they were unaware that, at the time, CCA was one of the key groups involved in drafting and promoting the Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (which requires police to lock up anyone who cannot prove they came to the US legally), under the auspices of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which specializes in model legislation.
It's hard to think of a more cynical way to earn one's fortune than to devise means of placing innocent children in prison. But if no one's going to stop you, then why the hell not?
It's not all sunshine and roses in private prison land, however. These dens of inequity were sold to the public as super-efficient, money-saving, job-creating dream machines. The trouble is, most of the savings are derived from hiring too few prison guards and paying them on average 30-40% less than their counterparts in government-run prisons. According to Brian Dawe, executive director of the American Correctional Officers (ACO), an organization that promotes the well-being and safety of corrections officers (COs), no self-respecting CO wants to work in a private prison - where their chances of being assaulted are 49% higher, where escapes are commonplace, where riots are frequent and where the staff are ill-equipped to cope.
It might seem counterintuitive to create conditions that are conducive to outbreaks of violence, until you realize that violence is good for business. Inmates who act out tend to get time added to their sentence. Time added to sentences means more money, and more money is exactly what the CEOs and their shareholders are interested in.
This brings me to what the ACLU's David Shapiro, who authored the recent report Banking on Bondage, calls a "fundamentally flawed incentive". In a sane society, the purpose of a prison should be to keep the public safe. The goal should not be to encourage criminal behavior or to find new ways to incriminate people, so that certain private individuals can line their pockets.
It's an added kick in the face that these corporations which profit from human misery are doing so at the taxpayers' expense and to the detriment of public safety. But until the public cries foul, there will be no stopping them.
Interested parties can write to:
Sadhbh Walshe
PO Box 1466
New York, NY 10150
Or send an email to: sadhbh@ymail.com
That's the list as approved by Cabinet last month. Barely comprehensible.
So, for clarity, here's a map - and a reshuffled list - showing which Neighbourhood Partnerships are being told to decide which of their green spaces to sell - and how many are on the hit-list in each. Where there's no number, of course, there's nothing to be sold.
The whole unsustainable strategy of financing the parks by selling parkland was based on the illusion that this would be 'fair', helping all parts of Bristol achieve a common standard of access to parkland amenities. Wealth redistribution in action - a rare thing from any Con-Dem administration. But the map shows that with the parks, a loss of assets in poorer parts of the city will provide more in the wealthier wards. (OK, it's a generalisation, but it's broadly true).
That's what the outer Neighbourhood Partnerships are being asked to approve. And the more they sell, the more open space they lose, and the more receipts go into the central pot.
........................
Here's the full list, by NP
Avonmouth & Kingsweston (NP01):
Land at rear of Merrimans Drive
Longcross Woodland
Moorend Gardens
Portway Tip (Daisyfield)
Moorgrove
Napier Square Park
Cook Street Open Space
Henacre Open Space
Henbury & Southmead (NP02)
Crow Lane Open Space
Arnal Drive Open Space
Arnal Drive Open Space North
Elderberry Walk
Brentry Hill
Tranmere Road
Fonthill Park
Trym Valley
Horfield & Lockleaze (NP04)
Muller Road Rec/Downend Park Farm
Lockleaze Open Space
Dovercourt Road Open Space
Greater Fishponds Area - Eastville, Hillfields & Frome Vale (NP05)
Small land, Snowdon Road Open Space
Bracey Drive Open Space
Gill Avenue
Delebare Avenue
Duchess Road Open Space
St George East & West (NP09)
Plummers Hill Open Space
Terrell Gardens
Furber Road
Gladstone Street
Filwood, Knowle & Windmill Hill (NP11)
Bath Road (3 Lamps)
Salcombe Road
Brislington Community Partnership (NP12)
Broomhill Road/Emery Road
Newbridge Road Open Space
Belroyal Avenue
Bonville Road Open Space
Broomhill Park
Allison Avenue
Dundry View - Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe & Whitchurch Park (NP13)
Sherrin Way (Billand Close)
North Valley Walk
South Valley Walk
Huntingham Road/Keble Avenue (Four Acres?)
Withywood Park (Paybridge Road)
Willmott Park North
Willmott Park South
Hengrove & Stockwood (NP14)
Sturminster Close
Hazelbury Road Open Space
Craydon Road Triangle
Burnbush Close
Ladman Road Bus Terminus
Gillebank Close
Ladman Road/Bagnall Road
Maple Close
There's more about each site among the draft Area Green Space Plans and (most of them) in this FoI disclosure
Imagine a door-to-door salesman comes to your house one day to try and sell you a burglar alarm by telling you about the terribly high crime rate is in your area. You're not convinced, so you tell him you don't want one. A little while later that same salesman breaks into your house, nicks the TV and does a crap on the sofa.
Now replace "door-to-door salesman" with "David Cameron", "your house" with "France" and "burglar alarm" with "financial transactions tax", and you've pretty much summed up our government's attitude to attempts to rein in the forces of global finance.
This was Cameron speaking a few months ago (bolded text my emphasis):
The danger, we have always believed, is driving transactions to a jurisdiction where it wouldn't be applied. So a global tax would be a good thing, but in Britain also we have put in place stamp duty on share transactions, a bank levy.
...and this was him this week:
Boris Johnson and David Cameron today urged French bankers to quit Paris and move to London in a dramatic escalation of a row with the French president.
The Mayor joined the Prime Minister in calling for traders to escape Nicolas Sarkozy's plans for a financial tax by setting up business in the Square Mile.
Mr Johnson said: "Bienvenue à Londres. This is the global capital of finance. It's on your doorstep and if your own president does not want the jobs, the opportunities and the economic growth that you generate, we do."
So, in November you have Cameron telling us that of course a tax on bank transactions is a lovely fluffy idea, which we'd be only too happy to implement if only we could, but you see it just isn't possible because all those nasty banks would move their operations abroad if we did that, and we don't want that, do we? Then this week, he explicitly invites those very same nasty banks to move from France to the UK so they don't have to pay the transactions tax which Sarkozy is threatening to bring in.
Cameron, in short, is explicitly trying to bring about the very thing which he previously said would make a transaction tax untenable, despite ostensibly supporting such a tax in principle. Which, perhaps not surprisingly, suggests rather strongly that his original commitment to it was somewhat less than whole-hearted. Whether this also applies to Cameron and the Conservatives' attitude to other redistributive taxes is something about which I leave the reader to draw their own conclusions.
I have never been an enthusiast for conducting politics in this slightly paranoid language. That distaste is one of the many reasons I have never been attracted to the Labour Party. It reminds me of poor old Michael Foot waving his arms and talking about treason.
Nor do I have any sense that the ambitions of those using such language in the Lib Dems this week do so from an ideological position that goes much beyond leaving things much as Labour left them. Surely, after 90 years out of power, we should have something more to say on health than "Andy Burnham got it about right"?
But then I have long argued that a lack of ideology is the weakness of the Liberal Democrats. When asked what we stand for we tend to talk about individual liberty, but we have tended to combine that with a fear of going against the sort of policies that receive warm words from Guardian editorials. It is now wonder that proves an awkward combination when it is put under pressure.
I also think that some in the party have adopted an almost Bennite view of the political process. You win a majority for your programme within the party, the party wins an election and then implements every last dot and comma of that programme.
But as anyone who has been a local councillor - in fact anyone who has worked in an organisation of any size knows - politics is not like that. You are constantly buffeted by unforeseen events and you have to win support for your policies from far beyond the party even if you have a majority in the Commons. And that is a thousand times more true if you are the junior partner in a coalition.
You could say the party has its values to fall back on, but I am not convinced that talk of balancing liberty, equality and community quite cuts it. Surely everyone wants to balance those elements? It's just that they would all strike the balance in a different place. But then I was around in the old Liberal Party, so the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution has always sounded to me like the compromise it was rather than a clarion call.
Anyway, it the midst of this week's dramas Gareth Epps' headline Ed Davey is not fit to be a Cabinet minister almost counts as moderation. I don't share that few, though like Gareth I was hugely unimpressed by Ed's handling of the widespread concern about the pub trade. And, like Gareth, I would much rather have seen Norman Lamb promoted to the cabinet.
But then I have always been a little unimpressed by Ed Davey. I know many people who are great Davey supporters: in the past they have even talked of him as a future party leader. It's just that, going right back to his days as Lib Dem education spokesman, I have never seen much product from all this promise.
Let's hope he can surprise me in his new role as Energy Secretary. Come on Davey light my fire.
Transcript of my London #Compass 'Progressive Alliance' talk,
Jan. 10 2012
Thanks, everyone, for coming—it's a pleasure to be here.
So, my report on 'guardians for future generations' been creating a bit of a stir. By the way: If you want to get the report for free it's now available, for download, from the Greenhouse website, which is easy to find. (If you Google Green House now, we come up first rather than greenhouse adverts, so that's good...)
One of the stirs has been in the Guardian. The comments closed last night at 325, so there's clearly a lively and interesting debate there. So: what's it all about?
Well, I've got a proposal to end, or at least to seek to start to end, the chronic culture of short-termism that we have in our politics, in our electoral cycles, and in our business and economics—with business cycles and quarterly reports and even more short-termist things than that. And when one is trying to think on a timescale of hundreds of years or thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years, for example, which is the timescale for nuclear waste, then those kind of short-term cycles don't make a lot of sense. So what are we, collectively, going to do about it?
Well, before I say what I am proposing to do about it, here's one more way of seeing the problem, that I think really helps: the concept of democracy is one of my starting points. What does 'democracy' mean? So, etymologically, democracy means 'the people rule' or 'the people govern'. Now I'm sure all those who take themselves as any kind whatsoever of progressive would agree that at the present time it's pretty inaccurate to say -- in any very meaningful, or full, sense -- that the people govern in our society. So: we don't even have AV, let alone PR; we're still waiting for the upper house to be democratically reformed; beyond those reforms, we need also participatory democracy, many of us would say economic democracy, and a serious re-localisation. There are vast, vast changes in our society which are needed if there is going to be a real democracy here. But even if all those changes occured we would still be in a society which ran the risk of being chronically short-termist. Why? Well, the way I like to put this is that the democratic institutions that we have at the moment, even the laws that would be brought in if we made all those kinds of democratic changes that I've mentioned that we would all, I'm sure, like to see, tend to still be focused upon the interests and wishes of present people, people who are alive today. They are the people who vote—and whose votes alone would count even in an improved and enhanced democracy.
But a people, I want to suggest to you, is not something that exists as a time-slice; a people is something that exists over time. It begins in the past and goes on indefinitely far into the future.
And while people in the past are hard to harm, because they've had their time, people in the future are extremely easy to harm and indeed, in the extreme, to prevent from existing at all. Whereas if we get things right, people in the future could have the chance to have a great existence and to go on indefinitely longer into the future having that existence. So I want to say that we need to find a way of making democracy actually include future people. We need to find a way of representing them in our political system.
So, what would this mean? Can you give future people a vote? Well, obviously, that's not very feasible. So we need to find some form of, if you like, proxy representation for them. They need to have something like a proxy vote, I'm suggesting.
Well, as I said, if we don't screw up so badly that we stop them from existing altogether, over time there will be far more future people than there are present people, which would mean in a democracy that they would out-vote us every time, right? They would be the vast majority. So, in order to express their proxy 'vote', I suggest that what we need to give them is a proxy veto. Because: If they did vote on masse together, they would, as I say, massively out-vote us, provided we don't screw things up so badly that we stop them from having the chance of living at all... So I want to suggest that we need proxy representatives for future people empowered in and by our political system to veto things that we might want to do but that they don't want us to do. And the people who are going to be these proxies I'm calling Guardians for Future Generations, guardians to represent the interests of these future people to us.
So, who should these guardians be? How should they be selected? Well it doesn't make any sense for us to vote for them, because they are proxies for future people—they're there to express the votes that future people would cast if they could cast those votes.
I suggest that actually all of us and none of us are equally well positioned to be these proxy representatives for future people. We could say, Greens are the best place to represent future people, but that would be begging the question: "I'd like you to give me and my friends the power to veto all decisions made in our political system." Hmmm… Not very convincing… It would never ever get through: it would be perceived as a cheat—it would be perceived, correctly, as utterly undemocratic. We need, plainly, to draw these proxy representatives from across the entire population. I suggest that the only fair, reasonable and democratic way of doing this is through the same principle that animates the jury system: which is random selection. Such that anyone and everyone has an equal chance to be one of the guardians for future people. So what I'm suggesting can be put in this way: that we need a super-jury drawn from any and all of us to represent to us the interests of future people and to represent those/them by having a proxy power that enables them to veto decisions (that would affect future people adversely) that are made in our current political system.
And that line of thinking really gives you exactly what my proposal is—I'm proposing guardians for future people, guardians for the fundamental interests -- for the basic needs -- of future generations, to be selected at random, as jurors are, to form a super-jury, which would sit above our
David Miliband rejects my pro-state policy ideas as 'Reassurance Labour'. That's why he's not leader
Rejoice. It is just possible that two not very original articles, which recently appeared in small circulation magazines, will stimulate the debate about Labour's principles and purpose that the party has needed, but lacked, for so long.
In the first article - published in the Political Quarterly - Kevin Hickson and I argued that Labour would only succeed if it based its programme on a coherent and consistent philosophy, that its ideological objective should be a more equal society, and that the Blair and Brown governments had made too little progress in that direction because of two crucial errors: they placed too much faith in the power of markets and they accepted the fashionable view that the role of the state should be drastically reduced. To us it seemed so blindingly obvious that we were not at all surprised when, for months after its first publication, the article was completely ignored.
Then along came David Miliband. His response, in the New Statesman, amounted to the rejection of what he called "Reassurance Labour" - his description of our strongly held belief that, far from being an electoral liability, genuine social democracy is what millions of disillusioned voters are waiting for.
Events conspire to prove our point. Who now believes that "light regulation" will encourage banks to contribute to the general good, or that the profit motive - as illustrated by the collapse of Southern Cross - is the best stimulus to high-quality domiciliary care? If "modernisation" - more often demanded than defined - means accepting that the world is constantly changing, it is a requirement of policy making. If it means that it is now impossible to mobilise a majority for the redistribution of power and wealth, the inherent pessimism is contradicted by the evidence.
There are points at which the two diagnoses coincide. David agrees that, when properly defined, liberty and equality are essentially related, rather than mutually exclusive, conditions. But if he does want a more equal society he has do more than extol its virtues. He has to support the means of bringing it about. And state power is essential to its achievement. We no more believe that the state is always benign than we believe in the extinction, or even the regulation, of a majority of markets. Our complaint against the Blair and Brown governments is that in both areas they lacked discrimination. Markets are often necessary to preserve liberty as well as to promote efficiency - but they are not the best method of distributing welfare, medical care and education. The state sometimes intrudes unacceptably into the lives of its citizens - but more often it is the best way of providing essential social services.
State action is vital to the achievement of a more equal society. It is the most efficient mechanism for the redistribution of power and wealth, and it enables a genuinely egalitarian government to destroy the institutions of inequality and replace them with systems which unite rather than divide the nation.
For some reason, which I cannot explain, David accuses us of wanting to diminish the role of local government. Perhaps he has a guilty conscience. The government in which he served invented "city academies: they are a perfect example of how - by replacing public provision with the individualism of the "choice agenda" - the interests of the articulate, self-confident and determined minority are promoted at the expense of the community as a whole. David ignores the state's basic duty to protect the vulnerable against private tyranny. So did the Blair-Brown governments. As a result, the bankers' greed and incompetence created a "lost generation" of the young unemployed.
Understandably, David bridles at criticism of the governments in which he served. We have no doubt that they did much of which the Labour party can be proud. We said so when we campaigned for its re-election. David makes the tired old jibe about the luxury of "principle without power". But we believe that future office will elude us until we establish a distinctive radical reputation. That requires a leader who has the courage and character to acknowledge the fundamental flaws in New Labour thinking. It is one of the reasons why we voted for Ed Miliband 18 months ago.
From bonuses to knighthoods, the leaders we put in high office prefer jaw-jutting certainty to thoughtful judgment
The laws of contempt demand that we tread warily when assessing the matter of Chris Huhne's judgment. We can wonder if the now departed energy secretary would have had to resign to spend more time with his lawyers had he played things differently. Perhaps if he had been less abrasive, declining to compare his Tory cabinet colleagues to Nazis during the alternative-vote campaign for example, he would have had more friends in high places saddened rather than cheered to see him go.
Not that they could have saved his job. Whatever the law says about innocent until proven guilty, politics has its own code - one that deems criminal charges incompatible with high office. If Huhne has any regrets at all, they probably relate to ... but no, the lawyer is hovering.
Still the Huhne resignation on Friday did one man a favour, diverting the spotlight from Sir Philip Hampton, the RBS chairman, who, with his knighthood still intact, did a round of morning interviews, mostly focusing on the bonus of very nearly £1m offered to, and then waived by, the bank's chief executive, Stephen Hester. "I think it's true that we underestimated the scale of the public reaction to the bonus award," Hampton conceded.
Think about that for a moment. This is the chairman of a huge institution, in a post so responsible he was himself deemed worthy of a £1.4m bonus, admitting that he was unable to predict that taxpayers would be agitated by the prospect of forking out a seven-figure prize to the head of a bank they all but own, even though that bank's share price had tumbled by 37% in a year. Only "in hindsight" could Hampton see what anybody who had opened a newspaper or listened to a phone-in over the past three years could have told him in advance.
Forget the outrage over rewarding failure and throwing millions at this one public employee, Hester, while everyone else in the public sector has to endure a pay freeze that is, in effect, a pay cut. Focus only on the admission of utterly defective judgment. A titan of British finance has confessed that he did not know what was obvious to the dogs in the street.
It recalled the round of interviews Peter Mandelson had given a week earlier, where the former Lord High Marshal - I forget his exact title - of the Brown government explained his new understanding of globalisation. He had once believed that globalisation would produce "rising incomes for all". Indeed, he said, "we took all that for granted". But, to his shock, "we've learned that markets, while indispensable ... can become volatile and unstable and have to be managed and regulated"; and, more shocking still, that "globalisation is also generating income inequalities within countries and between countries."
Now, perhaps we should applaud Mandelson both for changing his mind and coming clean about the gaps in his previous thinking. But it's not as if he has discovered a truth impossible to glimpse until now. He was a cabinet minister in the era of the great anti-globalisation protests in Seattle and elsewhere. All he had to do was listen to what those protesters were saying nearly 13 years ago, as they warned that the new economic orthodoxy was fuelling inequality and that markets needed to be tamed. For, as he has now admitted, their judgment was right and his was wrong.
He's not, of course, the only eminence to have erred. Alan Greenspan - yet another financial big to be knighted - was revered as the oracle, the sage who chaired the Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years. Yet he eventually confessed that he did not see the devastating sub-prime housing bubble coming - "I really didn't get it until very late" - and, what's more, that it was with "shocked disbelief" that he realised that bankers might not put the safety of their depositors' cash ahead of all other considerations, including, say, personal greed.
Hampton, Mandelson, Greenspan - all confessing that they got it wrong. Which would be admirable if judgment were not the very quality they were hired for. That, after all, is the deal. The eminent public official gets the titles, the salary, the status that separates him from lesser mortals because he is meant to be endowed with greater wisdom. That's their purpose. And yet, in Philip Hampton we have the lavishly paid chairman of a public concern cheerfully admitting that when faced with a critical decision he had less insight than any man or woman you might pick at random from the top deck of a passing bus.
The Mandelson case is graver. His first boss, Tony Blair, used the word "judgment" all the time, especially when defending the Iraq war, solemnly insisting that this was a judgment that ultimately he, as prime minister, had to make. But Blair's judgment proved to be fatally wrong: there were no WMDs and no plan for the aftermath of invasion. An unkind historian could seize on Mandelson's recent admission and conclude that, while right on so much else, on the two great questions of the age - the changing global economy and the "war on terror" - Blair's judgment was badly wrong. And yet it was precisely the quality of his judgment that he insisted qualified him to lead.
There are countless examples, in every direction. George Osborne slammed quantitative easing as "the last resort of desperate governments", before resorting to that very move himself. In 2001 Paddy Ashdown declared the idea of "a long drawn-out guerrilla campaign" in Afghanistan "fanciful". Earlier, Michael Gove wrote a pamphlet denouncing the doomed folly of the Northern Ireland peace process. Again and again, those who believe their judgment qualifies them to make great decisions of state get it wrong.
Perhaps Ed Miliband will draw comfort from this. He's made several judgment calls he's proud of: Murdoch, Hester and Fred Goodwin. The trouble is, it might not matter. Al Gore could always point to a good record - he supported the first Gulf war and opposed the second, for example - but it was not enough. It might not be sound judgment we crave, but the leader-ish appearance of it: the jaw-jutting certainty, the alpha confidence. Blair had that by the bucketload and so does Cameron. It may all be an illusion, covering an alarming pattern of misjudgment. But by the time the voters find out, it's often too late.
Twitter: @j_freedland
Amelia Gentleman should be congratulated on a powerful piece of journalism (After all the pep talks and CV workshops, where are the jobs?, 1 February) . It should be compulsory reading for the coalition government and Labour frontbench. Schemes to maximise people's CVs, job searching and employability skills may help some unemployed people. However, as she points out, the emphasis of these sorts of schemes is to make unemployment purely an individual problem, ignoring economic factors.
The danger is that many unemployed people start to believe that their failure to find work is solely due to defects in individual characteristics, rather than primarily a result of economic factors. Interestingly, at least one of the workers who are attempting to put people into work, Mark Harrison, acknowledged the shortage of jobs as a problem ("... there not being the jobs out there"). Incongruously, this realism frequently coexisted with a jargon-ridden, gung-ho approach from his colleagues when they were talking to clients and assuring them they would find a job.
Michael Somerton
Hull
o It was refreshing to read Amelia Gentleman's balanced report on what she saw of our work programme operations. In just six months G4S has already supported over 6,000 people into jobs through our management of the work programme. During turbulent economic times, providing quality support for long-term unemployed people becomes more important, not less so.
The total amount of jobs in an economy is not fixed. Labour market interventions like the work programme help create more jobs as well as match people to the jobs currently available. If we get it right, the work programme offers a unique opportunity to transform the present and future job prospects of a generation of unemployed people.
Sean Williams
Managing director, G4S Welfare to Work
o The headline on Amelia Gentleman's article encapsulates the problem: whereas there is much that is good in these schemes, it is clear that all this effort, at an apparent cost of £5bn, does not create a single job, apart from those of the individuals running them.
Philip Heselton
Hull
o Now we're having an intelligent debate on banking, can we also talk about the impact of the outsourcing and offshoring of jobs? What is the point of the work programme when the government is happy for both public and private sector work to move offshore to India or China? There will be no effective, long-term creation of jobs while this continues.
Tony Clewes
Walsall
o Amelia Gentleman's excellent article once again highlighted the total lack of vision in the government's approach to getting people into work. Rather than encouraging the unemployed to work unpaid for large companies, workshops should be run to help people of all ages identify the many gaps and new business opportunities that exist using modern technology and e-business models. I ran a two-year programme for Business Link Kent called e-quality for women entrepreneurs aimed at women over 50 wanting to start an online business. The response was amazing. They felt empowered when they realised that they could use their skills running a self-employed business and take control of their working lives.
Far more could be done to create mutually beneficial partnerships which could lead to employment or self-employment. Teach the young man being trained in making bird tables how to sell his products online. Get the 18-year-olds familiar with Twitter and Facebook to work with small businesses who are struggling to find the time to understand how social networking can raise their profile and create new markets. Arrange for the 60-year-olds with business backgrounds to mentor the young to start up a business. Too much time is spent focusing on traditional routes to employment.
Dee Alsey
Rye, East Sussex
o John Harris ('Being your own boss' is no alternative to a proper job, 23 January) is describing members of the new precariat - a combination of "proletariat" and "precarious". For women and ethnic minorities this is no new condition; altogether it's the growing class of those who live and work precariously, often in a series of short-term, insecure, low-paid jobs, and whose condition produces instability - like Occupy, riots and so on.
There are creative and egalitarian alternatives - work sharing, everyone working shorter hours rather than half the population out of work and the other half over-worked, co-operatives like Mondragon in the Basque country, where the highest earners are paid on average no more than five times that of the lowest, finance sector included. When are our politicians going to have a go at some of these?
Sue Ledwith
Ruskin College, Oxford
o Three months ago I was an employed IT professional and company director. I am now unemployed. I have applied for many jobs. Having paid tax into the system for many years, I feel entitled to my £60 per week unemployment benefit. To retain that I am now told by the Kingswood jobcentre in Bristol that I must make visits to offices/garages etc asking if they have any driving jobs. I am also told I must change my CV (dumb it down) and take any job that's offered to me. They say: "We know this is a bit demeaning but you are receiving taxpayers' money so this is what you must do."
Is it good for the UK economy for jobcentres to try to force highly qualified people to feel demeaned and undersell themselves simply because they have been unemployed for three months?
Mark Laridon
Bristol
o Please pass on to Amelia Gentleman my appreciation for the honesty and sensitivity she showed in her article on unemployment here in Hull.
It could only happen in Hull, the crucible of the anti-slavery movement and parliamentary seat of William Wilberforce, that unemployed citizens are expected to work without pay. Work without payment is my definition of slavery in the 21st century.
Mel Pink
Hull
o In Hull, there are apparently 58 applicants for each job. If each year, just over four of them do 12 weeks' unpaid "work experience", that job will disappear, and none will be able to gain paid employment. In the catechism I learnt at school, one of the sins crying out to heaven for vengeance was "defrauding labourers of their wages". It is a sin - and should be a crime - that has not gone away.
Frank Roper
Weymouth, Dorset
o The work programme does not save the government any money. When one benefit claimant finds work he simply fills a vacancy that would have gone to another claimant.
Janet Johnson
Rugby, Warwickshire
o It is all very well for the MoD to say that their purchasing policy does not preclude them from buying British (Fears for British jobs after BAE loses out on £7bn fighter contract, 2 February). The record of governments in the past of supporting development of ground-breaking work is abysmal - look at trains or windfarms or tidal power, where there has been virtually no support for British effort. What is the point of a scientific education if there are no British companies to provide employment? We will always be paying someone else to do the development work, so we will never have anything new to sell. The economy will never be rebalanced. Investing in R&D now is investing in our future. That must be government policy.
John Laird
Harrogate, North Yorkshire
o "Laughing at vocational jobs is a very British kind of snobbery, " writes Sarah Ditum ('Your kids aren't smart, posh, upper-class, whatever': a very British snobbery, 31 January). No it's not! It is stupid predjudice and active discrimination practised by people who should surely know better. Intellect and intelligence are not the same thing and most people now realise that the only way out of the economic impasse we find ourselves in will be by making things.
Creative industry needs to be the driving force of our economy rather than casino capitalism and low-taxed asset speculation. A change in attitudes is required that allows for the coming together of physical and mental intelligence working alongside academic intellect to create new goods and services that will enable a different economy to grow and prosper. Fortunately, the working class, with their myriad vocational skills and abilities, are usually quite good at this sort
The trouble with blaming the parents is that you risk blaming people who have coped far better than you would have
Margaret Thatcher's famous remark, "There is no such thing as society," is often quoted out of context. That's a shame because, in context, it is even more absurd than it appears when naked and alone. Thatcher offered her observation in 1987, during an interview with Woman's Own: "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." Yes, That's right. There is living tapestry, all woven together to make a big picture. Some people even call that picture "the big society", I hear.
Thatcher continues: "... we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for time, for understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty."
Oh, dear. That bit is not so easy to ridicule, is it? That bit is quite right. It is appalling to have children and then to abuse or neglect them. There is no excuse for it. Not even the excuse that you were abused and neglected as a child yourself - an explanation not being the same as an excuse. We are all agreed on that, broadly?
Good. By agreeing that Thatcher is right in that second assertion, one proves that she is wrong in the first one.
If there were no such thing as society, there would be no such thing as criticising others for their own sovereign and individual behaviour. There would be no social norms, no agreed ethical standards. There would be no loom, no warp, no weft, no tapestry. That is the trouble with rightwing individualism. It is always poking its snout into other people's business to remind them that ... well ... that other people's business is not their business. The baleful Conservative paradox is that you go into public service to dismantle it, into government (ostensibly) to disempower it.
I recalled Thatcher's homilies on parenting as I watched a recording of David Cameron doling out similar blame-the-parents "wisdom" the other evening, at the start of Olly Lambert's excellent documentary, My Child, The Rioter, which interviewed parents of young people who had taken part in the summer riots, sometimes alongside their children, sometimes not. All of those parents were people who had tried to do their best. (No takers for going on telly to announce that you had neglected and abused your offspring and couldn't care less what they got up to, of course.) All the parents rued the day their children had got involved, except for Ryan's parents. All the children, in some way or another, expressed regret, except for Ryan. Ryan had no regrets at all, except that he had failed to take the opportunity to wreak more havoc.
Ryan, significantly, was the only child who claimed to have looted for political reasons. "There is such a thing as committing a crime for the right reasons," said Ryan. He wants to riot again, "because nothing's changed." Ryan isn't stupid. He is at Salford University, doing a course in "Culture, Power and Identity". Nevertheless, a lot of people agree that repeating the same action, and expecting a different outcome, is the very definition of stupidity.
That is exactly why Cameron's repetition of Thatcher's opinions grated so much.
Ryan, again significantly, was also the only young person in the group who had not been arrested, charged and convicted. At the time of writing, he still hadn't. But it would be no surprise now, after his televised confession, if that were to come. So why are his parents allowing him to risk arrest, six months on, by publicly admitting to have taken part in rioting and looting?
It is because they are proud of him. "He's out to make a difference." He is a political protester, in their eyes, and his, not a criminal rioter, and the family is frustrated that this message is being buried, because the establishment does not want to look at "deeper issues, social injustices, all that".
It would be easy to mock Ryan, and his parents. People have done so. Lambert says that Ryan has been very shocked by the vitriol with which their television appearance has been condemned. Ryan is right to be shocked. He is right to be hurt at the criticism that has been directed at his parents. Because, despite their indulgence of their son's romantic ideas about the political sophistication of smashing stuff and nicking stuff, Ryan's parents are in some respects both exceptional and admirable.
Each admits to having been "poorly parented" themselves, Ryan's mother by a violent, alcoholic father, Ryan's father by a violent, alcoholic boyfriend of his mother's. Ryan's father says he was out on the streets, smashing things up, committing crimes, by the time he was five. The pair have brought up their family determined not to repeat this pattern. "I'm just trying to get things right as a parent now. Break the cycle," Ryan's dad asserts.
Ryan's parents, broadly speaking, are doing the right thing, a thing that is notoriously hard to do. They are refusing to pass on a legacy of neglect and abuse to the next generation. They have not looked to "the government" to change things. They have taken the initiative to change things themselves. No doubt they have not always found that to be an easy task.
Like so many of us, Ryan's parents accept their responsibilities (in their own idiosyncratic way), but see wider societal problems that need addressing too (even if I don't agree that encouraging your child to riot is the right way of going about it). They have certainly made their own contribution to society's improvement. In one generation a self-admitted "feral child" has brought up a university student. (Ryan isn't Gandhi, it's true. But he's engaged and discursive and almost perilously secure.)
Perhaps, as parents, Ryan's are making their own mistakes. We all do. The mistake of encouraging your child to believe that opportunistic rioting is a mature and politically useful undertaking is a mistake that is greatly preferable to the "mistake" of beating and brutalising him.
Indeed, Ryan's parents' mistake is no worse a mistake than bringing up your child to believe that if there is a profit in it, then it is the right thing to do (which one could be forgiven for thinking had been the guiding principle of the life of Thatcher's son, Mark). The trouble with blaming the parents is that you risk blaming people who have coped far, far better than you would have, given the same start in life. Worse, like Thatcher, you risk believing that you know what's best for everyone, when you don't even understand that "everyone" needs a collective noun: Society.
The UK's ruinous experiment with austerity only highlights how good the US economic news is for Obama's re-election chances
There were two major pieces of good news Friday on the US economy. First, there was better-than-expected news from the non-manufacturing survey from the ISM, which added to a very positive sister survey of manufacturing earlier in the week. The combined message that can be drawn from the two surveys is that the US economy grew at the fastest rate for ten months in January. The surveys are broadly consistent with gross domestic product rising at an around 3.0% at the start of the year, setting the scene for a robust first quarter.
The ISM survey also brought goods news on employment, with a leap in non-manufacturing headcounts, following a more modest, though still substantial, rise in manufacturing jobs reported earlier in the week. The overall rise in employment was the largest since February 2006, with non-manufacturing jobs also showing the largest increase over that near-six-year period.
The good news on jobs kept on coming with the publication Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the latest data on the US labor market. An improving labor market boosts Obama's re-election chances, given that both his likely Republican opponents have argued that his economic policies have not been working. The data are starting to suggest otherwise.
The rise in non-farm payrolls of 243,000 was larger than the consensus of around 150,000, with all of the increase in the private sector (+257,000), and only a small fall in public-sector employment. There was growth in employment across almost all sectors, with especially large increases in manufacturing (+50k), professional and business services (+70k) and leisure and hospitality and even construction (+21k). Non-farm payrolls are now up by nearly 2 million on the year; private-sector job creation of 2.22m far outweighs public-sector job declines of 275,000.
These employment numbers are derived from a survey of firms. Data are also reported in the release from a survey of households, which also provides a count of the number of jobs. Employment counts from the firm and establishment surveys often diverge since the coverage is different. (The household survey has a more expansive scope because it includes the self-employed, unpaid family workers, agricultural workers and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey.) According to that measure, which can be pretty volatile, employment has grown by an unlikely 850,000 on the month; but on the year, the increase of 2.3m is very close to that derived from the firms' count.
The household survey is also used to calculate the unemployment rate, which fell by more than expected, to 8.3%, the lowest level since February 2009. The number of unemployed also fell, by 340,000 on the month, and is now down by 1.1m on the year. Unemployment rates fell sharply for African Americans (from 15.8% to 13.6%), and somewhat for Hispanics (from 11.0% to 10.5%). Young adults aged 20-24 saw a sharp decline in their unemployment rates, from 14.4% to 13.3% on the month, as did high-school dropouts (13.8% to 13.1%) on the month.
Interestingly, the young, minorities and the least educated tend to do worst in slumps - and benefit, relatively, most in booms - as their unemployment experience tends to be more cyclically volatile than other groups such as the more highly-educated. So, these are all welcome signs and will alleviate some of the pressure on incomes at the low end of the US scale.
Of interest also is how the improvement in the unemployment rate is distributed across states. The latest data we have by states, up to December 2011, shows that 46 states registered unemployment rate decreases from a year earlier, while four states - Hawaii (6.3% to 6.6%); Illinois (9.2% to 9.8%); Mississippi (10.2% to 10.4%); North Carolina (9.8% to 9.9%); plus the District of Columbia (9.6% to 10.4%) - experienced increases. Currently, five states have double-digit unemployment rates - California (11.1%); DC (10.4%); Mississippi (10.4%) and Rhode Island (10.8%). But overall, the improvement is widespread and not limited to a few states, which should also help Obama in November.
An especially interesting comparison is between the United States and the United Kingdom, which implemented a package of austerity measures in 2010. US GDP growth for Q4/2011 was +0.7% compared with -0.2% for the UK. Both the UK and the US have large financial sectors and both were highly exposed to a financial sector shock. In March 2008, unemployment rates in the US and the UK were similar (5.1% and 5.2% respectively). The response in the US was for firms to shake out workers at early stages of the recession; thus, unemployment went up to 10% in October 2009 (see graph). UK firms appear to have hoarded labor, and by October 2009, it had only reached 7.9%; but they have now started to shake the tree.
So the situation has now reversed itself, and the two series are now moving in the opposite directions - US unemployment down and the UK's up. We only have data for the UK up to November, as their surveys are small, so they only report rolling three-month averages, but all indications are that the series will cross in the next couple of months. The UK is in a jobless, or even a job-loss, recovery.
It is likely that Obama will run on a platform for jobs against an obstructionist Congress and a Republican party committed to fiscal austerity and a weakening of the Federal Reserve. As far as I can tell, they have no credible plan at all for jobs. The lab experiment that has been conducted in the UK, which essentially has done what Republicans advocate, which provides great ammunition for the Democrats since austerity has demonstrably failed in the UK - and with more than 90% of the proposed cuts yet to come. Despite both countries having their own exchange rate, and central banks that have cut interest rates to the nominal bound and which have injected large amounts of quantitative easing into the economy, outcomes on the job front are very different.
Unlike Greece and Ireland who are stuck in monetary union, the UK coalition government voluntarily decided to run the experiment to see if there is such a thing as an "expansionary fiscal contraction". Now, they have found out that there isn't.
The UK cut public spending and fired public-sector workers; over the last year for which we have data, public-sector employment fell by 276,000, while private-sector employment grew by 262,000, giving a net decline of 14,000. There has been no private-sector resurgence and a "expansionary" fiscal contraction has turned out, in fact, to be contractionary.
Interestingly, the UK coalition government is hugely supportive of loose monetary policy and more quantitative easing, which, they have made clear, is their plan B. Next week, the Bank of England will do more quantitative easing - probably, another £75bn injection - to make up for the fact that cutting public spending doesn't work in a slump. Aren't Republican nomination rivals Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney (both pledged to implement, in large part if not all, the Ryan plan) proposing cuts in public spending? And are they not opposed to further QE by the Fed, a position that looks like a disaster to me, if the UK is anything to go by?
I suspect they would have a different view, if they were in power. But it is now starting to look as if we won't have the chance to find out.
Should the energy secretary have quit? From the point of view of justice and precedent, it is a pity he did not fight on
Should the energy secretary Chris Huhne have resigned? The answer may seem so obvious as not to be worth asking, especially now he has gone. Yet on the vital principle of justice that a person is innocent until proven guilty, a principle which his party has done much to defend in recent years, the answer is surely that Mr Huhne should not have quit. After all, in addition to the principle, the ministerial code clearly envisages that a minister may continue in office while being involved in legal proceedings in his personal capacity, including as a defendant, although the code also acknowledges that "there may be implications for them in their official position" if they do so. That was the exact situation in which Mr Huhne found himself when he was charged with perverting the course of justice. Yet Mr Huhne also protests his innocence, as he is absolutely entitled to do. Unless and until he is convicted, therefore, he was as fully entitled to try to stay as a minister as he also is to remain as an MP. His resignation leaves a bad taste.
From the point of view of justice and precedent, it is a pity he did not fight on. But from the point of view of politics, the consensus was that he had to go. That decision, though, lay with David Cameron, and to a lesser extent with Nick Clegg, not Mr Huhne, in the same way that the English football captaincy issue lay with the FA, not with John Terry. One of the overarching principles of the ministerial code, section 1.5, is that "ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the prime minister". The reality is that Mr Cameron should have sacked Mr Huhne because of perceived political necessity if that is what he thought best for the government. He should not have allowed the Huhne case to establish the dubious precedent that a minister who is charged with a criminal offence should automatically have to offer his resignation.
Was it, nevertheless, politically necessary for Mr Huhne to go? Again, the reflex answer is at first sight yes. Yet it depends on how you balance the contribution that Mr Huhne brought to the government as a senior minister, an architect of coalition, and as a particular type of Liberal Democrat politician against the damage which he inflicted on his ministerial work and on the government as a weakened minister facing a criminal charge. That is not as open and shut a judgment as it may seem.
The case in favour of Mr Huhne staying rests on two legs. The first is that Mr Huhne was a strong minister who ran his department well, stood bravely for the green agenda, and fought his corner effectively. It is to his credit that the UK is signed up to tough carbon emission cutting targets and that the green investment bank exists at all. He did a good job at the Durban conference and fought a strong rearguard action against Treasury efforts to weaken green goals in the face of recession and austerity.
The second is that Mr Huhne also played an important role in the coalition cabinet as the voice of the more social democratic wing of the Lib Dem team, putting pressure not just on the Conservatives but on Mr Clegg. Whether this was always the best way of advancing his party's interests is a moot point, since the Lib Dems sometimes seem at their strongest in getting their way in the coalition when they are at their weakest in the wider arena. It reassured the grassroots, though, to have their interests forcefully represented, and Mr Huhne did that. And the task of articulating distinctive Lib Dem priorities inside government is likely to grow, not diminish, as the general election nears.
It now falls to Ed Davey to help make that case. He begins with our good wishes. But as Mr Huhne, and David Laws before him, have found, coalition government is an unforgiving business, in which optimism and ability are not enough to hold back the punishing force of political reality in the wake of a serious error of either personal or ministerial judgment.
Energy secretary quits cabinet after being charged with perverting the course of justice
An anonymous source suggests Slugger look more closely at the position of Jim Nicholson who despite the parting of the ways between the Conservatives and the UUP is still apparently taking the Tory whip in Brussels and Strasbourg [Are they still here? - Ed].
However, at home he has, from yesterday at least undergone a conversation from a Conservative and Unionist to a UUP MEP on his press statements. So Tom, Jim, are you guys still taking the Tory whip after all that's been said in recent weeks/months?
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Labour Party, said today in a speech at the Thomson Reuters Building:
This has been a turbulent week for the British banking industry.
On Sunday, Stephen Hester gave back his bonus, and on Tuesday, the forfeiture committee revoked Fred Goodwin's knighthood.
But these moments do really not change anything in themselves.
This is about more than one man, one bonus, or one knighthood.
These are symbols - and symptoms – of public discontent with a system that is not working as it should.
For our economy.
And for our society.
That is why these moments do not and should not signal the end of the debate.
Because, three years on from the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the debate is really only just beginning.
We need a banking system that serves a more responsible capitalism, working for the majority of people and enabling us to pay our way in the world.
Everyone can agree that the kind of tug-of-war we have seen in the past fortnight over bonuses is bad for the reputation of the banking sector.
Nobody in this country – neither the banks' most staunch defenders nor their most outspoken critics – believe that a public argument between executives, shareholders, politicians and the public is the best way for any sector to set pay.
London is one of the world's great financial centres and Britain's banking sector is one of our most important employers.
It is in all our interests to find a better way forward.
But if things carry on as they are, I believe the same row over pay and bonuses will erupt again.
So how do we make sure that that does not happen?
We need to learn the most important lesson of the week: we cannot have a banking sector so divorced from the rest of the economy and the rest of society.
We succeed or fail together.
It is not about the politics of envy.
It is about a culture of responsibility.
We need what you might call ‘one nation banking'.
We need banks that serve the real economy.
We need banking serving every region, every sector, every business, every family in this country.
And we need banks run in a way that people believe are consistent with their values - the values of Britain.
It is something I have been talking about for months: responsibility – from the benefits office to the boardroom.
But to understand how we get there, we must understand how we got here.
On almost any measure you choose, banking and finance is going through exceptional times.
Everywhere you look, pillars of the conventional wisdom which have stood solidly for thirty-odd years are crashing to the ground.
Until 2007, it was hard to imagine that: light touch financial regulation would be so thoroughly discredited; financial instruments designed to make each bank safer would make the banking system as a whole riskier; we would be facing interest rates lower than we have seen for decades without lending rising as a result; bank bonuses could be in the billions even as banks' share price fell; all the banks in this country would be backed by an implicit government guarantee; and two of the biggest would be largely owned by the Government.
We all know this has happened because something has gone deeply wrong.
My party has accepted responsibility, along with governments round the world, for not doing more to prevent the crisis with regulation.
We now must ask questions about the future of banking which have not been asked for a generation.
The banking sector can choose either to continue down the path which led us to big bonuses, busts, and bailouts.
Or it can take a different path.
Today, I want to talk about that different path.
Banking has to change.
Throughout most of our parents and grandparents' lives, banking was not prone to wild swings in value.
It directed lending towards businesses and entrepreneurs efficiently and soberly.
And the idea of a vote in the House of Commons to affect the pay of an individual banker would have been as outlandish as the idea of a vote to censure the pay of an individual doctor or lawyer.
Thirty years ago, the word ‘banker' was often used as a compliment to suggest solidity and reassurance.
Since then, however, the sector morphed from something our parents and grandparents would have recognized into something else, with the rise and increasing dominance of investment banks.
We can't turn back the clock.
This mustn't be about recreating a bygone era of banking.
But if the rules and norms of banking have changed before, they can change again.
And they must change.
After the crisis and the bailout, we are left in a situation which nobody would have wanted.
Where thanks to the crisis, ten per cent of this country's tax receipts fell away between 2007 and 2008 alone.
Banks have accepted they bear the burden of responsibility for helping to cause the crisis.
The consequences of their reckless irresponsibility in that era are felt every time a library closes.
Every time a school can't afford a new book.
And every time a policeman or policewoman is taken off the beat.
Those consequences are being felt by everyone in society.
The banking sector needs to understand this.
People who did not cause the financial crisis are paying the price.
And many feel that those who did cause the financial crisis are not.
When most people see their incomes stagnate, their bills go up, their public services cut, and their jobs increasingly become insecure, pay and bonuses at banks seem to carry on as if the crisis never happened.
The public services we rely on to educate our kids, look after us when we are ill, or help us afford a lawyer if we're in trouble, cannot go back to normal any time soon.
So when people see the pay of those who caused the crisis continuing to be so abnormal, they are understandably angry.
This is a call for banking to recognise that continuing on its current path will lead to further isolation from society, greater public anger, more years in which each payday is a newspaper headline.
This is a call on banking to recognise that it should take the path of change.
To recognise that it is not isolated from the economy or society.
To recognise that we succeed or fail together.
We have a proud history of banking in this country.
Banking has performed an invaluable service to the economy from Midland Bank's role restructuring the cotton industry in the 1930s, to Barclays' role in financing high tech start-ups in Cambridge in the seventies and eighties,
And since the crisis, we have seen some welcome steps.
Notably, the Independent Banking Commission's recommendations about the ring fencing of retail and investment banking.
And more recently, the way HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds, RBS and Standard Chartered have put up £2.5 billion for a business growth fund focused on British firms.
But there is still a long way to go before we achieve one nation banking.
Public discontent is, if anything, on the rise – as the long lasting impact of the crisis in living standards becomes clear.
For all the reform of the way bonuses are paid, they remain on a scale beyond the imagination of the vast majority of the population.
Although the Government has welcomed the Vickers proposals, their implementation remains a distant prospect.
And most importantly, business frustration with the banks they rely on is as high as ever.
Still, too often, they see the bank, not as a partner in a shared project, but as a problem to be overcome.
I saw this only on Monday in Scotland when a wind turbine manufacturer complained that while he had employed 20 people in his factory it could have been 30 if only he had got the loan he needed from a leading British bank.
Similar stories can be heard from thousands of other businesses around the country.
Banks must not be isolated from the rest of the economy.
Banks must lend to small businesses so we can get the growth and jobs we need for the future.
That is how Britain will compete in the world.
As things stand, that is still not happening enough.
Lending was down £10.8 billion last year.
There are two reasons why not enough capital currently reaches the small and medium sized enterprises in this country which are crying out for it.
The first is that it's always hardest to get credit when the economy is in a downturn, even though that's when small and medium-sized firms need finance the most.
And the second is that it is cheaper for banks to lend to big companies than small ones. Particularly when credit is already being rationed, lending to small firms is often deemed not worthwhile for banks.
The market on its own does not work for small businesses.
All the most successful economies around the world recognise this: from Asian capitalist states like Singapore, through active industrial states like Germany, to supposedly free market states like the USA.
And they make sure that the state helps finance to reach the small and medium sized enterprises which need it.
This isn't about picking winners.
It is about the state getting the market moving, like our most successful competitors have been doing since the fifties.
It's no coincidence that in Britain we haven't done as much to develop a Mittelstand like Germany.
Or fast-growing young companies like Apple and Intel – both of which got growth funding from the US government's Small Business Investmen
Chris Huhne's divorce spiralled into political crisis after claims by his former wife that she took speeding points on his behalf
The acrimonious divorce of Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce spiralled into a political as well as personal crisis when they were both charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, prompting Huhne's resignation as energy secretary and a call by Pryce for the case to resolved quickly.
Huhne described the director of public prosecution's decision to charge him as deeply regrettable and vowed to prove his innocence in front of a jury.
Pryce, in a brief statement from her lawyer, did not declare her innocence or guilt, saying she would now spend some time with her family and adding: "Obviously I hope for a quick resolution of the case." It is not known what plea she will submit to the charges.
In a day of personal turmoil and suspense for Huhne and Pryce, Keir Starmer, the DPP, announced he judged that sufficient evidence existed to charge the former couple. It is alleged that Pryce has admitted taking speeding points on behalf of her former husband in March 2003, an allegation she initially made in the Sunday Times during their separation.
It is the first time a serving cabinet minister has been charged with an imprisonable criminal offence in modern times, and represents a devastating blow to one of politics' most resilient figures, as well as potentially weakening the Liberal Democrats at a time when the party is hoping to stage a recovery. Huhne has been described as "the grit in the oyster", self-confident enough to challenge his coalition partners across the policy range.
Lawyers for the former couple will be summoned to appear at Westminster magistrates court on 16 February, with a full trial at the Old Bailey possibly in September, on the assumption that neither side pleads guilty or manages to get the case dismissed. There is a prospect that other Liberal Democrats could be summoned to give evidence.
In a letter accepting Huhne's resignation, Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, said: "I fully understand your decision to stand down from government in order to clear your name, but I hope you will be able to do so rapidly so that you can return to play a key role in government as soon as possible."
David Cameron, however, made no mention of a possible return in his own letter accepting Huhne's resignation, saying only: "Like the deputy prime minister, I am sorry to see you leave the government under these circumstances and wish you well for the future." He added that Huhne had made the right decision to stand down in the circumstances, and praised his work on climate change.
In a typically robust response, Huhne said: "The Crown Prosecution Service's decision today is deeply regrettable. I'm innocent of these charges and I intend to fight this in the courts and I'm confident that a jury will agree.
"So as to avoid any distraction to either my official duties or my trial defence, I am standing down and resigning as energy and climate change secretary. I will of course continue to serve my constituents in Eastleigh."
Clegg spoke to Huhne on Thursday night and yesterday morning. Clegg's wife, Miriam, spoke to Pryce to express her sadness and offer her support. It was being stressed by Lib Dem aides that the Cleggs were not taking sides, but making a human gesture to two people who as a couple had been the only Liberal Democrats to attend their wedding.
Pryce is said to be disappointed at the decision of the Sunday Times to succumb to a police court demand to hand over emails between herself and a journalist on the paper. The Sunday Times had initially resisted the release of the emails, but changed tack, prompting some of Pryce's friends to claim that it had not protected its sources as newspapers are expected to do. News International sources said it had a written agreement with Pryce that it would protect her but if the court demanded material, the Sunday Times could hand that material to the police.
Cameron was informed at 9.10am of Starmer's decision and spoke to Huhne by phone at 10.40am, little more than half hour an hour after Starmer's announcement.
In a rapid, long-prepared response to the resignation, Cameron appointed the Lib Dem business minister Ed Davey to succeed Huhne. Norman Lamb, Clegg's parliamentary aide, has taken on Davey's former brief.
Lib Dem officials praised Davey's quick policy grasp and ability to get on with officials and said he would be his own man putting forward a strong green case. He said his three chief challenges were climate change, energy security and securing a better deal for energy consumers, a field in which he specialised at the business department.
The prime minister's spokesman said he did not expect to see any substantial change in policy as a result.
But some environmentalists voiced dismay at the loss of Huhne, described by Greenpeace as "a vocal advocate for the green agenda in a government whose green credentials are looking more than a little tarnished".
Other government changes resulting from the resignation saw the Lib Dem MPs Jenny Willott appointed an assistant government whip and Jo Swinson take Lamb's old post as parliamentary private secretary to Clegg. Despite speculation, there was no return for David Laws, who quit as Treasury chief secretary in May 2010 and was later suspended from the Commons for seven days after an expenses scandal.
Ed Miliband should think of some constructive ideas to reduce inequality rather than just putting the boot into bankers again
Scapegoats are easy targets and politicians who spend most of their time battering perceived enemies are usually only doing so because they have run out of ideas to improve the general malaise their leadership had created.
Well, that's what Ed Miliband's populist rantings about banking and corporate bonuses is beginning to feel like. It appears that he has nothing better up his shirtsleeves and the only thing that he can possibly get any consistent headline and public support on is his belief that bankers' bonuses and executive pay are too high.
Following the Royal Bank of Scotland chairman's and chief executive's decisions to forgo their respective bonuses, Miliband has had to move on to other enemies, the chief executive of Barclays, for instance, and of course now bankers in general, who "are further isolated" from society and provoking "public anger".
Anyway, the Labour leader managed some more headlines by launching his rather cynically branded "one-nation banking" concept, suggesting that we need a culture of responsibility in the industry that he doesn't think is there right now. If Miliband had been serious and wanted to make some constructive comments about policy for the industry, he wouldn't have named his vision after the Tory party's old "One Nation Conservatism" slogan.
The Labour party leader is intent on painting the industry and the people associated with it as the enemy of society and the only solution he offers in this entire exercise is to require employee members to sit on company remuneration committees. If he is not careful, his accusations might end in tears or at least show that he hasn't scored any more political points among voters than he had before. Whatever happens, the accusations have to stop and some more constructive policy ideas need to be generated by the Labour party.
Most people, including many corporate and banking boardroom members, cannot disagree that there is a growing gap between the rich and poor in the world, and even in the developed economies that gap is getting significant. Most also cannot disagree that it is obscene that some employees of large companies, particularly investment banks, are paid vastly inflated compensation that appears out of kilter with both the profits of the companies and also the real economic benefit these banks claim to provide. Though, it should also be pointed out that many people in professional service firms - solicitors, barristers, accountants, head-hunters, management consultants, doctors, dentists - can also earn very high salaries.
Many bank board members and executive staff cannot forget that they lost their sense of reality and allowed the companies that appointed and employed them to be so over-exposed that their respective capital bases collapsed and caused the greatest economic slowdown since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
And many of the newer breed of bank board members have noticed that few bankers have shown any remorse for what happened.
Bank board members and politicians, too, also have to admit that the banking industry is part of a massive global construction and Britain cannot go it alone. In the absence of any internationally agreed approach to resolving the issue of big bonuses, they will be part of the financial services world's compensation schemes. If American, Chinese, or Brazilian companies compensate through high bonuses then banks and corporate entities in Britain and Europe will have to do the same thing.
What British policymakers can do is try to manipulate the local market through special taxes, which could in turn be used to try to stop the gaps between the rich and poor from expanding and reallocate money to those who really need it. If we want to punish the unrepentant banking industry for causing the economic downturn then why not impose a transaction tax, or continue the special bonus taxes that have been paid by the banks for the past few years.
The policymakers could try something more radical and tax bonus payments differently, especially those that are above a certain proportion of the base salary. And, yes, policymakers can put employees on compensation committees if they want to - but it should be pointed out that even German banks, where employees sit on compensation committees, pay large bonuses to investment bankers.
Lib Dem leader voices approval of new energy secretary after strong record at Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Ed Davey confides on his website that it was his strong views on the environment that first pushed him towards being politically active, so it seems fitting that he now joins the cabinet as the new secretary of state for energy and climate change.
His promotion will be seen as a reward for what is widely viewed as doing a good job at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills where he had responsibility for Royal Mail privatisation, employment relations, consumer policy and competition rules. Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, described Davey as "the right man" to take up from where Chris Huhne had left off.
Davey, who originally foresaw his career prospects being in journalism or as an agricultural economist, has come a long way since he became MP for Kingston and Surbiton in 1997 after three recounts.
He has held a series of frontbench roles under different Lib Dem leaders. He was the chair of campaigns and communications after Clegg was elected party leader and was shadow foreign affairs spokesman before the 2010 general election.
The 46-year-old married father of one grew up in Nottingham and lived with his maternal grandparents after both his parents died - his solicitor father when he was four and his mother, a teacher, when he was 15.
He went to Oxford University, where he gained a first-class degree in philosophy, politics and economics, graduating in 1988 and joining the Lib Dems as an adviser six months later. He would leave four years later to to work as a management consultant until he became an MP.
Before becoming an MP Davey received awards from the Royal Humane Society and the chief constable of the British Transport police in 1994 for rescuing a woman from the path of an oncoming train at Clapham Junction. He speaks French, Spanish and German, and supports Notts County FC.
Mr Goodwin, Mistletoe & Wine and the compelling case for temporary knighthoods
?I very much like the idea of withdrawing knighthoods. Why not make them all temporary? Few of us expect to have the same job all our lives, or drive the same car, or live in the same house. And just as members of the public can write in to nominate people who deserve honours, we should be able to suggest the names of those who ought to lose their gongs. I'm sure you have a few ideas yourself. If not, why don't you take a train to Manchester at a busy time, and ponder "Sir" Richard Branson?
(By the way, I was surfing the net, looking for videos for the Guardian's excellent online feature, Old Music, when I found myself at Amtrak, the American railway. Riding on the City of New Orleans, as in the famous song, all the way from Chicago would cost $115 for the 927-mile trip - £73, or 8p a mile. Riding on the Branson Pendolino to Manchester from Euston at peak time, standard class, costs £126, or 64p a mile.)
Then we could reverse all the usual cliches. The Sir Fred Goodwin figure would arrive at Buckingham Palace with his family smartly dressed. He'd smilingly show off the medal, or whatever it is. Then he would go inside, kneel in front of the Queen, who would lift her sword from his shoulders, and announce, "Arise, Mr Goodwin!"
And how about stripping Sir Cliff Richard too, as punishment for Mistletoe & Wine?
?I went to the huge annual Australian wine-tasting the other day. It's been a difficult year or so for the happy country - drought and the strength of their dollar have pushed prices up fast, and allowed the French to reclaim some of their market share here.
One way the Aussies have fought back is with bizarre names, no doubt in the hopes of catching attention on the shelves. Here are a few of their wines: Skuttlebutt, The Opportunist, The Pugilist, Bootstrap, Giles, Riposte, Ten Miles By Tractor, Skillogalee, Running With Bulls, The Last Straw, The Cover Drive, and The Trial of John Montford, which sounds more like a novel than a bottle.
Mind you the most off-putting wine name I know is Fat Bastard, and that's made in France.
?On my desk lands a slim volume, called Among Booksellers, by David Batterham, who I have never met, and of whom I hadn't even heard. He has collected all the letters he sent from his travels, mainly round Europe and America, to his friend, the artist Howard Hodgkin.
It is a strange book, but beguiling - you meet the weird people who inhabit the world of antique bookselling (my friend, the late Derek Brown, loved old books, and fantasised about a rare book shop with a sign, "All incunabula in this bin, £5,000"). And there are old crones serving terrible meals in French hotels, crab-like people who try to cheat him but halve their prices when he insists, the discovery of amazing volumes he can sell in London for 10 times what he paid. I expected to toss it aside, but couldn't put it down.
The book is, of course, self-published. Something such books usually have in common is that there is one really interesting section. They were in Bomber Command, or had a spell playing the piano in a Turkish brothel, or worked with Margaret Thatcher. One of these days, if I have time, I shall read a hundred of these books and put the good bits into a single volume. (The authors will cheerfully sign over the rights, since they will think it will sell some of the 4,927 books they have left over from the 5,000 they had printed. But of course no one will buy their book, since they'll know they've already got the only interesting part.)
The fascinating bit in Mr Batterham's book is about the Duke of Edinburgh, who apparently is a bibliophile. He has a secretary who orders books for him. "The duke keeps a cupboard of goodies, such as the books he buys from me, so that people who want to give him a present can choose something he is known to like! Then they buy it from him, and give it back."
What a wonderful idea! You get both the present, and the money.
"Happy birthday, Simon! What would you like?"
"Let's see what we have in the cupboard. Ah yes, how about this signed first edition of Pride and Prejudice? Or a bottle of Skuttlebutt."
?Friends held their Burns Night supper last weekend, just three days late. Lots of haggis, one of those really delicious peasant dishes. I was asked to make the speech to the Immortal Memory - not easy since Burns was not always a good boy. He spent some time in Jamaica, working as a bookkeeper on a slave plantation, no doubt using his spare time to write some of those stirring poems about freedom and the rights of man.
So I read out a little-known poem including this typical verse:
"An' will ye lie by crambo clink?
An' bitter frae the hoggie?
A' wha can live by sowps o'drink,
An' mirkest blast a scroggie!"
It was, of course, entirely made up, though from words which do occur in Burns's real verse. What delighted me is that it also fooled the several Scots who were there.
?Labels: Pam and Dennis Saunders have just bought an electric kettle: "Do not use in the bathroom, near water, or outdoors." They ask, how can they possibly use it without going near water?
Jamie Woolley bought six jumbo toilet rolls from Sainsbury's, marked "toilet tissue for everyday use". He asks, "Do they also sell satin-finish toilet paper for birthdays and bank holidays?"
Christopher Hallgarth suggests a new strand: song titles rewritten for these hard times, such as Gladys Knight's Midnight Replacement Bus To Georgia. Others welcome, if they come to mind.
o Energy secretary says CPS decision 'deeply regrettable
o Huhne and ex-wife due in court on 16 February
o Nick Clegg praises Lib Dem minister's 'trailblazing' work
o Ed Davey to take over cabinet post
o Read a summary of events so far
4.45pm: Ed Davey has made an upbeat statement on the steps of his department.
It's a sad day for many people in the department and the Liberal Democrats, because Chris Huhne had a vision for a green economy, and he's done fabulous work as the secretary of state.
I've now got to take up the challenges of climate change ... of energy security... and I'm particularly conscious of the impact on consumers' households across the country of high energy bills.
But I'm determined to work to follow on Chris's priorities, the Liberal Democrats' priorities, the coalition government's priorities, and make them my priorities.
I want us to have a green economy, where there are lots of green jobs, to help grow our economy.
3.29pm: Ed Davey will now face the spotlight as the man tasked with the government's climate change policies. Here's a profile piece on him from 2007 in which he talks extensively about his experience of being an orphan.
Edward Davey was four when his father died of Hodgkin's disease. Eleven years later, his mother too died of cancer, leaving behind 15-year-old Edward and his two brothers. Davey is now the Libera Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton and campaigns for improved services for bereaved children."The death of my parents was tragic, but in a way I was lucky: after my mother was diagnosed with bone cancer, my brothers and I looked after her and we got to talk for a long time. I didn't need counselling because my mother had been able to prepare me for a life without her.
Child bereavement services in this country are very good where they exist, but there are not that many of them. It's part of a very British problem: we don't always put children first. There is, for example, no obligatory training for teachers on how to deal with children who are bereaved.
3.15pm: Hélène Mulholland weighs up what Huhne's resignation means for the make-up of the cabinet.
David Cameron's mini reshuffle following the resignation of Chris Huhne as energy secretary represents a missed opportunity to improve the gender profile at cabinet level.
Though the shakeup sees an additional woman entering government in the shape of Jenny Willott as assistant government whip, the decision to promote Ed Davey to the vacancy left by Huhne, and in turn hand over Davey's previous job in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to Norman Lamb, means the gender gap remains a sore point at senior ministerial level, with just five women - all Conservative - in the 23-strong cabinet.
When the Conservative defence secretary Liam Fox resigned last October, and amid polling suggesting the Tories had a problem with women voters, Cameron used the mini-reshuffle to promote Justine Greening to the role of transport secretary to raise the tally of women cabinet ministers to five.
This time, the fact that the third cabinet minister to resign since the coalition government was formed was a Liberal Democrat meant Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had the say in who would fill the seat - albeit a decision that Cameron would sign off.
2.03pm: Huhne's mother was the voice of the speaking clock. His real surname is Paul-Huhne. He worked at the ratings agency Fitch. He may have in fact won the Lib Dem leadership election over Nick Clegg, but his votes were delayed in the post. He claimed a Corby trouser press in his MPs' expenses.
These and other gems in this illuminating profile of Huhne by Michael White.
1.33pm: Political editor Patrick Wintour has more details of how Huhne's departure was handled by the coalition:
David Cameron was informed of the DPP decision at 9.10 on the way to the airport at Northolt before a regional tour in the south-west.
He spoke to Huhne at around 10.40 for about five minutes where it was agreed that Huhne would resign from the cabinet to fight his case. It was stressed that the coalition agreement gives powers for the cabinet and ministerial posts to be distributed approximate to the size of the the two parliamentary parties.
Number 10 did not elaborate on why the prime minister had not in his letter suggested that Huhne could be brought back into cabinet if he was found innocent.
It was stressed that the deputy prime minister has responsibility for nominating his appointments, so Nick Clegg might have the prerogative to decide whether Huhne should return.
The prime minister's spokesman said: "It was Chris Huhne's decision to resign and and he accepted his judgment. They had a good working relationship and he was a valued colleague".
The spokesman stressed that Cameron had not considered undertaking a wider reshuffle, and added that he did not expect Ed Davey, the new energy secretary, to impose a significant change of direction in policy after he has read himself in.
12.48pm: Confirmed: Ed Davey will become energy and climate change secretary, with Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg's parliamentary aide, taking over from him as business minister.
Jenny Willott, MP for Cardiff Central, will become an assistant government whip. All three, it should be stressed, are Lib Dem MPs.
The net loss for the party in cabinet is nil, although clearly Huhne's experience will be missed.
In a brief statement, Nick Clegg has said if Huhne cleared his name he would like to see him back in government in a key position.
12.29pm: Some reaction coming through from green groups to the Huhne resignation, mostly regretful.
John Sauven, Greenpeace's director, said the former minister would be "a tough act to follow".
His achievements in getting the "green bank" and stricter legally binding carbon targets are a physical legacy of what he was able to accomplish.
He has been a vocal advocate for the green agenda in a government whose green credentials are looking more than a little tarnished."
Friends of the Earth's executive director, Andy Atkins, struck a similar tone:
Chris Huhne has championed the environment in an administration that's shown little enthusiasm for keeping David Cameron's pledge to be the greenest government ever.He should be commended for insisting on tougher climate targets and fighting for a green investment bank - but his department's incompetent handling of solar cuts has put 29,000 jobs at risk.
The new energy secretary must stand firm against George Osborne's anti-green agenda and make the case that protecting our environment ns a way to boost not hinder our economic recovery.
12.15pm: Huhne has written a rather more expansive letter to Nick Clegg, his party leader, in which he says: "It has been a privilege to serve with you in the first group of Liberal ministers in a British government since 1945".
"The Liberal Democrats under your leadership are playing an essential role in ensuring the coalition government reflects liberal values at home and abroad."
Clegg's reply is here. He writes: "I fully understand your decision to stand down from government in order to clear your name but I hope you will be able to do so rapidly so that you can return to play a key role in government as soon as possible."
12.09pm: Cameron's letter of reply to Huhne says he has "made the right decision under the circumstances".
He adds: "Like the deputy prime minister, I am sorry to see you leave the government under these circumstances and wish you well for the future."
The full text is here.
11.58am: A quick summary of events so far:
o Chris Huhne has resigned as energy and climate change secretary, after the director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer announced he would be charged with perverting the course of justice.
o Vicky Pryce, Huhne's estranged wife, has also been charged with the same offence. The charges relate to an incident in 2003 when, it is alleged, Huhne persuaded his wife to accept a speeding penalty on his behalf.
o In a statement, Huhne continued vigorously to deny the charge, but said that "to avoid any distraction to my official duties or my trial defence
Edward Davey MP has today been appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Arriving at DECC's headquarters in London, Mr Davey said:
"This is a sad day because Chris Huhne has had a real vision for a green economy and he's done fabulous work as Secretary of State.
"I've now got to take up the challenges – the challenge of climate change, the challenge of energy security.
"And I'm particularly conscious of the impact on households across the country of high energy bills.
"I'm determined to work to follow on Chris's priorities, the Coalition's priorities and to make them my priorities.
"I want us to have a green economy, with the green jobs and investment we need to help grow our economy."
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A "And Then He Said..." 'UK shamed again...' (NOT) Alan Milburn: MP for Darlington - Let's Roll - The latest political comment and analysis - Hit the road at oberonhouston.com - ......SHOT BY BOTH SIDES 1169 And Counting..... 1820 24plusnews.com 25 years serving North Oxfordshire A Challenge to Liberals A comfortable place A Conservative's blog A Councillor Writes A Gentleman's Commonplace A Liberal Goes A Long Way A Logical Voice A neo-Jacobin a pEaCeFuL ReVoLuTiOn (john's blog) A Pint of Unionist Lite A Place to Stand A REVOLUTIONARY ACT A Tory in the Rhondda A Very British Dude A VIEW FROM HAM COMMON Aberdare Blog Abolish the General Medical Council *(GMC)* Acid Rabbi Actually Existing Adam Brown Adam York Adidas Trainer Adloyada admanumloquere Adrian Sanders's Myspace Blog Alastair Campbell Alex Ross-Shaw alienstarship allthatsleft Almost David Lepper, MP Ambrose Musiyiwa Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond An Englishman's Castle An Officer's Mess Anders Hanson Andrew Allison Andrew Lewin | Lib Dems Andy D'Agorne Andy Love MP Andy Mayer Andymac72's Blog Anna Raccoon Anne Milton - Guildford MP (and Dipstick) Another Green World Antonia's blog Anything that defies my sense of reason.... Arden Forester Armchair Socialist Arsembly Arthur Goring Arthur's Seat arwen folkes Ask Marina Atu XVIII ダイエットæˆåŠŸã•ã›éšŠï½œã‚„ã›ã‚‹ãŸã‚ã®æ–¹æ³•ã‚„効果を紹介   Stockwood Pete «Ethical Post» Backing Blair :: Campaign Weblog Backsplash Bad Ecology Bag's Rants baillieston independent! Bala Fria 冷ãŸã„銃弾 Ballots, Balls and Bikes Balrog Battersea MP bazzfazz BBC Election 2005 | UK Politics | Weblog BBC News - Politics Beau Bo D'Or Bel is thinking Bel is thinking ... Ben's Blog Best of the Politics Blogs Bethnal Green Centre Support Group bevanfoundation Big Brother Britain & Civil Liberties Bishop Hill Bishopbriggs High School - my view Blairwatch - Chronicling the Demise of the New Labour Project. Blairy England Blamerbell Briefs Blog Blog blog dot org Bloggerheads Bloggerheads: the Back-Up Blog Bloggers4Labour Blogging for Backlash Blogging the Beeb Blogging4Merton blogyk Blogzilla Blood and Property Blunt & Disorderly bnpandme BobFromBrockley Boriswatch Borthlas Boulton and Co. Bridgnorth Sewage Action Group Bright's Blog Bristol South Lib Dems British Nationalists in Wales WATCH British Politics British Politics's Blog Brittopic Burning our money BW Christopher's Blog By-Elections Cabot Lib Dems CALEDONIAN COMMENT Campaigning articles Campus Radicals carbondata Cardiff Blogger Cardiff Central Watch Cardiff Fabians Cardiff Fabians Carmarthenshire Planning Problems and more Cassilis Catch-13 Chamberlain Forum chapter3 charlotte-street Charters & Caldecott Chicken Yoghurt chimptron.com Chiswickite - formerly The Croydonian Chris Huhne MP News Stories Chris Huhne MP Press Articles Chris says... Chris Whiteside's Blog Christina McKelvie MSP Chrysler Pros & Contras Ciara Leeming - words, photos and multimedia Cicero's Songs City of Salford Conservatives Civitas Blog CLASS WARFARE Cllr Andrew McConnell Blogging for Bedford Cllr Fraser Macpherson - LibDem Councillor for Dundee's West End - www.dundeewestend.com Cllr Iain Lindley's Diary Cllr Richard Thomas Cllr Tristan Osborne - Musings from Medway cocklesniff Comical Tommy Conservative Commentary Conservative Education Society Conservative Party articles from Conservatives.com Conservative Party News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party speeches from Conservatives.com ConservativeHome Constantly Furious Cornish Pips Cornish Zetetics corriganreid Councillor Bob Piper Councillor David Walker :: Working for Bridgnorth Morfe Ward all year round! Councillor Steve Wakefield - West Swindon CPF insight Cranmer Crust Of The Grouch Curious Snippets from a Cynical Optimist Curly's Corner Shop, the blog! Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg CymruMark Cymrumark's Plaid Blog cymuned.net Daily News From Andy Reed Daily Referendum - a vote on political topics in the news today DANCE LIKE YELTSIN Danger is my Middle Name Dark Matter Politics: open forum to discuss the forces influencing the world of politics and entertainment across the United States, Europe and Latin America. Darlington Councillor Darren Grover Dave, nice but knave Daves' Rants David Davies MP blog David Davis for leader David Hanson is our MP David Holden Ba (Hons) Diparch (Dist) Thesis Blog David Jones, MP David Miliband | Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs David Ruffley Local News david-reeves david-reeves DavidCameron.com Dead Men Left Delyn Democracy: The Political Watchdog Democracy How? Democratic thinking Derek Wyatt MP News Devizes Melting Pot Dirty Leftie Disillusioned And Bored Dispatches from the Land of Cleggeron Disruptive Proactivity DistributionPolitics DistributionPolitics DistributionPolitics Dizzy Thinks DM Andy's Bits and Pieces Doctor Bloggs... The online diary of the late Doctor Robert Glendinning Millery doctorvee » Politics Dogs are better than cats » Politics Don't trip up Downing Street Says Dr Sean's Diary Draconian Observations Drinking From Home Drive-by Planet Drunken Blogging Dunderheadedness DunnIn Dyslexic with an axe to grind Ealing Southall Watch Earthquake Cove Eaten by missionaries eBeefs: telling it like it is Ed Vaizey eDemocracyBlog.com Edinburgh Sucks! Edward Duncan Thompson eGov monitor - A Policy Dialogue Platform - Latest News eGov monitor - A Policy Dialogue Platform - Promoting Better Governance Election 05 Ellee Seymour Elliott Joseph Emily Thornberry MP's Blog england gay kirkcaldy England the Land Equal Rights Forgot English Democrats news english ranter Epolitix News ePolitix.com - Interviews ePolitix.com - Legislation ePolitix.com - Stakeholder Interviews ePolitix.com Podcast Eric Avebury Eric Illsley MP Ermine For The Guvnor EUREALIST eurealist.co.uk Europhobia Everything Ulster Exposing The English Defence League Facts On The Ground Failed State Fair Deal Phil fdelondras fightbackuk Fitaloon at MicroShaft Five Flashbuck Focus on King's Hedges Focus on Sodbury, Yate and Dodington Following restrictions on the use of the communications allowance this website is frozen from the 1 January 2010 Forum Republica Forward not back Fourthterm.net Frank Dobson MP Free britain Freedom and Whisky freedom rules's blog freescotlandnow freethinkeruk Fremington Fremington and Yelland Fresh information feed Fundamentalist Druid Futile Democracy Futile Democracy Gaffa's Blog Garden Grabbing in Cardiff Gary Barker Illustration Gary Barker Illustration Gary Barker's Illustration blog gathering GAUCHE Gav's View Gavin's Blog Gerald Howarth MP GidleyWatch GLC View glenda-jackson Glenn Goodall Goodballoon's paunch Gordon Brown Gordon Clown .Com Grace Fletcher-Hackwood Grangetown Jack Green Cardiff - Pedestrians First Green Politics: Sustainable Futures Green the Health Service Greenman's Occasional Organ Guardian Unlimited: Election 2005 guidofawkeshungdrawnandquartered Gus Abrams Guy Fawkes' blog Hands Off Our Future! Hansard Society - Promoting Democracy - Strengthening Parliament Hapless band of staff and regulars Harlow Liberal Democrats News Hartlepool 2004 Heresy Corner Hightory Blog Hogarth's Happy Hour Holyrood Chronicles Honourable Fiend: The UK Politics Blog Hot Ginger and Dynamite Hot Shot Hamish and Mighty Mouse Hove Labour 2005 How This Old Brit Sees It ... Human Writes I Intend To Escape ......................And Come Back I Was Thinking... I, Celticus I, McCafferty Iain Dale's Diary Iain Macwhirter Now and Then In Place of Fear incurable hippie's musings and rants Independence Independence First independence4scotland Independent: The Rise of the Non-Aligned Politician Infinitives Unsplit Informaticopia Inner Hippy Inner West inside out Inside Uplands insideswansea Insidious Inveresk Street Ingrate J. Arthur MacNumpty James Barlow James Cleverly AM James Cousins James O'Malley... Living Legend » Politics James' Nasty Political Problems Jane's Political Ramblings Janes The Ones Jeff Ennis MP jennimarsh Jim Cousins Jim Millar jingoistic Jo Christie-Smith John Brigden - Liberal Democrat PPC Dover and Deal John Hayward John Hemming's Web Log John Leech Watch John Redwood's Diary JohnBM:Liberal Jonathan Wallace Joyce Acton Julie Morgan MP Justify This! Justin Wyllie's Political Blog Kate Hoey, MP for Vauxhall, has no website KCL Conservatives - The Regalis Keetchwatch Keith Vaz, MP kentwoodcouncillor Kevin Maguire and Friends kevindavis King's Hedges News Kirk Elder, Senior Citizen from Peebles Kirklees Unity Kitty Killer Klong Walking Kristofer Wilson Labour Matters Labour Party News Labour Watch LabourDoNotDo.com LabourList Labourservative Party LACHIE'S VIEW lambethlou Lancaster UAF blog Lancaster Unity Lancaster Unity Deconstructed landofthenearlyfree Left Luggage Left Out Liberal LeftAlign LeftCentral Leicester Election 2005 Leighton Andrews LENIN'S TOMB Les Bonner let's be sensible LettersFromAtory Lewis Moonie MP Liam Murray Lib on the United Kingdom LibDemBlogs libdemchild, aged 11 Liberal Action Liberal Conspiracy Liberal Democrat News from Westminster Liberal Democrat Voice Liberal Democrat Watch Liberal England Liberal Polemic Liberal Review - Liberal Opinion, Commentary and Ideas Liberal Review - Liberal Opinion, Commentary and Ideas Libertarian Party UK Liberty Alone Liberty Alone Liberty Central Life after Ken Livingstone Lindsey's Blog Little Red Blogger Live from the Socialist Fortress Living on words alone Local Government Chronicle London Denizen LondonScope Looking for a voice Love and Garbage Love and Liberty Luke Akehurst's Blog Luke's Blog Lynne Featherstone's Parliament and Haringey diary macitics mad musings of me Madeleine Bunting Watch Make My Vote Count Make Socialism History Mal Burns Monitor Malcolm Clarke - Labour Party Malcolm Redfellow's World Service Man in a Shed Mark John Young Mark Pack Mark Prisk: news stories Mark Pritchard MP - The Blog Mark Thompson Mark's Edinburgh North & Leith blog Martin David From Across The Water Martin Linton MP | News Martin Stabe Martin Tod martin.bartos's blog Martyn Shrewsbury-Rowlands Mary Honeyball MEP Matt Buck's Hack Cartoons Diary Matt Palmer Matt Palmer Matt Palmer Matty's Blog Mayor Boris Johnson Mayor of London blog MayorWatch® MediaPaL@LSE Medway Tory Watch Melanie Phillips's Diary Metaphysics As A Guide to Lunch Michael Clapham MP Michael Meacher - Labour's Future Middleaged Curmudgeon Mike Barker: Lib Dem politics in a northern market town Mike Cartwright's Blog MIKE MCMANUS ON ICE Mike Wolfe Mike Wood Mikey's Tent of Reality Militant Moderate Miserable Old Fart Miss Wagstaff Presents Moments of Clarity More Political Times movingbritainforward Mr Eugenides MR MONKEY Mr Right Wing muckspReading - A satirical Look at Reading mudhook Munaeem's Blog Murphy's law Muscular Liberals Mustaqim - Musings of a flying Imam Musulman Thinks muttering.co.uk - Voices of reason in a forest of stupidity My Random thorghts MyPetGoat mySociety Nadine Dorries Blogspot NatWatch Neue Politik New Direction New Northumbria New Paradigm New pledges - PledgeBank United Kingdom New Statesman Party Conferences Weblog Newid means change Newport East Watch News Diffusal News from Barking and Dagenham News Rage International News Rage UK NHS Health Blog Nick Allison Nick Robinson | The Reporters Nigel Ashton No Borders South Wales no contact politics No geek is an island » Politics No PC Views No police force mergers! NoBollocksPolitics Norfolk Blogger North to Leith Not Little England Not Proud Of Britain (But Would Like To Be) NotApathetic.com Notes from the Panopticon Notting Hell NuLabour Nunhead News ObjectiveObserver Obliged to Offend Observations from the Hillside Oliver Kamm Oliver Postgate Olly's Onions Omar's Blog On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing On Liberty Now On Liberty, Online One Man And His Gob Opinionated Blog optimum population trust news watch Orange By Name... Orange Music Team Blog order order moral order ORGANIZED RAGE ORGANIZED RAGE Paddy Tipping is my MP Parburypolitica parburypolitica Parliament Protest Party Political PLC Past Present & Future Paul Cumming Paul Edie's Blog Paul Hinks' Blog Paul Linford Paul Maynard MP » - Paul Maynard MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys Paul Remfry, UKIP, South Herefordshire Pauline McNeill for Glasgow Kelvin Pauline McNeill for Glasgow Kelvin PC's Green Blog Pencilandpapertest People's Republic of South Devon peoplescommissarofenlightenment perfect.co.uk perfect.co.uk / UK Politics links perspective Peter Black Philobiblon Pickled Politics pigeon-post Pilton Sucks dotCom Pink Sauce Pits n Pots po8crg Police State UK Political & global comment Political Cream Political Cynic Political Promise political-reform-party PoliticalHackUK Politicalog - Fighting the Spin Politicians Outed Politics Politics As Sport Politics Cymru Politics news, UK and world political comment and analysis | guardian.co.uk Politics Student | Political opinion from students and young professionals Politics Watch Politics, Piety and Polemics Poor Bastard Marvin Popular Alliance Postal Voting Power to the People! UK Politic's Blog, Commentary and Opinions Powered by Mambo Prime-minister.org.uk* Prison Works Program your own mind Progressive Politics prolix: blog pseudomagazine Public Servant Daily - Latest News from the Public Sector PublicTechnology.net purple scorpion Quaequam Blog! R W's Commentary Rachel from north London Radical Muslim Radical Wales RCR UK - Blogs - Blogging Britain Reading List Reasons to be Impossible Red Box Blues Red Pepper's Election Blues redcarlabourparty Redlands Liberal Democrats regnodefines Respect - the Unity Coalition revolutionaryireland rhetorically speaking.. Rhondda Today Rhondda Today Rhondda TV Richard Arnold's Political Sketches Richard Herring Richard Spring MP Richard Taylor Ridiculous Politics Rob Fenwick Rob's blog Rob's Election Blog Romseyredhead rrn RSScache.com Rupert's Read Ruscombe Green Sadiq Khan MP Samizdata.net SAOIRSE32 SAOR ALBA sarah teather is my mp Save And Repair Our Homes On Ashcroft Square Save The Ribble Schneider Home scotlandindependent Scotsman.com News - Politics Scotswahey! scottienda Scottish Political Blogs Review Scottish Political News Scottish Unionist Scratchings From The Sickle Second Life Left Unity Seismic Politics selectprivacy seren Shiraz Socialist Sian Berry Simon Goldie Simon Williams SINN FÉIN - KEEP LEFT Slugger O'Toole smallnation Snide Clide snowflake5 SNP Tactical Voting so now who do we vote for? socialism-stinks Socialist Action Solution Focused Politics Some Roses Are Red Someday I Will Treat You Good Sonia's Diary Southpa Southside & Newington Newsblog Sparta Splintered Sunrise Splintered Sunrise Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk SSP Campsie Staple Tye online Stefano V Verde Stephen Pollard Stephen's Liberal Journal Steve Beasant Steve Brine Steve of Stevenage Steve Pound Proxy Weblog Steve Reed | Steve's blog Stevenage Politics Stewart Stevenson MSP's news updates Stewart Stevenson MSP's news updates STFU or GTFO Stoke Labour Group Stop Veritas Straight Banana strange stuff Stuart Jeffery stumbleacrossthetruth Stumbling and Mumbling stv SUBROSA supermidge Surreal Scoop Surrey Tories Suz Blog Swedish Meatballs Confidential Swindon For Buckland Swinton South Green Party Syniadau :: The Blog Tabloid Edition Tabman's Lib Dem Blog Taffia Don Technorati Search for: uk politics Ten Percent Has Moved To Tenpercent.org.uk The Choice Of A New Irish Republican Generation! The Apollo Project The Art of Politics The Awful Life of an MP's Wife The Blog of Kev The Blogspot Last Ditch Archives The Bureau Of Sabotage The Cameron Leadership The Charity Blogger the common man The Conscious Earth The Conservative Blog The conservativehome.com blog The Cornish Republican The Cornish Republican The Cowan Report The Cutting Edge The Daily The Daily (Maybe) The Daily English The Daily Pundit The despatch box The Devil's Kitchen The Diary of a Geek in Oxfordshire the Disillusioned kid The Dissenter's Voice The Edge of England's Sword The elephant in the drawing room The England Project The English Question THE FAULKNER JOURNAL The Fifth Estate The Fluffy Economist The Former Red Squirrel's Lair The Glass House The Green Ribbon the guisborough labour party The Heathlander The Heathlander The Insane Ramblings of Wonko The Sane The Intelligent Giving Blog The International Citizen The Justice of the Peace [magistrate`s] Blog: The Labour Humanist The Learned Fool The Living Wage page The London Drummerboy The London Echo News The Lone Voice The Loneliest Jukebox The Mid-Atlantic Blog The Mysterious Case Of The Non-Existent Train Time The Nether-World The New Campaign for Better Politics The Northern Herald The Online Society the orange party The Pamphleteer THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MORTIMER The Polemical Report The political views of a 15 year old boy. The Rambles of Neil Monnery The Red Megaphone The Red Rag The Returning Officers The Rights Of Man The Road to Euro Serfdom The Salisbury Pages the sandals are off The Scottish Sketch The Sharpener The Skakagrall The smoking ban is shit The Spine The Third Estate The trawler Gaul The UK Today The Vented Spleen The Vibe - Politics for the Digital Generation The view across the bar. The Virtual Stoa The voice of young liberal democrats the void the void The Voter the VoxPolitics blog The Wardman Wire The Webb log The Whiskey Priest The Yorkshire Ranter the-morningstar the-rightapproach thebia theliberalrepublican07 thepoliticalpaul They All Speak English? theywanttobeelected: the manifestos BETA(i.p.) Things Which Must Be Disseminated THIRDWAY THINK-TANK | The Voice of the Radical Centre thisleadenpall thomasjpaul Tim Hicks - Blog: The (e)State of Tim Tim Yeo - The Weblog time-4-change toddler bedding Tom Greeves Tom Watson MP Tony Blair Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings Toque Tory Convert Tory Heaven Tory Radio tory-teacher ToryScum.com Toryteenager Toughen up Britain Town of Shame Transport Crucible trevor-ivory Tribune Political Cartoons trinketization Tutor2u - The Politics Blog Twitter / @markpack's libdem-mps list Twitter / stenhankewitz Twitter / stenhankewitz Two for Tea Two for Tea UK Bubble, UK Economy UK Change UK Commentators UK Current Affairs UK FOIA requests - Spy Blog UK Freedom UK Freedom of Information Blog UK Future UK Green Party - the unofficial newsfeed. UK Issues UK News and Politics ... You Heard it Here UK News and Politics ... You Heard it Here UK Tactical Politics ukcomment UKIPwatch UKPollingReport Unfit To Govern United LEFT Unlocking the Potential of Empty Homes Up Your Ego Uploads by theuklabourparty Vale of Clwyd Liberal Democrats Valleys Mam Vermont Very British (Political) Subjects View From The Ramparts Viridis Lumen Virtual Prime Minister Votação Vote for Ralph Crisp's Myspace Blog Vote Greensted VOTE Scottish Socialist Party - Colin Fox Vowles the Green in Knowle Waking Hereward Wales - World Nation Wanabehuman Ward 87 Wave Network We Perish If We Yield Welsh Independence Welsh Politics Westminster Naked Westminster Wisdom Westmonster What the 'Eck What You Can Get Away With When IT Meets Politics WhenWillBlairGo.com Whittington's Diary whollyrude Winning Media Withington Co-Operative Party WOMEN'S VOICE - LLAIS MERCHED Wonko's World www.paxmundi.info - Weblog www.phg.co.in www.politics.co.uk | Yellow Peril Zehra Zaidi Zeitgeist - The Spirit Of The TimeGreen Party of England and Wales
Green Party of Scotland
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Scottish National Party
Plaid Cymru
Respect - The unity coalition
Scottish Socialist Party
Sinn Fein
Social Democratic and Labour Party
UK Independence Party
Ulster Democratic Unionist Party
Ulster Unionist Party
They Work For You
UK Parliament
Blog Your MP
The Big Conversation
BBC iCan
