Datasets:

Nikhitha2310

/

preprocessed_summaries

like 0

Faith schools citizenship warningSchools must improve the quality of citizenship lessons - or social cohesion and democracy will suffer, says the education watchdog.Independent faith schools were singled out by Ofsted chief, David Bell, for not doing enough to promote the "wider tenets of British society". Mr Bell said Muslim, Jewish and Evangelical Christian schools must be "intolerant of intolerance". Diversity "certainly must not mean segregated or separate", he said. Mr Bell's speech called for a much greater effort in all types of schools to teach citizenship - with an accompanying survey showing that young people knew little about politics and had no enthusiasm to find out more.Badly-taught citizenship lessons have previously been criticised by Mr Bell, and in a speech to the Hansard Society, he warned that it was failing to pass on an understanding of democracy, public service and shared values. He highlighted his particular concern for citizenship in the growing number of independent faith schools - which he said included about 100 Muslim, 100 Evangelical Christian and 50 Jewish schools.Mr Bell expressed concern about schools which did not teach children enough about a "common heritage" and needed to do more to promote principles of mutual tolerance and social inclusion. "I worry that many young people are being educated in faith-based schools, with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society," said Mr Bell. The Ofsted chief said his forthcoming annual report would make particular reference to Muslim schools. "Many must adapt their curriculum to ensure that it provides pupils with a broad general knowledge of public institutions and services in England and helps them to acquire an appreciation of and respect for other cultures in a way that promotes tolerance and harmony." Mr Bell said such questions of religion and cultural identity were "tricky issues". But he argued that "we must not allow our recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation". "I would go further and say that an awareness of our common heritage as British citizens, equal under the law, should enable us to assert with confidence that we are intolerant of intolerance, illiberalism and attitudes and values that demean the place of certain sections of our community, be they women or people living in non-traditional relationships," said Mr Bell.

Mr Bell said Muslim, Jewish and Evangelical Christian schools must be "intolerant of intolerance"."I worry that many young people are being educated in faith-based schools, with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society," said Mr Bell.He highlighted his particular concern for citizenship in the growing number of independent faith schools - which he said included about 100 Muslim, 100 Evangelical Christian and 50 Jewish schools.Mr Bell said such questions of religion and cultural identity were "tricky issues".Mr Bell expressed concern about schools which did not teach children enough about a "common heritage" and needed to do more to promote principles of mutual tolerance and social inclusion.Independent faith schools were singled out by Ofsted chief, David Bell, for not doing enough to promote the "wider tenets of British society".

Leaders meet over Turkish EU bidTony Blair has met Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to talk about Turkey entering the EU.The Downing Street talks covered a range of other topics ahead of an EU summit in Brussels later in the week. Mr Blair is an enthusiastic proponent of talks to bring Turkey within the recently-expanded EU. Italy and Germany also favour an early start to talks, but there is scepticism in France and elsewhere. Some are worried that Turkey's large and rapidly growing population and low average income might make integration into the EU difficult.Some are concerned that a change of government could lead to Turkey reneging on key human rights reforms it has recently enacted. And many in France would prefer Turkey to admit that World War I-era killing of Armenians constituted genocide. There are also issues in France and the Netherlands over the possible problems of integrating the first major Muslim nation into the EU. But Mr Blair and the Labour government have been the staunchest backers of Turkish accession, provided it sticks with human rights and economic reform. Mr Blair's official spokesman said: "The prime minister has regular meetings with both of them and particularly in advance of European Councils. "The key issue at this week's council will be that of Turkey, but they will also discuss a range of other matters."

Mr Blair is an enthusiastic proponent of talks to bring Turkey within the recently-expanded EU.Tony Blair has met Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to talk about Turkey entering the EU."The key issue at this week's council will be that of Turkey, but they will also discuss a range of other matters."Some are concerned that a change of government could lead to Turkey reneging on key human rights reforms it has recently enacted.There are also issues in France and the Netherlands over the possible problems of integrating the first major Muslim nation into the EU.

Guantanamo pair's passport banThe government has written to two of the British men freed from Guantanamo Bay telling them they will not be allowed passports.A letter sent to Martin Mubanga said his British passport would not be issued in the light of evidence gathered against him by the US. This suggested he was likely to take part in action against UK or allied targets if he left Britain, it said. An identical letter has been sent to Feroz Abbasi, the men's solicitor says.It is not known whether the other two men released from the Cuba detention camp in January - Richard Belmar and Moazzam Begg - have also received letters. The government is implementing the rarely used Royal Prerogative in order to withdraw the men's passports. It is only the 13th time the power has been used since 1947 - the last time was in 1976. The letter, from the Home Office, says: "I am writing to inform you that on the basis of the information which has come to light during your detention by the United States, the home secretary considered that there are strong grounds for believing that, on leaving the United Kingdom, you would take part in activities against the United Kingdom, or allied targets."The Home Office said it could not comment on individual cases.The Liberal Democrats say they suspect the move is part of a package of security measures agreed with the US in order for the men to be allowed home from Guantanamo Bay.Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten also demanded assurances that the evidence against the men was not gained under torture. He added: "The power should only be used in absolute extreme circumstances and I find it hard to believe that these conditions have been met this time." He said the move also raised complex questions about the use of the Royal Prerogative. The Liberal Democrats have promised to raise the issue in Parliament.Amnesty International UK also questioned whether the decisions had been based on "torture evidence" obtained at Guantanamo Bay. "Furthermore, we believe there should be an investigation into the role played by the UK in the detention of UK residents and nationals and possibly many others at Guantanamo Bay," said director Kate Allen. The men's solicitor, Louise Christian, has raised questions about whether the evidence was gathered through torture. But the Pentagon told BBC News US policy "condemns and prohibits" torture and said there was no evidence that any British detainee was tortured or abused. Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, was taken to Guantanamo Bay after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Mr Mubanga, 29, from north London, was originally detained in Zambia.

The men's solicitor, Louise Christian, has raised questions about whether the evidence was gathered through torture.But the Pentagon told BBC News US policy "condemns and prohibits" torture and said there was no evidence that any British detainee was tortured or abused.The Liberal Democrats say they suspect the move is part of a package of security measures agreed with the US in order for the men to be allowed home from Guantanamo Bay.Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten also demanded assurances that the evidence against the men was not gained under torture.Amnesty International UK also questioned whether the decisions had been based on "torture evidence" obtained at Guantanamo Bay.The government has written to two of the British men freed from Guantanamo Bay telling them they will not be allowed passports.Mr Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, was taken to Guantanamo Bay after being captured in Afghanistan in 2001.A letter sent to Martin Mubanga said his British passport would not be issued in the light of evidence gathered against him by the US.

Terror powers expose 'tyranny'The Lord Chancellor has defended government plans to introduce control orders to keep foreign and British terrorist suspects under house arrest, where there isn't enough evidence to put them on trial.Lord Falconer insists that the proposals do not equate to a police state and strike a balance between protecting the public against the threat of terrorism and upholding civil liberties. But thriller writer Frederick Forsyth tells BBC News of his personal response to the move.There is a mortal danger aimed at the heart of Britain. Or so says Home Secretary Charles Clarke. My reaction? So what? It is not that I am cynical or just do not care. I care about this country very much.But in the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us. My point is, the British have always coped without becoming a dictatorship. We have coped with fear without becoming a state based on fear; we have coped with threat without turning our country into a land of state threat. But that is what the Blair government now seeks to do - create a tyranny to defend us from the al-Qaeda tyranny.I was born on 25 August, 1938. The mortal threat back then was a scruffy little Austrian called Adolf Hitler. A week after my first birthday, the threat had become reality. We were at war. My father wore a uniform for five years. After 1945 we yearned for peace at last. But in 1946 Winston Churchill told us - from the Baltic to the Adriatic an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe. Behind the Iron Curtain, another genocidal psychopath, another threat. Josef Stalin triggered the Cold War, with the Berlin blockade in 1948. My whole generation was blighted by it.We were threatened by the nuclear holocaust, the nuclear wind, the nuclear winter. We built shelters that would have sheltered nothing. We spent our treasure on weapons instead of hospitals. We took silly precautions. Some fought it; some marched futilely against it. Some pretended it was not there. The Cold War lasted 43 years, but we remained a parliamentary democracy. By the early seventies it was terrorism as well. Al Fatah, Black September, Red Brigades, but most of all for us the IRA and the INLA. Thirty more years; 300 policemen and women, over 600 soldiers, more than 3,000 civilians dead, but we won because even IRA bombs could not force us to become a tyranny. That was why the tyrants lost. Civil rights were infringed as little as humanly possible. Evidence had to be taken in secret to protect covert sources; yes , and one judge, no-jury courts had to be instituted when juries were terrorised. Informants had to be given immunity from their own crimes to win the bigger battle. But habeas corpus did not die; right of appeal was not abolished. Now the threat is Islamic fundamentalism. Its leaders want to destroy our society; so did the IRA.It is based and funded abroad; so was the IRA. It has sleeper fanatics inside our society; so did the IRA. It is extremely hard to penetrate with our agents; so was the IRA. The prime movers are not easy to bring to trial; neither were the IRA. But we did. And without becoming a tyranny. Now the Blair government proposes the law system of fascism and communism. The citizen can be arrested and held without charge or trial, not even on the careful consideration of an experienced judge, but the whim of a political activist called a government minister. To be protected from terror the government says, we must become a tyranny. But a tyranny is based on the citizen's terror. This is not victory; this is defeat before a shot is fired.An interesting article - its good to see widening participation in the debate - but I suggest we move one step further. Our own bombs and bullets will can only shatter peace, because invading foreign nations, imprisoning the innocent and 'hunting' in the 'shadows' cannot destroy an evil of the mind, and hatred within the heart. Rather than focusing upon effect, we should consider the cause, because terrorism does not begin with bombs. Why not try a foreign policy of compassion, it can only enhance our democracy, and share our freedom.I agree with Frederick Forsyth. We really can't deal with terrorism by turning Britain into a fascist state. What we really need is more honesty from our security services and our politicians. If they do not have evidence to bring these people to trial, there probably isn't any. Our security services, behave like the detective who having decided that a certain person is guilty, rakes over all kinds of obscure and flimsy evidence to try and prove it, while the real villain gets away. Remember there were no WMD in Iraq. Just because a person may have made some stupid and naive decisions in life does not make them a terrorist.In this overly 'politically correct' society, it is good to see someone like Mr. Forsyth speak out. Yes, there has been oppression by the British government in the past, and overstepping the mark in places like Ireland, but yes, we are still a democracy where it is rare to be arrested without charge/trial etc. (apart from a number of prisoners in Belmarsh goal, for example).This country signs up to human rights, and then pretends that they only apply to the people with nothing to fear, the innocent people (defined by whom?). When ID cards become mandatory, the data collected will not be protected by the Data Protection Act, and will be readily available to people like GCHQ, with no control by the person whose ID is being checked.The threat now is new. You cannot compare the threats of past years with now. Forsyth says 3000 died over 30 years or terrorism; 3000 people died in one morning in NY on September 11th 2001. The threat today is that terrorists will acquire nuclear or biological technology. A Kilo of Semtex will flatten a building, a Kilo of plutonium will flatten a city. You now have a combination of people who will perform terrorist acts with technology that is rapidly becoming accessible. I agree, the government is probably encouraging a degree of mass-hysteria and talking up the threat; but talking-down the threat and doing nothing is unacceptable too.The problem with this issue is not that it isn't important, but the fact that in general we Brits can be so politically apathetic some times, that we will just let this go without telling the government no. However, as the nation that gave the world the common law and a true sense of the rights of individual liberty I hope this will prove to be one step too far.As somebody of Chinese origin, I can say that this country used to be a good place to migrate and start a new life. Whilst life wasn't perfect, we could make better for ourselves. Now we are riddled with red tape and be told what we can or cannot do. We have to be politically-correct and we are not allowed to have beliefs or opinions. We have a Prime Minister who spends too much time meddling in US politics and affairs which have little to do with the lives of British Citizens at home or abroad. Mr Forsyth has done a good job in voicing his opinions. Let's hope the BBC doesn't get gagged for letting people express their views. The people have the right to know and the BBC's role is to Inform, Educate and Entertain...I agree. Terrorists intend to spread fear but in reality it is the government which has spread the fear, by its constant publicising of the this invisible enemy so dangerous that we must allow them to ride roughshod over our rights and liberties. In the end, the very thing we seek to protect is what we are giving up in the name of safety from this invisible enemy. The terrorists have already won.I absolutely agree with Frederick Forsyth. Yes we have to defend ourselves against terrorism but existing laws seem to be more than adequate. The idea that the "new terrorism" demands new powers is erroneous. The evidence of any real terrorist capability in the UK is scant. Ricin, for example, is a dangerous poison but it is not a weapon of mass destruction. What is really worrying is the enthusiasm of Mr Blair and his government for authoritarian reactions and attempts to manipulate the electorate through fear.If the government has its way with ID cards, tracking and so on then totalitarianism has won and as such it then matters little whether we give in to the terrorists demands or not. We will have lost the precious freedom which Bush and Blair constantly tells us we have and that they seek to bring to others.I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. I am shocked at the ease with which this government is prepared to wipe out a major portion of the liberties that British people have enjoyed for centuries - the right not to be deprived of our liberty without a trial in open court. That goes right back to Magna Carta, and ordinary people have spilled their blood to enforce that right against governments who thought they "knew best".When you look at today's Britain, you realise George Orwell was only wrong about one thing: the date.Frederick Forsyth puts it beautifully. The government is seeking to introduce a police state. The new powers of home internment without trial follow a pattern which includes the introduction of surveillance via compulsory ID cards and the linking of data bases, together with the un-British idea that we will have to swear allegiance to the state at the age of 18 years. We are sleep-walking into this. Wake up!An interesting view but missing two crucial facts of this new threat: 1) If these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction they WILL use them without fear of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the cold war in a state of tense balance. These people will use devastating force against us without fear of ANY consequence. 2) The terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers which means they could kill innocent people on the London Underground and we could do very little to stop it. Because these terrorists are potentially SO deadly, we have to come up with new, tougher responses. It will be a little late in the day when people outside London wake up one morning to find out that London has been nuked. We won't have much of a society left to debate !He's correct in most of what he says. Mind you he does seem to have forgotten that disgraceful internment policy in Northern Ireland which probably caused many idealistic if misguided young Catholics to join the IRA. Administrative detention of Muslims could have a similar effect now.Surely we the public would be better protected if the security services, rather than alerting a suspect terrorist by placing them under house arrest (and for how long?)They were to place suspect terrorist under surveillance and maybe acquire sufficient evidence to prosecute or even better prevent a terrorist attack.I don't usually have much time for Mr Forsyth's largely right wing views but this time he has got it spot on. There is no doubt that there are terrorist organisations who would like to do harm to the U.K. but it is very doubtful whether al-Qaeda is a global organisation co-ordinating this. The rise of surveillance cameras, ID cards, the plan to charge for road use by tracking every vehicle at all times, this is the stuff of nightmares. Add to this this new legislation which effectively means that the protection of the law will be removed from anyone at the whim of the Home Secretary, and I genuinely wonder what sort of world my two children will inherit. Where will this end. As it stands terrorists do not need to attack the U.K. it's government will soon have it's people terrorised more that they could very achieve with a few bombs.Mr Forsyth has expressed exactly what my gut fears and reservations were about this proposed legislation, but could not verbalise. Thank you.Mr Forsyth seems to forget that killings in the Troubles occurred on both sides of the religious divide and was carried out by killers from both sides. He also forgets basic Human Rights were suspended then as now. Experienced Judges sat over some of the greatest miscarriages of justice during those times. For very little return and maximum alienation. These laws and the emphasis on the Islamic threat will just do the same.Forsyth is wrong. The nature of the current threat is new. It is no longer to our armed forces, as the Soviet threat in the Eastern bloc was. It is to you and I. The terrorist aim to kill indiscriminately. The best comparison is therefore the blitz, 1941. At this time, let us not forget, suspects (foreign and British were routinely rounded up and interned for the duration of the war, without any complaints from the public. We must not forget we are at war.I'd say that that the likelihood of an attack by a sleeper cell of fundamentalist lunatics against a major UK target is a "When" not an "If" probability. I'll bet any money you like that the day after any such attack Freddie Forsyth will be saying that the government didn't do enough to protect the UK. People like Forsyth can only see one side of any argument and for him it is the side that is opposite New Labour and Tony Blair.I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. The very reason this country has been such a wonderful place to live, is under attack, not from terrorists, but from this government. The perpetuation of the perceived terrorist threat is not because of what the 'alleged' terrorists are doing, but from our own government. I believe what this government is doing, is, at the very least, highly questionable and at worst, sinister. At what point will they feel they have enough control over every single person in the British Isles; when we are all tagged and monitored constantly? Our freedom is being craftily and surreptitiously whittled away by this government and we are gaining nothing. It should be of great concern to everyone.I am slightly older than Mr Forsyth and therefore have lived through the same history as him. I am against a police state and would not like to think that I lived in one. I think that the attack on Iraq made the international situation worse and may have provoked further acts of terrorism.How true. There are extremely worrying parallels between Britain now and Germany during the 30's. I never thought it would be so easy to take over a country from within.Mr Forsyth has forgotten one key point; the terrorists who threaten Britain today are well aware that Hitler, Stalin, and the IRA all failed. As a result modern day terrorists are willing to do things their predecessors did not. That does not mean that the civil liberties of modern Britain must be eroded to counter the threat; that should always be the absolute last resort. But to meet the new threat, to defeat the sinister fanaticism of today's terrorists, we may need to do things a little differently. Let us hope not.Frederic Forsythe's comments seem to me to be a well-thought-out analysis of why we (human society as a whole, and Britain in particular) should resist the temptation to over-protect through fear. It is this fear which enables terrorists to succeed in the end, and terrorists can come in all forms, as Mr. Forsythe's opening comments suggest.I am reminded of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson. "A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither."The government are faced with an incredibly difficult task, and have made a policy to deal with it. It's all very well criticising that policy, but if Mr Forsythe can't draw on his years of experience to offer an alternative, I say 'So what?' to his opinions.Frederick Forsyth's rhetoric is absurd and his conclusions laughable. He distorts reality to serve his own prejudice against New Labour. This government seeks to balance protection of our democracy with minimum loss of civil rights. It is Frederick Forsyth who is the extremist, because he does not appreciate the need for balance.I rarely find myself agreeing with My Forsyth, but in this instance I think he is correct. The rule of law must prevail, civil liberties are worth defending. If the government can hold 'suspects' without charge or trial, what's next?I agree absolutely. By introducing fascist type laws we loose the moral high ground in our fight against terror. Our democratic system is not perfect, but as Churchill points out it is "better than all the others that have been tried". Terrorist attacks will take place but for many reasons we should take that personal risk in return for personal freedom.I do not usually agree with Mr. Forsyth, but he is spot on here. The single biggest threat we face is that of a government dedicated to acting illegally and manipulating international and national law to suit its own purpose. Totalitarianism always requires an outside threat, justifying a range of extraordinary powers leaders want. The British government is a far greater threat that and terrorist organisation.Although, in principle I agree with him, Frederick Forsyth fails to address one key point- al-Qaeda attacks (though obviously there have been none yet in the UK) seek to kill the maximum number of people. The IRA wanted to limit the death toll of their attacks so as to maintain support among the republican movement.Yes, I agree with Mr. Forsyth's views. I do not believe the government's plans are justified. There is over reaction to and the negative influence of the US President's interpretation of democracy and freedom. He uses the same arguments that were current before the WWII, the Wars to "liberate" Iraq, Afghanistan with Syria and Iran to come. We are leaving a poor inheritance for the future generations.Mr Forsyth is a wonderful writer and should keep his fiction where it belongs. The British Government is not going down the road that Mr Forsyth suggests. Sadly comments such as his will make a lot of people believe that they are governed by people who are fast becoming tyrants instead of being genuinely committed to stopping tyranny, even if the method employed to do that is at the moment alien to the British people who have lived in a democracy protected by Tony Blair and others of like mind who, Mr. Forsyth seems to be putting along side the 'scruffy little Austrian.'Thomas Hobbes would be smiling in his grave at Labour's propositions. Like New Labour, he called himself a libertarian. Like New Labour, he believed he was promoting the people's best interests. But as Forsythe criticises this government, Hobbes has been criticised by most subsequent philosophers for arguing his way into the hands of the totalitarians. Simply put, he argued that in favour of the ultimate liberty - the liberty to live - man should be prepared to surrender all other liberties to a supreme sovereign, as protection against his fellow, barbaric, man. Hobbes has been roundly condemned by posterity, and rightly so. I hope New Labour suffers the same treatment.I agree with Mr Forsyth's views. The governments approach is totally against the spirit of British democracy. They must not be allowed to get away with it.Of course Frederick is wrong about Britain winning the war against the IRA and he's wrong too about the country not becoming a tyranny. Has he forgotten about shoot to kill, torture, internment without trial, collusion with loyalist death squads etc?My background is somewhat similar to Freddie's so I am persuaded to agree with many of his sentiments. We can have no moral justification for imposing our system of government on anyone while we are systematically depriving our own citizens of basic individual and collective freedoms.Whilst the principle of keeping potential terrorists under house arrest might seem superficially attractive, it is, unfortunately, also the first step towards totalitarianism. Who is to decide whom is a suspect? Why should we believe them? Who can have faith in the honesty, integrity, and competence of our intelligence services and politicians in light of the events of recent years? What is to stop false denunciations? What of those falsely accused who will lose their careers? Who will support their families? Will their children still go to school? It smacks to me of the methods of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Ceausescu's Romania - the list goes on. It looks as if a new dark age is coming.I see that opinion on Mr Forsyth's remarks are divided. The problem I see is that those who support imprisonment without trial believe it will never happen to them or their family, only to people they don't like or are scared of. But history has shown that if you have laws like that, they always get abused by those in power. After all, today you may be scared of the same people as those in power but someday those in power may be scared of you! And that day, you'll be the one imprisoned without the chance of justice. Our laws are such that you cannot just be imprisoned at the whim of our police forces, you have to be shown to be deserving of it. If we imprison people without trial for an indeterminate period, we are no better that those we are fighting.I never thought it possible for me to agree with a single word uttered by Frederick Forsyth, but I'm in wholehearted agreement with him on this one. We, as a nation are in grave danger of being duped by pro US propaganda, which of course also means we'll inherit most, if not all of their total paranoia, and allow our governments, of any political persuasion incidentally, to gradually, and insidiously, impose a police state by well tried & tested back door methods. I grieve for the future of my children, it's no wonder they're adamant they don't ever want any of their own.This government, with much fanfare, signs us up to the European Convention on Human Rights but now wants to introduce indefinite house arrest without trial. This puts it on a par with the government of Burma.Like many of your respondents, I wouldn't usually think of Mr Forsyth as someone whose views I share, but in the instance of opposing Charles Clark's proposals for house arrest, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth/I agree with Mr Forsyth. Just look at the facts - our government (along with the US) invaded another sovereign country (Iraq) by selecting intelligence that backed it's case based on fear. The facts turned out to be very different. If individuals are treated in the same distorted way, then we've done ourselves more damage than any terrorist organisation could with bombs. We become animals too.I agree in many ways with what Mr Forsyth has said - if we are to be respected and have influence within the world we must be seen to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk - how can we accuse countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma of human rights abuses when we are locking up people who may be totally innocent, it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Mr Forsyth links "Islamic fundamentalism" to the new "threat". However it appears that he has misunderstood the term "Islamic fundamentalism". It should be pointed out that a Muslim who adheres to the true fundamentals of the Qur'aan and the teachings of the last Prophet Muhammad is an Islamic Fundamentalist. This person does not commit suicide in any shape or form, nor does she/he kill innocent women, men and children. This person is self-reflective and constantly tries to better her/his actions by being good to others. The people who Mr Forsyth labels the new "threat" are those who do not follow the correct teachings of Islam. They have arrived at their own interpretations and assumptions with regards their actions. On top of that, they claim to be following Islam in its true form!I accept that the intentions of these policies are to make Britain a safer place but I cannot think of a single example from history where doing this sort of thing has ever made any difference - in Northern Ireland internment certainly didn't achieve anything - the bombings didn't stop, and it could be argued that all it achieved was to just supply the IRA with yet more angry and resentful republicans willing to take up arms against the British.Being eight years older than Frederick Forsyth and a survivor of the Blitz on London, it is easy to agree with him, he is absolutely spot on. During the IRA bombings there were massive explosions in Canary Wharf, to the right of where I write this, and also to the left in the City of London. Notwithstanding these and the attempted and nearly successful assassination attempts on Prime Minister Thatcher in Brighton and on later occupants of 10 Downing Street, there was no retaliatory blitz on Belfast or Dublin as there has been on Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when England was in true peril in 1940 apart from some detentions there were no wholesale derogation of habeas corpus and the like. We have to see off these latest attempts on our liberties including ID cards, which Winston Churchill decided had to go since, he said, the average Bobby on the beat could not be relied on to not be tempted to take undue advantage against the citizen going about their lawful activities (incidentally I can still remember my old ID card number). Hence it is clear that the far too great police state powers set for the statute books have to be resisted and neutered.What can I add to Mr. Forsyth's eloquently put arguments... except applause! Well done that man for standing up and being counted in the "war against tyranny".

Mr Forsyth links "Islamic fundamentalism" to the new "threat".The people who Mr Forsyth labels the new "threat" are those who do not follow the correct teachings of Islam.Mr Forsyth has forgotten one key point; the terrorists who threaten Britain today are well aware that Hitler, Stalin, and the IRA all failed.The British government is a far greater threat that and terrorist organisation.The perpetuation of the perceived terrorist threat is not because of what the 'alleged' terrorists are doing, but from our own government.Like many of your respondents, I wouldn't usually think of Mr Forsyth as someone whose views I share, but in the instance of opposing Charles Clark's proposals for house arrest, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth/ I agree with Mr Forsyth.The British Government is not going down the road that Mr Forsyth suggests.I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth.Sadly comments such as his will make a lot of people believe that they are governed by people who are fast becoming tyrants instead of being genuinely committed to stopping tyranny, even if the method employed to do that is at the moment alien to the British people who have lived in a democracy protected by Tony Blair and others of like mind who, Mr. Forsyth seems to be putting along side the 'scruffy little Austrian.'I do not usually agree with Mr. Forsyth, but he is spot on here.An interesting view but missing two crucial facts of this new threat: 1) If these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction they WILL use them without fear of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the cold war in a state of tense balance.The threat now is new.I agree with Frederick Forsyth.As it stands terrorists do not need to attack the U.K. it's government will soon have it's people terrorised more that they could very achieve with a few bombs.I agree in many ways with what Mr Forsyth has said - if we are to be respected and have influence within the world we must be seen to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk - how can we accuse countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma of human rights abuses when we are locking up people who may be totally innocent, it is hypocrisy of the highest order.Mr Forsyth has done a good job in voicing his opinions.The Lord Chancellor has defended government plans to introduce control orders to keep foreign and British terrorist suspects under house arrest, where there isn't enough evidence to put them on trial.If the government has its way with ID cards, tracking and so on then totalitarianism has won and as such it then matters little whether we give in to the terrorists demands or not.People like Forsyth can only see one side of any argument and for him it is the side that is opposite New Labour and Tony Blair.I agree, the government is probably encouraging a degree of mass-hysteria and talking up the threat; but talking-down the threat and doing nothing is unacceptable too.We have coped with fear without becoming a state based on fear; we have coped with threat without turning our country into a land of state threat.I absolutely agree with Frederick Forsyth.Although, in principle I agree with him, Frederick Forsyth fails to address one key point- al-Qaeda attacks (though obviously there have been none yet in the UK) seek to kill the maximum number of people.Yes, there has been oppression by the British government in the past, and overstepping the mark in places like Ireland, but yes, we are still a democracy where it is rare to be arrested without charge/trial etc.In this overly 'politically correct' society, it is good to see someone like Mr. Forsyth speak out.Mr Forsyth has expressed exactly what my gut fears and reservations were about this proposed legislation, but could not verbalise.I'll bet any money you like that the day after any such attack Freddie Forsyth will be saying that the government didn't do enough to protect the UK.I am shocked at the ease with which this government is prepared to wipe out a major portion of the liberties that British people have enjoyed for centuries - the right not to be deprived of our liberty without a trial in open court.It is this fear which enables terrorists to succeed in the end, and terrorists can come in all forms, as Mr. Forsythe's opening comments suggest.The very reason this country has been such a wonderful place to live, is under attack, not from terrorists, but from this government.This government, with much fanfare, signs us up to the European Convention on Human Rights but now wants to introduce indefinite house arrest without trial.To be protected from terror the government says, we must become a tyranny.2) The terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers which means they could kill innocent people on the London Underground and we could do very little to stop it.The threat today is that terrorists will acquire nuclear or biological technology.What is really worrying is the enthusiasm of Mr Blair and his government for authoritarian reactions and attempts to manipulate the electorate through fear.The problem I see is that those who support imprisonment without trial believe it will never happen to them or their family, only to people they don't like or are scared of.I agree with Mr Forsyth's views.I accept that the intentions of these policies are to make Britain a safer place but I cannot think of a single example from history where doing this sort of thing has ever made any difference - in Northern Ireland internment certainly didn't achieve anything - the bombings didn't stop, and it could be argued that all it achieved was to just supply the IRA with yet more angry and resentful republicans willing to take up arms against the British.The nature of the current threat is new.But in the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us.Yes, I agree with Mr. Forsyth's views.But to meet the new threat, to defeat the sinister fanaticism of today's terrorists, we may need to do things a little differently.Of course Frederick is wrong about Britain winning the war against the IRA and he's wrong too about the country not becoming a tyranny.Being eight years older than Frederick Forsyth and a survivor of the Blitz on London, it is easy to agree with him, he is absolutely spot on.)They were to place suspect terrorist under surveillance and maybe acquire sufficient evidence to prosecute or even better prevent a terrorist attack.It will be a little late in the day when people outside London wake up one morning to find out that London has been nuked.Forsyth says 3000 died over 30 years or terrorism; 3000 people died in one morning in NY on September 11th 2001.But that is what the Blair government now seeks to do - create a tyranny to defend us from the al-Qaeda tyranny.I never thought it possible for me to agree with a single word uttered by Frederick Forsyth, but I'm in wholehearted agreement with him on this one.I am slightly older than Mr Forsyth and therefore have lived through the same history as him.These laws and the emphasis on the Islamic threat will just do the same.Forsyth is wrong.If the government can hold 'suspects' without charge or trial, what's next?That does not mean that the civil liberties of modern Britain must be eroded to counter the threat; that should always be the absolute last resort.The government is seeking to introduce a police state.That goes right back to Magna Carta, and ordinary people have spilled their blood to enforce that right against governments who thought they "knew best".Mr Forsyth seems to forget that killings in the Troubles occurred on both sides of the religious divide and was carried out by killers from both sides.Like New Labour, he believed he was promoting the people's best interests.Just look at the facts - our government (along with the US) invaded another sovereign country (Iraq) by selecting intelligence that backed it's case based on fear.These people will use devastating force against us without fear of ANY consequence.Frederick Forsyth puts it beautifully.Terrorists intend to spread fear but in reality it is the government which has spread the fear, by its constant publicising of the this invisible enemy so dangerous that we must allow them to ride roughshod over our rights and liberties.The mortal threat back then was a scruffy little Austrian called Adolf Hitler.Mr Forsyth is a wonderful writer and should keep his fiction where it belongs.The governments approach is totally against the spirit of British democracy.I am against a police state and would not like to think that I lived in one.But history has shown that if you have laws like that, they always get abused by those in power.The single biggest threat we face is that of a government dedicated to acting illegally and manipulating international and national law to suit its own purpose.Now the threat is Islamic fundamentalism.I don't usually have much time for Mr Forsyth's largely right wing views but this time he has got it spot on.It is Frederick Forsyth who is the extremist, because he does not appreciate the need for balance.This government seeks to balance protection of our democracy with minimum loss of civil rights.The problem with this issue is not that it isn't important, but the fact that in general we Brits can be so politically apathetic some times, that we will just let this go without telling the government no.The citizen can be arrested and held without charge or trial, not even on the careful consideration of an experienced judge, but the whim of a political activist called a government minister.Now the Blair government proposes the law system of fascism and communism.At this time, let us not forget, suspects (foreign and British were routinely rounded up and interned for the duration of the war, without any complaints from the public.The new powers of home internment without trial follow a pattern which includes the introduction of surveillance via compulsory ID cards and the linking of data bases, together with the un-British idea that we will have to swear allegiance to the state at the age of 18 years.If we imprison people without trial for an indeterminate period, we are no better that those we are fighting.Because these terrorists are potentially SO deadly, we have to come up with new, tougher responses.The idea that the "new terrorism" demands new powers is erroneous.You now have a combination of people who will perform terrorist acts with technology that is rapidly becoming accessible.However, as the nation that gave the world the common law and a true sense of the rights of individual liberty I hope this will prove to be one step too far.It is based and funded abroad; so was the IRA.This puts it on a par with the government of Burma.Thirty more years; 300 policemen and women, over 600 soldiers, more than 3,000 civilians dead, but we won because even IRA bombs could not force us to become a tyranny.The terrorists have already won.Like New Labour, he called himself a libertarian.(apart from a number of prisoners in Belmarsh goal, for example).This country signs up to human rights, and then pretends that they only apply to the people with nothing to fear, the innocent people (defined by whom?).Surely we the public would be better protected if the security services, rather than alerting a suspect terrorist by placing them under house arrest (and for how long?And without becoming a tyranny.When you look at today's Britain, you realise George Orwell was only wrong about one thing: the date.But as Forsythe criticises this government, Hobbes has been criticised by most subsequent philosophers for arguing his way into the hands of the totalitarians.It has sleeper fanatics inside our society; so did the IRA.Just because a person may have made some stupid and naive decisions in life does not make them a terrorist.You cannot compare the threats of past years with now.Our freedom is being craftily and surreptitiously whittled away by this government and we are gaining nothing.I agree.If they do not have evidence to bring these people to trial, there probably isn't any.Lord Falconer insists that the proposals do not equate to a police state and strike a balance between protecting the public against the threat of terrorism and upholding civil liberties.

Gurkhas to help tsunami victimsBritain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said.The deployment would involve troops from the 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles, based in Brunei. Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province. Downing St said a similar offer might be made to the Sri Lankan government.However a spokesman pointed out that there were particular logistical difficulties in Indonesia which the Gurkhas might be able to help with. The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters. "This is in addition to the ships and aircraft we have already committed to the relief operation in the Indian Ocean."Indonesia was by far the country worst affected by the tsunami, with 94,000 of the 140,000 confirmed deaths so far. International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh. "We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said. "We've also had RAF aircraft flying in equipment which the UN desperately need in order to set up a truly effective relief operation on the ground in Aceh province as well." The offer comes as the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrives in Indonesia for a special summit meeting on the disaster.

Britain has offered to send a company of 120 Gurkhas to assist with the tsunami relief effort in Indonesia, Downing Street said.Discussions have begun with Indonesia on the exact timing and location of the deployment, but the government said the offer was aimed at the Aceh province.The spokesman said: "Following this morning's daily coordination meeting on the post-tsunami relief effort, the government has formally offered the Indonesian government the assistance of a company of British Army Gurkhas from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles around 120 personnel and two helicopters."We have offered the Gurkhas to help in the process of scaling up the relief effort, particularly in Aceh which is undoubtedly the hardest hit area in the Indian Ocean at the moment," he said.International Development Minister Gareth Thomas said the assistance offer would most likely focus on the northern province of Aceh.

Cabinet anger at Brown cash raidMinisters are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.Gordon Brown reallocated £512m from central to local government budgets in his pre-Budget report on Thursday. Mr Raynsford said he had held some "pretty frank discussions" with fellow ministers over the plans. But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities. And he confirmed rows over the issue with ministerial colleagues. "Obviously we had some pretty frank discussions about this," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One. But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments". Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added. Mr Raynsford dismissed a suggestion the move was designed to keep council taxes down ahead of an expected general election."This is a response to the concerns that have been voiced by local government about the pressures they face." Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes. These would raise the age from which retiring workers could claim their pensions and limit how much they received if they retired early. He insisted the changes were "very modest" and designed to tackle the problem of workers retiring "very early". But general secretary of the public services union Unison Dave Prentis criticised the plans. "If you want world class public services you don't get that by hitting people as they approach retirement."

But he said local governments had to deliver good services without big council tax rises.Mr Raynsford said nearly all central government departments had an interest in well run local authorities.Ministers are unhappy about plans to use Whitehall cash to keep council tax bills down, local government minister Nick Raynsford has acknowledged.Mr Raynsford also plans to make savings of £100m by making changes to local government pensions schemes.Ministers had to be sure local government could deliver without "unreasonable council tax increases", he added.The central government cash is part of a £1bn package to help local authorities in England keep next year's council tax rises below 5%, in what is likely to be a general election year.But he said there was a recognition that "a good settlement for local government" was important to health, education and "other government departments".

Blair looks to election campaignTony Blair's big speech will be looked back on as the performance that kicked off the election campaign.That poll may still be about 16 weeks away, but there can be little doubt left that the campaign is now in full swing. The prime minister used his speech to a selected audience in the south east to set out his broad brush election manifesto. There was a detailed account of the government's past record, with a major emphasis on the economy and public services. There was an attempt to draw the line under the gossip surrounding his rift with Chancellor Gordon Brown. And there was an insistence on the importance of the party continuing to operate as unremittingly "New" Labour - although that may continue to irritate his chancellor.There was little in terms of concrete proposals or what might form manifesto pledges, although the prime minister talked about a "New Labour manifesto that will be aimed at all sections of society". His was more a speech designed to remind people, and some in his own party, precisely what New Labour stood for, and to leave them in no doubt there would not be any shrinking away from that approach. And, for some, that means showing that New Labour actually does stand for something - that it is, as he said, more than "an electoral device".To that end he set out a broad programme aimed to appeal to both middle England voters who switched to the party in 1997 and stuck with it, possibly through some gritted teeth, in 2001, and to more traditional lower income old Labour supporters. In a key section, he declared: "In our third term we can achieve an unprecedented widening of opportunity and prosperity. "For the first time ever a whole generation growing up with unbroken economic stability. Every family - not just the fortunate few - knowing their children will have an inheritance at adulthood. "Every pupil in every secondary school guaranteed a place in university or a quality apprenticeship. Every adult - including those who missed out at school - able to get the skills then need to advance. "Home ownership extended to its highest ever level and to families who have never before been able to afford it. "The highest ever level of employment with everyone in work guaranteed a decent wage and decent conditions".Under what is to be the general election slogan "Britain is working", the prime minister time and again insisted the future direction would be unremittingly New Labour. That might get under the skin of Mr Brown, but he also heaped praise on him as the most successful post-war chancellor Britain has had. Probably the greatest ideological divide between the two men, in so far as there is one, is about the degree of private finance allowed into the public services.An unremittingly "New" Labour manifesto, as the prime minister is happy to make plain, will stress the importance of that - the belief patients and parents, for example, want a choice of good services before they start worrying about who has provided them. The chancellor is said to be far more sceptical about private finance, although there is no suggestion he opposes it in principle. With an election looming the next big speech from Gordon Brown will be closely examined for any signs of divisions and, in particular, the use of that little three letter word. But for now, all eyes have been focused on the next general election. And for many in Westminster, Mr Blair's performance has only succeeded in hardening the belief that will be on 5 May.

There was little in terms of concrete proposals or what might form manifesto pledges, although the prime minister talked about a "New Labour manifesto that will be aimed at all sections of society".And there was an insistence on the importance of the party continuing to operate as unremittingly "New" Labour - although that may continue to irritate his chancellor.Under what is to be the general election slogan "Britain is working", the prime minister time and again insisted the future direction would be unremittingly New Labour.His was more a speech designed to remind people, and some in his own party, precisely what New Labour stood for, and to leave them in no doubt there would not be any shrinking away from that approach.An unremittingly "New" Labour manifesto, as the prime minister is happy to make plain, will stress the importance of that - the belief patients and parents, for example, want a choice of good services before they start worrying about who has provided them.The prime minister used his speech to a selected audience in the south east to set out his broad brush election manifesto.With an election looming the next big speech from Gordon Brown will be closely examined for any signs of divisions and, in particular, the use of that little three letter word."Home ownership extended to its highest ever level and to families who have never before been able to afford it.Tony Blair's big speech will be looked back on as the performance that kicked off the election campaign."Every pupil in every secondary school guaranteed a place in university or a quality apprenticeship.

Tory backing for ID cardsThe Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats.They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration."Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."

If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards.The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them.And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

Hague 'given up' his PM ambitionFormer Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling. Mr Hague, who stepped down after his party's 2001 election defeat, does not rule out a return to the front bench. He also told the paper he hopes to remain MP for Richmond, North Yorks, and start a family with wife Ffion. Mr Hague, who recently had published the biography of William Pitt the Younger, also said he wanted to continue writing books and speech-writing.He told the newspaper: "I don't know whether I will ever go back on to the front, but don't rush me." Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No. Definitely not." His determination to stay away from a central role will disappoint some senior Conservative members, who say the party needs him. Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench. Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36. He said: "I feel fortunate that, by the age of 40, I had crammed in an entire political career. "I had been in the Cabinet and been leader of the party, so now I can branch out into other things...it is a very liberating feeling." Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister. "Maybe I wasn't as driven by politics as I thought I was," he said.

Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36.Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench.Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No.Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling.Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister.Former Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.

Guantanamo four free in weeksAll four Britons held by the US in Guantanamo Bay will be returned to the UK within weeks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons on Tuesday.Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, and Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Feroz Abbasi, from London, have been held by the US for almost three years. They were detained in the Cuban camp as part of the US-led "war on terror". Mr Straw said the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security. He said the government had been negotiating the return of the detainees since 2003. All four families have been informed of their return and have been involved in regular discussions with the government, Mr Straw said.But he added: "Once they are back in the UK, the police will consider whether to arrest them under the Terrorism Act 2000 for questioning in connection with possible terrorist activity." The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, welcomed the return of the four detainees. But he said there were still "serious questions" both over the possible threat the four pose to the UK, and the treatment they received while detained. Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the four had been rescued from a "legal no-man's land". "Their civil rights were systematically and deliberately abused and they were denied due process."Azmat Begg, father of Moazzam, thanked his lawyers and the British people for the support he had received while campaigning for his son's release. He added: "If they have done something wrong, of course they should be punished, but if they haven't, they shouldn't have been there." Lawyer Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the government should have acted sooner. She said: "They should at the outset have said quite clearly to the American government that they were behaving in breach of international law and that the British government wanted no part of it and wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down. "They didn't do that. They colluded with it." Moazzam Begg's Labour MP Roger Godsiff welcomed his release, but said questions remained unanswered, particularly about charges. Asked about possible damages Mr Begg and the other detainees could bring against the US, Mr Godsiff said: "People get released from prison when it's found that their prosecution was unsustainable and they are quite rightly awarded sizeable sums of money. "I don't see any difference in this case." Human rights campaigners have been outraged at the treatment of the detainees in Cuba. Amnesty International has called Camp Delta a "major human-rights scandal" and an "icon of lawlessness". Both Amnesty and the lobby group Guantanamo Human Rights Commission described the release as "long overdue". Civil rights group Liberty said it was "delighted" but called on the government to release men indefinitely detained in the UK without charge or trial.Director Shami Chakrabarti called on the government to "practise what it preaches" and either free or charge 12 detainees at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. Law Lords ruled last month that the 12 were being held in contravention of human rights laws but they are still behind bars. The US has also announced that 48-year-old Australian Mamdouh Habib, previously accused of terrorist offences, will be released without charge from Camp Delta. Five British detainees released from Guantanamo in March last year were questioned by UK police before being released without charge.

Civil rights group Liberty said it was "delighted" but called on the government to release men indefinitely detained in the UK without charge or trial.All four families have been informed of their return and have been involved in regular discussions with the government, Mr Straw said.Mr Straw said the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security.He said the government had been negotiating the return of the detainees since 2003.She said: "They should at the outset have said quite clearly to the American government that they were behaving in breach of international law and that the British government wanted no part of it and wanted Guantanamo Bay shut down.But he said there were still "serious questions" both over the possible threat the four pose to the UK, and the treatment they received while detained.Asked about possible damages Mr Begg and the other detainees could bring against the US, Mr Godsiff said: "People get released from prison when it's found that their prosecution was unsustainable and they are quite rightly awarded sizeable sums of money.Lawyer Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the government should have acted sooner.Five British detainees released from Guantanamo in March last year were questioned by UK police before being released without charge.All four Britons held by the US in Guantanamo Bay will be returned to the UK within weeks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons on Tuesday.Moazzam Begg's Labour MP Roger Godsiff welcomed his release, but said questions remained unanswered, particularly about charges.The US has also announced that 48-year-old Australian Mamdouh Habib, previously accused of terrorist offences, will be released without charge from Camp Delta.

Tories pledge free sports lessonsChildren would be offered two hours' free sports training a week by a future Tory government, the party has said.The Club2School policy would provide up to £250m yearly for local sports clubs in the UK to deliver after-school sport. The extra coaching would be funded by the National Lottery and would come on top of the two hours of sport a week children are supposed to get in school. Shadow home secretary David Davis said five million children were being denied adequate sporting opportunities.The plans would help tackle the "fastest growing rate of obesity in the developed world", he said. Shadow sports minister Lord Moynihan said the policy would empower local clubs and create a lasting legacy. "We aim to shift the emphasis on after-school sport provision away from our overstretched teachers and schools directly in to the 151,000 sports clubs in the UK." The Tories say Labour's plans to give all children two hours of sports lessons a week in schools have failed. Government figures show that in England in 2002 only a third of schools at Key Stages 1, 3 and 4 and two-fifths of schools at Key Stage 2, met that target. The Tories also claim that of the £750m the prime minister pledged in 2000 to invest on school sports facilities, only £41m had been spent. But the Big Lottery Fund has said that complex capital projects are involved - and it was confident the money would all be allocated by next year as intended.

The extra coaching would be funded by the National Lottery and would come on top of the two hours of sport a week children are supposed to get in school.The Club2School policy would provide up to £250m yearly for local sports clubs in the UK to deliver after-school sport.Shadow sports minister Lord Moynihan said the policy would empower local clubs and create a lasting legacy.Children would be offered two hours' free sports training a week by a future Tory government, the party has said.The Tories say Labour's plans to give all children two hours of sports lessons a week in schools have failed.

Kennedy calls for Iraq exit plansTony Blair should set out a proper exit strategy from Iraq in the wake of next Sunday's elections in the country, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said.In a speech focusing on issues arising from the re-election of George W Bush, Mr Kennedy said Iraq had become a "crucible of militant terrorism". He wants to see a phased withdrawal of UK troops "as soon as the situation allows", he said in London. Any exit strategy must "augment and support" the democratic process."There are some who are of the opinion that the mere presence of British and American troops in Iraq feeds the insurgency," he said. "There is some truth in that, especially after the initial mistakes that were made - the heavy-handedness of operations like Fallujah, and the well-publicised instances of abuse at the hands of coalition forces." Mr Kennedy pointed out that the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic, which all have troops operating in the southern sector of Iraq, have announced their imminent withdrawal "regardless of the situation on the ground".He accused Mr Blair's government of "being less than straightforward" over its plans. "Next week the prime minister should make a statement regarding the elections in Iraq," Mr Kennedy said during his City of London speech. "He should set out a proper exit strategy, including the phased withdrawal of British troops, as the security situation allows." Mr Kennedy also argued that British troops deployed in Iraq should be replaced with forces from other countries - "especially Islamic countries".

Mr Kennedy also argued that British troops deployed in Iraq should be replaced with forces from other countries - "especially Islamic countries".Tony Blair should set out a proper exit strategy from Iraq in the wake of next Sunday's elections in the country, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said."Next week the prime minister should make a statement regarding the elections in Iraq," Mr Kennedy said during his City of London speech.Mr Kennedy pointed out that the Netherlands, Portugal and the Czech Republic, which all have troops operating in the southern sector of Iraq, have announced their imminent withdrawal "regardless of the situation on the ground".In a speech focusing on issues arising from the re-election of George W Bush, Mr Kennedy said Iraq had become a "crucible of militant terrorism".

Kilroy-Silk quits 'shameful' UKIPEx-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the UK Independence Party and accused it of betraying its supporters.The MEP said he was ashamed to have joined the party, which he labelled as a "joke". He plans to stand in the next general election but refused to confirm he is setting up a new political party called Veritas - Latin for truth. UKIP leader Roger Knapman said he would "break open the champagne", adding: "It was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'." However, he did say the ex-chat show host had been "quite useful initially". "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the (European) election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," Mr Knapman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Knapman rejected the idea Mr Kilroy-Silk posed a threat to UKIP and queried why he had failed to confirm rumours he was starting a new political party.Mr Kilroy-Silk explained his reasons to his East Midlands constituents at a meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire. His decision came as UKIP officials began a process which could have triggered Mr Kilroy-Silk's expulsion. It marks the end of his membership of UKIP after just nine months. It began with a flood of publicity which helped UKIP into third place in last June's European elections but became dominated by rancour as he tried to take over the party leadership.Mr Kilroy-Silk accused his fellow UKIP MEPs of being content with growing fat "sitting on their backsides" in Brussels. He told BBC News 24: "I tried to change the party, I nagged all the way through the summer to do things, to get moving because I thought it was criminal what they were doing, it was a betrayal." Mr Kilroy-Silk also told Sky News there was "masses of support" for him to form a new party - something he has yet to confirm will happen.UKIP won 12 seats and 16.1% of the vote at the European elections on the back of its call for the UK to leave the European Union In his speech, Mr Kilroy-Silk says the result offered UKIP an "amazing opportunity" but the party's leadership had done nothing and "gone AWOL". There were no policies, no energy, no vision and no spokespeople, he said. "The party is going nowhere and I'm embarrassed with its allies in Europe and I'm ashamed to be a member of the party," said Mr Kilroy-Silk.He said his conviction in Britain's right to govern itself had not changed. He would continue that campaign outside UKIP when he contested the general election in an East Midlands constituency. Reports of his new party plans have prompted a formal complaint to UKIP's disciplinary committee for bringing the party into "disrepute". On Thursday, the party challenged Mr Kilroy-Silk to stand down as an MEP so voters can get a genuine UKIP candidate.

Mr Knapman rejected the idea Mr Kilroy-Silk posed a threat to UKIP and queried why he had failed to confirm rumours he was starting a new political party."He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the (European) election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," Mr Knapman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.On Thursday, the party challenged Mr Kilroy-Silk to stand down as an MEP so voters can get a genuine UKIP candidate."The party is going nowhere and I'm embarrassed with its allies in Europe and I'm ashamed to be a member of the party," said Mr Kilroy-Silk.Mr Kilroy-Silk also told Sky News there was "masses of support" for him to form a new party - something he has yet to confirm will happen.The MEP said he was ashamed to have joined the party, which he labelled as a "joke".Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk has quit the UK Independence Party and accused it of betraying its supporters.UKIP won 12 seats and 16.1% of the vote at the European elections on the back of its call for the UK to leave the European Union In his speech, Mr Kilroy-Silk says the result offered UKIP an "amazing opportunity" but the party's leadership had done nothing and "gone AWOL".Mr Kilroy-Silk accused his fellow UKIP MEPs of being content with growing fat "sitting on their backsides" in Brussels.

UKIP candidate suspended in probeEurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.John Houston, 54, was due to stand in the East Kilbride seat in Lanarkshire at the next election. But he was suspended after his reported views, including the return of the British Empire, were sent to two Scottish newspapers. UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views. The episode comes at a difficult time for UKIP, soon after the high-profile departure of MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade. The document reportedly said: "We're looking for the resurrection of the British Empire. "The problems for the human race - environmental and others - can only be dealt with on a global scale, and that calls for a radical alliance of the English-speaking nations, which they are uniquely able to do." Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not. He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate. He told BBC News: "He appears to have said these things. We have suspended him as a member and as a candidate. "By all accounts none of this was mentioned at his selection meeting. "It is simply a distraction from the task in hand, the EU constitution, not individual idiocies." Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night. "He will remain suspended while the matter is being investigated and then we will decide if and what further action will be taken." He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party. He added: "I can't comment too much at the moment, I have one version from him but I haven't seen the papers yet."

Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night.UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views.He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate.He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party.Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not.Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade.Eurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.

Brown shrugs off economy fearsGordon Brown is to freeze petrol duty increases, fund a £1bn package to avoid big council tax rises and boost childcare and maternity leave.In an upbeat pre-Budget report, he slightly increased borrowing but insisted economic targets would be met. The chancellor also hailed the longest period of growth in UK "industrial history" but denied he was "gloating". But Oliver Letwin, for the Tories, attacked government red tape and debt, dubbing Mr Brown "Sir Wastealot".The shadow chancellor said Mr Brown's "golden rule" had "turned to dross in his hands" and said he was borrowing to spend, not invest, with predicted debt over the coming years totalling £170bn. Mr Letwin told MPs: "The tide is going out on the chancellor's credibility. He is spending, borrowing and taxing so much because he is not getting value for taxpayer's money."Vincent Cable, for the Liberal Democrats, accused Mr Brown of ducking tough choices.He said: "Last week the prime minister gave us the politics of fear; this week the chancellor has offered the economics of complacency. "There are serious challenges ahead from the falling dollar and from the rapid downturn in the UK housing market and rising personal debt. But they have not been confronted." Mr Brown rejected the Lib Dem's call to open up the government's books to the National Audit Office, saying decisions on tax and spending should be made by ministers. Some economists say his forecasts on public finances are wishful thinking. BBC economic editor Evan Davis said the figures were plausible but also a gamble.Mr Brown's insistence he was not "gloating" was a pointed rebuttal of a warning from new European Commissioner Peter Mandelson. In his speech, he set out a 10-year childcare strategy for if Labour wins the next election.It includes a £285m cash injection to extend paid maternity leave from six months to nine, with parents able to transfer leave from the mother to the father. He also promised to increase free nursery education for three and four-year-olds to 15 hours from April 2007. And funds would be provided to keep schools open from 0800 to 1800GMT to look after children while their parents were at work. Taken together, the measures would create a "welfare state that is truly family-friendly for the first time in its history", said Mr Brown. He also announced a cash hand-out for older pensioners, with payments of £50 for the over-70s as part of the winter fuel allowance. In a move ministers say should keep council tax rises below 5% next year, the chancellor said he was providing an extra £1bn for local councils. The money is expected to come from government departments such as health and education.Mr Brown said he was set to meet his two fiscal rules - to borrow only to invest and keep debt "low and sustainable" - both in this economic cycle and the next. Borrowing figures for 2003/4 are £35bn - £2.5bn less than the £37.5bn predicted in March's budget, as already announced by the Office for National Statistics. Borrowing is tipped to fall to £31bn by 2005/06 - but that is still £2bn more than Mr Brown predicted in his March budget. Inflation would be 1.75% next year and 2% in the years to follow, Mr Brown forecast. He also pledged an extra £105m for security and counter-terrorism. Business groups have welcomed efforts to improve competitiveness and invest more in skills and innovation. But there worries about the costs of more family-friendly working. Simon Sweetman, from the Federation of Small Businesses, said: "The proposals on maternity leave have clearly been made with a general election in mind and with little thought to the impact on small employers."

The shadow chancellor said Mr Brown's "golden rule" had "turned to dross in his hands" and said he was borrowing to spend, not invest, with predicted debt over the coming years totalling £170bn.Mr Brown said he was set to meet his two fiscal rules - to borrow only to invest and keep debt "low and sustainable" - both in this economic cycle and the next.In a move ministers say should keep council tax rises below 5% next year, the chancellor said he was providing an extra £1bn for local councils.Inflation would be 1.75% next year and 2% in the years to follow, Mr Brown forecast.Borrowing is tipped to fall to £31bn by 2005/06 - but that is still £2bn more than Mr Brown predicted in his March budget.Taken together, the measures would create a "welfare state that is truly family-friendly for the first time in its history", said Mr Brown.But Oliver Letwin, for the Tories, attacked government red tape and debt, dubbing Mr Brown "Sir Wastealot".Gordon Brown is to freeze petrol duty increases, fund a £1bn package to avoid big council tax rises and boost childcare and maternity leave.Borrowing figures for 2003/4 are £35bn - £2.5bn less than the £37.5bn predicted in March's budget, as already announced by the Office for National Statistics.Mr Brown rejected the Lib Dem's call to open up the government's books to the National Audit Office, saying decisions on tax and spending should be made by ministers.BBC economic editor Evan Davis said the figures were plausible but also a gamble.The chancellor also hailed the longest period of growth in UK "industrial history" but denied he was "gloating".Vincent Cable, for the Liberal Democrats, accused Mr Brown of ducking tough choices.

Kilroy-Silk attacked with slurryEuro MP Robert Kilroy-Silk has had a bucket of farm slurry thrown over him by a protester in Manchester.The UK Independence Party member was arriving for a BBC radio show when the attacker emerged from behind a bush. Fellow guest Ruth Kelly MP was also hit by the slurry. Mr Kilroy-Silk said the man, who later disappeared, claimed he was "doing it in the name of Islam". In January, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit his BBC One show for remarks he made about Arabs, who he called "suicide bombers".Mr Kilroy-Silk had already been taken off air by BBC bosses for the comments, in which he also described Arabs as "limb-amputators, women repressors". The remarks prompted outrage among Muslim groups. The slurry attack took place on Friday as Mr Kilroy-Silk and Ms Kelly, a Cabinet Office minister and Bolton West MP, arrived at Manchester High School for Girls for the recording of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.The police were called but the attacker had disappeared by the time officers arrived. They are treating the incident as assault. The programme's host, Jonathan Dimbleby, later told the audience the MEP had been covered from "head to toe". Mr Kilroy-Silk was still able appear to appear on the show after being loaned a change of clothes.He told reporters he was "very angry" and planned to press charges if his attacker was caught. He said the man shouted: "You've offended my religion, I'm doing this in the name of Islam." "As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car," Mr Kilroy-Silk said. "I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven. It went all inside the car and splattered Ruth Kelly." A BBC spokesman said: "He took his seat as Jonathan Dimbleby was introducing the show. Fortunately someone at the school had a change of clothes to let him have." Greater Manchester Police said people near Mr Kilroy-Silk had also been hit by the waste. Officers took statements at the scene, but no arrests have been made. Police say the suspect ran off after towards Wilmslow Road after committing the offence but is believed to have been driving a red Vauxhall Corsa earlier. The suspect is described as white, aged 30 to 40, with a ginger beard. Police want to hear from anyone who has any information.Mr Kilroy-Silk, an MEP for the East Midlands, resigned the UK Independence Party whip in the European Parliament in October, after criticising UKIP and stating his ambition to be leader. However, he remains a member of the party. He said on Friday he hoped to be elected party leader before Christmas. "I think that is sufficient time for us to put in process what is necessary... in time for us to fight and have a significant impact upon the General Election." But a UKIP spokesman said that would be impossible under the party's constitution, which requires 70 days before any leadership ballot can take place.

Mr Kilroy-Silk said the man, who later disappeared, claimed he was "doing it in the name of Islam".Greater Manchester Police said people near Mr Kilroy-Silk had also been hit by the waste.A BBC spokesman said: "He took his seat as Jonathan Dimbleby was introducing the show.Mr Kilroy-Silk was still able appear to appear on the show after being loaned a change of clothes.In January, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit his BBC One show for remarks he made about Arabs, who he called "suicide bombers".The slurry attack took place on Friday as Mr Kilroy-Silk and Ms Kelly, a Cabinet Office minister and Bolton West MP, arrived at Manchester High School for Girls for the recording of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.The UK Independence Party member was arriving for a BBC radio show when the attacker emerged from behind a bush.Mr Kilroy-Silk had already been taken off air by BBC bosses for the comments, in which he also described Arabs as "limb-amputators, women repressors".Fellow guest Ruth Kelly MP was also hit by the slurry."As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car," Mr Kilroy-Silk said."I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven.Mr Kilroy-Silk, an MEP for the East Midlands, resigned the UK Independence Party whip in the European Parliament in October, after criticising UKIP and stating his ambition to be leader.

Profile: David MilibandDavid Miliband's rapid rise through the ranks of government continues with his promotion to Cabinet Office minister.Elected in a safe Labour seat in 2001 his previous job was school standards minister - a role he won in May 2002. Prior to the last election he was a key figure in New Labour as the head of the Downing Street policy unit where he was a key member of the manifesto writing team. Seen as one of the more intellectual figures in the government, he was also working for Tony Blair in his policy unit when he was leader of the opposition.A brief glance at Mr Miliband's family background reveals an impressive socialist pedigree in the form of his father Ralph, who died in 1994. He was an eminent and influential leftwing academic. And while David Miliband is seen as a key Blair lieutenant his brother Ed is a special advisor to Chancellor Gordon Brown. Prior to working for Mr Blair, David Miliband spent time at the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research. He then became secretary of the Commission on Social Justice. The 39-year-old was educated at Haverstock Comprehensive before going on to Oxford to study politics, philosophy and economics. He also took an MSc in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Seen as one of the more intellectual figures in the government, he was also working for Tony Blair in his policy unit when he was leader of the opposition.Prior to the last election he was a key figure in New Labour as the head of the Downing Street policy unit where he was a key member of the manifesto writing team.Prior to working for Mr Blair, David Miliband spent time at the left-leaning Institute for Public Policy Research.He was an eminent and influential leftwing academic.Elected in a safe Labour seat in 2001 his previous job was school standards minister - a role he won in May 2002.

Parties warned over 'grey vote'Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds. Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out. A total of 3,028 adults aged 18 or over were interviewed for the study. Mr Lishman urged the next government to boost state pension.He also called for measures to combat ageism and build effective public services to "support us all in an ageing society". "Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said. "Political parties must wake up to the fact that unless they address the demands and concerns of older people they will not keep or attract their vote." In the survey carried out by ICM Research, 14% of people aged between 18 and 34 said they never voted in general elections. Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55. Age Concern says the over-55s are "united around" key areas of policy they want the government to focus on. For 57%, pensions and the NHS were key issues, while the economy was important for a third, and tax was a crucial area for 25%.

Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55.Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out."Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds.Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.

MPs to debate 'euthanasia laws'MPs are preparing to debate a bill which critics claim would legalise euthanasia "by the back door".The bill would give legal force to "living wills", where people say they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated. The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment. But Christian groups say it could mean doctors withholding food and fluids even if they think it inappropriate.Ministers insist the Mental Capacity Bill - for England and Wales - would not change laws on assisted suicide and contains a presumption in favour of preserving life.The bill would establish a legal presumption that everybody can make decisions about their own treatment unless proved otherwise. It would allow people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf, which could be challenged by doctors. Critics fear it could allow "killing by omission" through withdrawing treatment. An amendment to the bill - specifically preventing decisions that would bring about death - has been tabled by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. Ninety one MPs have signed a petition backing the amendment. MPs could vote on it later on Tuesday, during the bill's report stage debate. The Bill will then go to a third reading and be debated in the Lords, before becoming law.The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF) said the Mental Capacity Bill would allow euthanasia by the "back door". Peter Saunders of the CMF said it believed advance refusals should be only advisory, not legally binding. "CMF is concerned that patients will make unwise and hasty advance decisions to refuse food and fluids without being properly informed about the diagnosis and the expected course their illness will take," he said.The LCF's Andrea Williams said there were "too many loopholes that could be abused by unscrupulous doctors". Ex-Labour minister Frank Field told BBC Two's Newsnight programme there was a danger people would feel under pressure to "do away" with themselves so relatives could inherit their assets.Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy said laws affecting 750,000 people with dementia needed updating. Mr Lammy told BBC News Labour MPs would not get a free vote as the law was being strengthened, not changed. "We are against euthanasia, we are against assisted suicide but we are in a situation now where people can make living wills and that has the force of the common law," he said. "Doctors are saying they want more clarity. Patients are saying they want more clarity." The Making Decisions Alliance, which includes the Alzheimer's Society, Age Concern, Mencap and the National Autistic Society, said misunderstandings over the bill had to be cleared up. "It will not change the current law on euthanasia and will actually provide a series of better safeguards when decisions are made for people who lack capacity," the alliance said in a statement. The British Medical Association also backs the bill, saying it just gives incapacitated people the same rights as others. Debate on legalising euthanasia has intensified in the UK because of cases like that of motor neurone patient Diane Pretty. She died two years ago after losing a legal battle to allow her husband to help her commit suicide.

The bill would give legal force to "living wills", where people say they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated.The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF) said the Mental Capacity Bill would allow euthanasia by the "back door".It would allow people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf, which could be challenged by doctors.The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment."We are against euthanasia, we are against assisted suicide but we are in a situation now where people can make living wills and that has the force of the common law," he said.MPs are preparing to debate a bill which critics claim would legalise euthanasia "by the back door".The bill would establish a legal presumption that everybody can make decisions about their own treatment unless proved otherwise."It will not change the current law on euthanasia and will actually provide a series of better safeguards when decisions are made for people who lack capacity," the alliance said in a statement.Ministers insist the Mental Capacity Bill - for England and Wales - would not change laws on assisted suicide and contains a presumption in favour of preserving life.The British Medical Association also backs the bill, saying it just gives incapacitated people the same rights as others.An amendment to the bill - specifically preventing decisions that would bring about death - has been tabled by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

UK needs tax cuts, Tories insistA major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox had opened the forum in Brighton with an attack on Labour's record and party leader Michael Howard is due to speak later. Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure. But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league."Can this country compete, can this country prosper, unless we do something about the burden of regulation and tax on our economy?" he said. "If we are going to take on the great challenges, the challenges like those posed by the Chinese and the Indians, we have got to do something about getting down the burden of regulation and getting down the burden of tax," he said. "The fact is the very carefully costed, fully funded plans we have laid out for saving £12bn by 2007-2008 are absolutely crucial to delivering an economy that will prosper and provide people with jobs and indeed provide the public services with the money they need on a sustainable long-term basis." Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver". He also attacked the government's "failure" to control immigration and asylum and criticised its record on the NHS, telling delegates Labour cannot be trusted on education or crime. A Tory government would sort out the "shambles" of immigration, put patients before statistics and bring discipline to schools, he said. Michael Howard, who had been due to welcome delegates to the conference on Friday, will address them in a lunchtime speech. His welcome address had to be postponed after he stayed in London to lead the party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in its lengthy progress through Parliament. The bill was finally passed on Friday evening, after more than 30 hours of debate. Mr Howard is likely to defend his party's handling of the bill, which was only passed after the Conservatives accepted Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise that MPs would be able to review it within a year.

he said.Oliver Letwin said the UK could not compete with other countries without the £4bn tax cuts he was promising.Tony Blair has said Conservative policies would cause economic failure.But Mr Letwin said Britain had fallen from fourth to 11th in the international economic competitiveness league.A major change of direction is needed in Britain if it is to prosper, the shadow chancellor said as the Tory Party spring conference began.Mr Letwin said voting for Labour meant choosing higher taxes, borrowing and waste.Earlier, Dr Fox had said Labour's rule had been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver".

Boothroyd calls for Lords speakerBetty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber.Baroness Boothroyd, who was the first woman to be Commons Speaker, said she believed Tony Blair initiated reforms without a clear outcome in mind. "Now we have to take care of it ourselves and make the best of it," she told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost. In 1999 Labour removed all but 92 of the Lords' 750 hereditary peers. That was billed as the first stage of reform of the institution. The lord chancellor hinted further reforms could be unveiled in the next Labour manifesto."I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost. "How it interacts with the Commons is a very, very important issue. "We need to address the issue in the manifesto, but you will have to wait for when the manifesto comes." The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker. He is also head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet as constitutional affairs secretary.Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker. "I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said. "I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords. "I want somebody there who is going to look after that House and do a job there.

The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker."I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords.Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker."I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost.Betty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber."I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said.

EU fraud clampdown urgedEU member states are failing to report fraud and irregularities in EU funds on a consistent basis, the UK's public spending watchdog has said.The National Audit Office said although the latest figures showed reported fraud was falling, the EU still had no common definition of fraud. It also expressed concern that, for the 10th year, the European Court of Auditors had qualified the EU accounts. The NAO urged the government to push for improvements in reporting fraud. It said member states needed to be more accountable on how money was spent. The report said: "Member states still do not report fraud and other irregularities to the European Anti-Fraud Office on a consistent basis."As the court has now qualified its opinion on the Community accounts for a decade, it is essential for all the authorities involved to contribute to the strengthening of the audit of EU revenue and expenditure and improving accountability for the financial management and use of EU resources." It said there were 922 cases of reported fraud or irregularities in EU funds in the UK in 2003, worth £38.5m (52m euros), up from 831 cases worth £35.7m in 2002. At the same time, reported fraud throughout the EU dropped from 10,276 cases worth £808m to 8,177 cases worth £644m. Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said Britain had to set an example when it assumed the EU presidency."Any fraud in other member states is potentially fraud against the UK taxpayer, given that we are the second largest net contributor to the Community," he said. "Departments responsible for administering EU funds need to make sure that they're doing everything possible to weed out improper spending. "The government must take the opportunity afforded by the UK presidency of the EU to press the Commission and other member states to take an equally robust stance against fraud and irregularity, and raise overall standards of financial management." A spokesman for the European Anti-Fraud Office said the organisation agreed with the NAO's assessment of fraud reporting. "The quality of reporting does differ from member state to member state, and there is room for improvement," spokesman Jorg Wojahn said. He added that there is generally good co-operation with member states and the anti-fraud office on specific cases of fraud, with the statistics studied by NAO providing a "good overview for planning strategic ways of detecting fraud".

EU member states are failing to report fraud and irregularities in EU funds on a consistent basis, the UK's public spending watchdog has said.The report said: "Member states still do not report fraud and other irregularities to the European Anti-Fraud Office on a consistent basis.It said there were 922 cases of reported fraud or irregularities in EU funds in the UK in 2003, worth £38.5m (52m euros), up from 831 cases worth £35.7m in 2002."Any fraud in other member states is potentially fraud against the UK taxpayer, given that we are the second largest net contributor to the Community," he said.The National Audit Office said although the latest figures showed reported fraud was falling, the EU still had no common definition of fraud.He added that there is generally good co-operation with member states and the anti-fraud office on specific cases of fraud, with the statistics studied by NAO providing a "good overview for planning strategic ways of detecting fraud"."The government must take the opportunity afforded by the UK presidency of the EU to press the Commission and other member states to take an equally robust stance against fraud and irregularity, and raise overall standards of financial management."

'No UK apology' for colonial pastThe days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.The chancellor, speaking during a week-long tour of Africa, said it was time to talk about enduring British values of liberty and tolerance. Mr Brown has signed a debt relief deal with Tanzania which could cost the UK £1 billion. South African president Thabo Mbeki has attacked British imperialists, saying they treated Africans like savages. Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty. He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country. BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell said Britishness had long been a theme of the chancellor's but "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history".The UK has pledged to pay 10% of the developing world's foreign debt bill in an attempt to fight poverty. On top of the relief deal with Tanzania Mr Brown said the UK would make similar offers to 70 poorer nations around the world. Under the plan - which could cost the UK £1bn - countries must spend the cash saved on health, education and welfare. "We make this offer unilaterally but we are now asking other countries to join us," the chancellor said. Mr Brown, on a week-long tour of Africa, spent two days in Tanzania before heading on Friday evening to Mozambique, a country where more than half of the 17-million population lives below the poverty line.There he is expected to strike a similar debt relief pact. The chancellor said he hoped other G8 and European countries would follow suit. The UK has already cancelled its bilateral debts - money the UK alone is owed - with the world's poorest nations including Tanzania. Former international development secretary Clare Short questioned the effectiveness of debt relief as a means of tackling poverty.

Mr Brown has signed a debt relief deal with Tanzania which could cost the UK £1 billion.On top of the relief deal with Tanzania Mr Brown said the UK would make similar offers to 70 poorer nations around the world.The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.The UK has already cancelled its bilateral debts - money the UK alone is owed - with the world's poorest nations including Tanzania.Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.Mr Brown, on a week-long tour of Africa, spent two days in Tanzania before heading on Friday evening to Mozambique, a country where more than half of the 17-million population lives below the poverty line."We make this offer unilaterally but we are now asking other countries to join us," the chancellor said.

'Debate needed' on donations capA cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.Fears that big donors can buy political favours have sparked calls for a limit. In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it. It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m. The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions. The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work. "While we are not in principle opposed to the introduction of a donation cap, we do not believe that such a major departure from the existing system now would be sensible," says its report. If there was to be a cap, it should be £10,000 - a small enough amount to make a difference but which would have banned £56m in donations between 2001 and 2003.Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200. It also suggests increasing state funding for parties to £3m so help can be extended to all parties with at least two members in the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly. And it suggests new ways of boosting election campaigning, seen as a way of improving voter turnout. All local election candidates should be entitled to a free mailshot for campaign leaflets, says the watchdog. And there should be a shift in the amount of money allowed to be spent at elections from a national level to a local level to help politicians engage better with voters.The report suggests doubling the money which can be spent by candidates, while cutting national spending limits from £20m to £15m. The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections. Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger said: "There is no doubt that political parties have a vital role to play in maintaining the health of our democracy and for this they need to be adequately resourced. "Our research has shown that people want to be more informed about party politics and that they want politicians to be more visible and accessible. "The public are reluctant for the state to fund parties but at the same time are unhappy with large private donations." He called for a wider public debate on party funding to find the consensus needed for radical changes to the current system.

It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.A cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work.Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200.There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m.The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions.In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it.The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections.

Blair moves to woo Jewish votersTony Blair has pledged to "never, ever, ever" attack Tory leader Michael Howard over his Jewish beliefs.The prime minister told the Jewish Chronicle: "If you look at what I do, I attack Michael Howard politically." Mr Blair also distanced himself from recent Labour campaign posters featuring Mr Howard, which critics claimed were "anti-Semitic". These were "not intended to cause any offence to anyone on the Jewish community," Mr Blair insisted.One poster depicted Mr Howard and his shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin, who is also Jewish, as flying pigs. Another pictured the Tory leader swinging a pocket watch on a chain, which critics said echoed the Jewish money lender Shylock in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice.Others compared the image to the character Fagin in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist. Labour has since taken the designs of its website, saying members had preferred other designs. During his interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Blair said: "I've been a very strong supporter of the Jewish community and Israel, and will always be so." Pressed on whether he would draw attention to Mr Howard's Jewish beliefs in an attempt to attract Muslim support, he replied: "The idea that I would allow anybody to make such a charge is outrageous. It's untrue. "If you look what I do, I attack Michael Howard politically. I would never, ever, ever attack him on that basis."Mr Blair also defended his party's attitude towards the Jewish community, pointing out that it was his government that had introduced the Holocaust Memorial Day. He added that Labour also aggressively fought all forms of racism.Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats wished to comment on Mr Blair's words. The prime minister was speaking as London's Labour mayor Ken Livingstone remains embroiled in a row over comments he made to a Jewish reporter from the city's Evening Standard newspaper. Mr Blair repeated calls for the mayor to apologise for likening the reporter, Oliver Finegold, to a concentration camp guard. Mr Livingstone "should have withdrawn the comment immediately" once he realised the journalist was Jewish, said Mr Blair. "I'm sure that is what in truth he wants to do. Well, he should do it." Mr Livingstone has said he could not sincerely say sorry for the comments he made, and claims he has been targeted by the newspaper. He conceded his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked.

Mr Livingstone "should have withdrawn the comment immediately" once he realised the journalist was Jewish, said Mr Blair.During his interview with the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Blair said: "I've been a very strong supporter of the Jewish community and Israel, and will always be so."Mr Blair also distanced himself from recent Labour campaign posters featuring Mr Howard, which critics claimed were "anti-Semitic".Tony Blair has pledged to "never, ever, ever" attack Tory leader Michael Howard over his Jewish beliefs.These were "not intended to cause any offence to anyone on the Jewish community," Mr Blair insisted.One poster depicted Mr Howard and his shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin, who is also Jewish, as flying pigs.Mr Blair also defended his party's attitude towards the Jewish community, pointing out that it was his government that had introduced the Holocaust Memorial Day.The prime minister told the Jewish Chronicle: "If you look at what I do, I attack Michael Howard politically."He conceded his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked.Mr Livingstone has said he could not sincerely say sorry for the comments he made, and claims he has been targeted by the newspaper.

Crucial decision on super-casinosA decision on whether to allow Westminster to legislate on super-casinos is set to be made by the Scottish Parliament.The government has plans for up to eight Las Vegas style resorts in the UK, one of which is likely to be in Glasgow. Scottish ministers insist they will still have the final say on whether a super-casino will be built in Scotland. But opposition parties say that will not happen in practice. The vote is due to be taken on Wednesday and is expected to be close.The Scottish Executive believes that the legislation should be handled by Westminster. The new law will control internet gambling for the first time and is aimed at preventing children from becoming involved. A super-casino in Glasgow could be located at Ibrox or the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre. The new gambling bill going through Westminster will allow casino complexes to open to the public, have live entertainment and large numbers of fruit machines with unlimited prizes. But the Scottish National Party and the Tories say the issue of super-casinos should be decided in Scotland and believe the executive is shirking its responsibility.

But the Scottish National Party and the Tories say the issue of super-casinos should be decided in Scotland and believe the executive is shirking its responsibility.Scottish ministers insist they will still have the final say on whether a super-casino will be built in Scotland.A decision on whether to allow Westminster to legislate on super-casinos is set to be made by the Scottish Parliament.The Scottish Executive believes that the legislation should be handled by Westminster.

Conservative MP defects to LabourA Conservative MP and former minister has defected to Labour.Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe. Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs. Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990. In a letter to his constituency chairman he wrote: "It is in the country's best interest that Tony Blair rather than Michael Howard should form the next government." While saying he admired Mr Blair's "courageous" leadership of the country, he bitterly criticised the Conservatives stance on Europe. "The Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has now hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations," he wrote.Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members". "As he rightly says, [the Conservatives] have learned nothing from their two election defeats and are, if anything, drifting further rightwards," he added. A spokesman for Michael Howard said Mr Jackson's views on policy issues were "very different" from those of the party leadership. "He believes students should pay tuition fees, that Tony Blair should not be criticised over his handling of the Iraq war and that more powers should be given to Europe," the spokesman said. He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives. Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election. He is the third Conservative MP to defect to Labour since 1997.

Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members".Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs.He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives.Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990.Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe.Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election.

Report attacks defence spendingThe Ministry of Defence has been criticised over the soaring spending costs and growing delays of its top equipment projects.A National Audit Office report on the 20 biggest projects says costs have risen by £1.7bn in the past year. It says there is "little evidence" the MoD's performance had improved, despite the introduction of a "smart acquisition" policy six years ago. A senior defence official told the BBC lessons were being learned. The NAO's annual report showed the total cost of the 20 projects covered was expected to reach £50bn - 14% higher than originally planned. The total delays amounted to 62 months, with average individual delays rising by three months.Sir John Bourn, head of the NAO, said the problems showed the principles of the scheme known as smart acquisition had not been consistently applied. "Many problems can be traced to the fact that the MoD has not spent enough time and resources in the assessment phase," the report says. The NAO found that projects launched since the start of the scheme were showing the same worrying tendencies as the older "legacy projects", such as the Eurofighter. A senior defence official, speaking to the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams, said that although the figures were still not good enough, the report reflected unrealistic expectations early on in the project cycle. This year's overspend was significantly less than last year's £3.1bn total, and the Defence Procurement Agency - which is responsible for buying defence equipment - was improving.Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said he was "obviously still disappointed with the cost and time increases shown", but insisted that the Defence Procurement Agency had "undertaken a huge amount of work to expose any underlying problems on projects". The latest findings follow a string of critical reports issued within the last 12 months, and, according to our correspondent, contain few new surprises. Turning around the Defence Procurement Agency "was a little like trying to turn around a super tanker - it takes a very long time indeed", he said. Our correspondent said it was the same projects, including the Joint Strike Fighter, the Nimrod and A400M aircraft and the Type 45 Destroyer, which were resonsible for the bulk of the cost over-runs and delay. But he added some projects, such as the C-17 heavy lift aircraft and Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF), were showing good performances.

Lord Bach, Minister for Defence Procurement, said he was "obviously still disappointed with the cost and time increases shown", but insisted that the Defence Procurement Agency had "undertaken a huge amount of work to expose any underlying problems on projects".A senior defence official, speaking to the BBC's defence correspondent Paul Adams, said that although the figures were still not good enough, the report reflected unrealistic expectations early on in the project cycle.This year's overspend was significantly less than last year's £3.1bn total, and the Defence Procurement Agency - which is responsible for buying defence equipment - was improving.The Ministry of Defence has been criticised over the soaring spending costs and growing delays of its top equipment projects.Our correspondent said it was the same projects, including the Joint Strike Fighter, the Nimrod and A400M aircraft and the Type 45 Destroyer, which were resonsible for the bulk of the cost over-runs and delay.The NAO's annual report showed the total cost of the 20 projects covered was expected to reach £50bn - 14% higher than originally planned.A National Audit Office report on the 20 biggest projects says costs have risen by £1.7bn in the past year.

Tories outlining policing plansLocal communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities. He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable. The Lib Dems said the plan could let extreme groups run policing, while Labour criticised "extravagant" Tory promises on policing.Responding to the plans, the chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, which represents rank and file officers, said it was essential operational independence was retained.Jan Berry said: "It is a service, not a political football to be kicked around every time an election approaches. "These plans could result in those with extreme political views dictating what actually happens on the ground," she warned. Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates. "The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "The trouble is, and it's no reflection on the people who are on the police authority - they are good people - but hardly anyone knows who they are." Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.Critics fear the move could hand control of the police to single-issue campaigners who would ignore the needs of the wider community. Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician. "That is overturning nearly 200 years of the way in which we have organised policing in this country to avoid the politicisation of policing decisions," he said.Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the plan was dangerous and "could create conflict between chief constables and elected officials". Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables. A Labour Party spokesman criticised Michael Howard's record, saying police numbers had fallen by 1,132 when he was home secretary. He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system." The Tories insists the commissioner role would not be like that of an American sheriff. Other Tory law and order plans include building more prisons and making criminals serve full jail sentences.

Outlining his crime manifesto, Mr Howard said elected police commissioners would be more accountable than police authorities which are made up of local councillors and magistrates.Mr Howard said the authorities were not "providing the local accountability that we want to see" and that elected police commissioners would be more visible.Party leader Michael Howard said the new role would replace "inconspicuous" police authorities.Mr Oaten said local people had too little control over policing but a far better solution would be for elected councillors to draw up a "minimum policing guarantee" with their chief constables.Local communities would be asked to go to the polls to elect their own area police commissioner, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.He said: "Today the Tories are making more extravagant promises on the police without making clear how they would pay for them, other than through fantasy savings to the asylum system."Lord Harris, who sits on the executive of Association of Police Authorities, said the plans seemed to suggest chief constables should be told what to do by a single politician.He said the new office would not supersede the job of a chief constable.

BNP leader Nick Griffin arrestedThe leader of the British National Party has been arrested as part of a police inquiry following the screening of a BBC documentary.A party spokesman said Nick Griffin was arrested on Tuesday morning on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred. West Yorkshire police confirmed they had arrested a 45-year-old man from outside their area. BNP founding chairman John Tyndall was arrested on Sunday on the same charge.In July, the BBC documentary Secret Agent featured covertly-filmed footage of BNP activists. Mr Griffin is the twelfth man to be arrested following the documentary. Nine men from West Yorkshire and another man from Leicester have been arrested and freed on bail. Seven of the men had been held variously in connection with suspected racially aggravated public order offences, conspiracy to commit criminal damage and possession of a firearm. Two men, both from Keighley, were arrested in September on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage. A 24-year-old man from Leicester was detained on Monday on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred. A BNP spokesperson said Mr Tyndall, from Brighton, was arrested following a speech he made in Burnley, Lancashire, and was released on police bail.

Mr Griffin is the twelfth man to be arrested following the documentary.A party spokesman said Nick Griffin was arrested on Tuesday morning on suspicion of incitement to commit racial hatred.A BNP spokesperson said Mr Tyndall, from Brighton, was arrested following a speech he made in Burnley, Lancashire, and was released on police bail.Two men, both from Keighley, were arrested in September on suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage.Nine men from West Yorkshire and another man from Leicester have been arrested and freed on bail.

Choose hope over fear - KennedyVoters will have a clear choice between the politics of fear and the politics of hope in the next general election, said Charles Kennedy.In his New Year message the Liberal Democrat leader said Labour and the Conservatives were united in relying on fear and "populist scares". He said his party was the one of hope and was ready for a 2005 poll. On the Asian tsunami he said it had been "very heartening" to learn of the generosity being shown by Britons. Mr Kennedy said his thoughts were with all those caught up in the disaster, which had dominated the Christmas and New Year period. At home he said many people were turning to the Liberal Democrats as they became disheartened with the politics of the other two main parties.The general election would be a three-party struggle, as the Conservative party "fades away" as a national force and the Liberal Democrats challenge Labour in its heartlands, he said. "A clear division is emerging in British politics - the politics of fear versus the politics of hope. "Labour is counting on the politics of fear, ratcheting up talk of threats, crime and insecurity. While the Conservatives are re-working their populist scares about asylum and the European 'menace'," he said. He said the government was using this climate of fear to try to strip away civil liberties.It was already using detention without trial at Belmarsh Prison, ignoring a recent Law Lords judgement that this contravenes basic human rights, he said. He also criticised attempts to bring in trial without jury, plans to lower the burden of proof in some criminal trials, curbing of rights to protest, increased stop and search powers and ID card plans. He said while everyone had the right to be secure they also had the right to be protected against unfair discrimination. "But at the same time, an overmighty state is a dangerous one," he said. His party "instinctively" understood the "new liberal Britain" which is no longer a nation with one family structure, and one colour, he said. "We are less deferential; more inclined to think for ourselves; more open about sexuality and equality. "Our national institutions are changing too. We are no longer a nation of one church; we are a nation of many faiths. In our attitudes and the way we live our lives, this is in many ways a liberal Britain."

His party "instinctively" understood the "new liberal Britain" which is no longer a nation with one family structure, and one colour, he said.Voters will have a clear choice between the politics of fear and the politics of hope in the next general election, said Charles Kennedy.He said his party was the one of hope and was ready for a 2005 poll.In his New Year message the Liberal Democrat leader said Labour and the Conservatives were united in relying on fear and "populist scares".The general election would be a three-party struggle, as the Conservative party "fades away" as a national force and the Liberal Democrats challenge Labour in its heartlands, he said.At home he said many people were turning to the Liberal Democrats as they became disheartened with the politics of the other two main parties."But at the same time, an overmighty state is a dangerous one," he said.He said the government was using this climate of fear to try to strip away civil liberties.

Talks held on Gibraltar's futureTwo days of talks on the future of Gibraltar begin at Jack Straw's country residence later on Wednesday.Officials at the two-day summit at the foreign secretary's official Kent house, Chevening, will plan a new forum on the Rock's future. In October, Mr Straw and his Spanish counterpart Miguel Moratinos agreed to establish a body that would give Gibraltarians a voice in their future. Most Gibraltarians said in a referendum they wanted to remain British.Gibraltar's Chief Minister Peter Caruana will represent the British citizens living on the Rock, while Britain's Europe Director Dominick Chilcott will represent the UK. Madrid is being represented by Spain's director general for Europe, Jose Maria Pons. The initiative follows Spain's socialist government's decision to put its long-standing sovereignty ambitions on hold. Gibraltarians rejected plans for the Rock's sovereignty to be shared between Britain and Spain in a referendum organised by Gibraltar government.

Gibraltarians rejected plans for the Rock's sovereignty to be shared between Britain and Spain in a referendum organised by Gibraltar government.Most Gibraltarians said in a referendum they wanted to remain British.In October, Mr Straw and his Spanish counterpart Miguel Moratinos agreed to establish a body that would give Gibraltarians a voice in their future.Officials at the two-day summit at the foreign secretary's official Kent house, Chevening, will plan a new forum on the Rock's future.

Labour battle plan 'hides Blair'The Tories have accused Tony Blair of being "terrified" of scrutiny after Labour unveiled details of how it will fight the next general election.In a break with tradition, the party will ditch the leader's battle bus and daily press briefings in Westminster. Instead Mr Blair will travel to key cities and marginal seats to deliver the party's message. Labour election chief Alan Milburn denied the party was trying to "hide" the prime minister.He promised "the most positive and upbeat election campaign Labour has ever run". But Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said Labour's plans showed Mr Blair was "terrified of facing proper scrutiny"."At a time when the British people are looking for more accountability and openness, this government turns its back on them; abandoning plans to tour the country and scared to face journalists in a press conference - it does rather beg the question, 'What have they got to hide?'" The general election is widely expected next May and all the parties are stepping up their campaign preparations. Mr Milburn said the economy would take centre stage in Labour's campaign in what would be a "watershed" election and the "last stand of the Thatcherites". Mr Milburn said Labour's slogan would be "Britain is working - Don't let the Tories wreck it."The tone of the campaign, said Mr Milburn, would be more conversational than rhetorical; more spontaneous less scripted; less national more local and less based on issues and more concentrated on people. The approach is particularly designed to appeal to women voters, he said. Mr Milburn brushed aside questions over why the chancellor was not present at the Cabinet meeting to discuss election strategy particularly since such importance was being given to the economy. "I'm not privy to everybody's diary," he said. Mr Brown has headed Labour's preparations for previous polls but Mr Milburn is taking that role this time. In a break with the past, Labour will not hold a daily news conference in London. It will not be a "battle bus" style campaign either, he said.In previous elections, each party leader has had their own battle bus transporting national newspaper, television and radio reporters to staged campaign events around the country. Mr Milburn said Labour's media effort this time would focus more on local newspapers and broadcasters, with every local radio station given the chance to interview the prime minister. Mr Milburn said there would also be a greater effort to set up face-to-face meetings between ministers and the electorate. Former Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell is also returning to advise Labour on media strategy and campaigning.Mr Milburn said no decision had been taken yet over whether David Blunkett would have a prominent role in the election. Liberal Democrat chief executive Lord Rennard suggested Labour was avoiding news conferences in London because it wanted less scrutiny of its record and proposals. "Tony Blair seems to have disappeared from Labour leaflets and broadcasts," he said. "In contrast Charles Kennedy will feature prominently in the Liberal Democrat campaign right across the country."

Mr Milburn said the economy would take centre stage in Labour's campaign in what would be a "watershed" election and the "last stand of the Thatcherites".Mr Milburn said no decision had been taken yet over whether David Blunkett would have a prominent role in the election.Mr Milburn said Labour's slogan would be "Britain is working - Don't let the Tories wreck it."Mr Milburn said there would also be a greater effort to set up face-to-face meetings between ministers and the electorate.Mr Milburn said Labour's media effort this time would focus more on local newspapers and broadcasters, with every local radio station given the chance to interview the prime minister.Labour election chief Alan Milburn denied the party was trying to "hide" the prime minister.The tone of the campaign, said Mr Milburn, would be more conversational than rhetorical; more spontaneous less scripted; less national more local and less based on issues and more concentrated on people.But Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said Labour's plans showed Mr Blair was "terrified of facing proper scrutiny".It will not be a "battle bus" style campaign either, he said.Mr Brown has headed Labour's preparations for previous polls but Mr Milburn is taking that role this time.

Butler launches attack on BlairFormer civil service chief Lord Butler has criticised the way Tony Blair's government operates, accusing it of being obsessed with headlines.He also attacked the way the Iraq war was "sold" to the public, with important warnings on the strength of the intelligence left out. Tory leader Michael Howard said Lord Butler had given the "most damaging testimony" he could remember. But Downing Street said Mr Blair should be judged by results not his style.Lord Butler said Mr Blair bypassed the Cabinet and relied instead on small, informal groups of advisers to help him make decisions. The prime minister's official spokesman said the Cabinet was still used to achieve a consensus on important issues. But he added: "You cannot, in a modern government, take every decision in Cabinet. It's just not possible."Lord Butler said the government had too much freedom to "bring in bad Bills" and "to do whatever it likes" and it relied too much on the advice of political appointees. The former cabinet secretary said in an interview with The Spectator magazine: "I would be critical of the present government in that there is too much emphasis on selling, there is too much central control and there is too little of what I would describe as reasoned deliberation which brings in all the arguments." Mr Howard described Lord Butler's intervention as "very important". "This is from someone who was an insider at the very heart of the Blair government. "It is certainly the most damaging testimony I can ever remember from someone in such an eminent position."Lord Butler's report earlier this year into Iraq intelligence said the government's September 2002 weapons dossier did not make clear intelligence about claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin". The reason for this is that it would have weakened ministers' case for war, Lord Butler said in his Spectator interview, which was conducted by the magazine's editor, Conservative MP Boris Johnson. He said: "When civil servants give material to ministers, they say these are the conclusions we've drawn, but we've got to tell you the evidence we've got is pretty thin. "Similarly, if you are giving something to the United Nations and the country you should warn them."Asked why he thought the warnings were not there Lord Butler said: "One has got to remember what the purpose of the dossier was. The purpose of the dossier was to persuade the British why the government thought Iraq was a very serious threat."When asked whether he thought the country was well-governed on the whole, he replied: "Well. I think we are a country where we suffer very badly from Parliament not having sufficient control over the executive, and that is a very grave flaw. "We should be breaking away from the party whip. The executive is much too free to bring in a huge number of extremely bad Bills, a huge amount of regulation and to do whatever it likes - and whatever it likes is what will get the best headlines tomorrow. "All that is part of what is bad government in this country." Lord Butler's assessment was backed by his predecessor as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Armstrong. Lord Armstrong told BBC Two's Newsnight: "I agree ... there doesn't appear to be the sort of informed collective political judgement brought to bear on decision-making that those affected by decisions are entitled to expect." Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell said he thought Lord Butler's comments were "well justified" and Mr Blair's style of leadership was "corrosive of the whole system of government". But Labour former minister Jack Cunningham accused Lord Butler of basing his comments on the first eight months of the incoming Labour administration, when he was cabinet secretary. Mr Cunningham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Taken together, Robin Butler's comments are partial, inaccurate and cannot be taken as anything other than politically biased against the Labour government."

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell said he thought Lord Butler's comments were "well justified" and Mr Blair's style of leadership was "corrosive of the whole system of government".Lord Butler's assessment was backed by his predecessor as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Armstrong.Lord Butler said the government had too much freedom to "bring in bad Bills" and "to do whatever it likes" and it relied too much on the advice of political appointees.Asked why he thought the warnings were not there Lord Butler said: "One has got to remember what the purpose of the dossier was.Lord Butler said Mr Blair bypassed the Cabinet and relied instead on small, informal groups of advisers to help him make decisions.Tory leader Michael Howard said Lord Butler had given the "most damaging testimony" he could remember.The reason for this is that it would have weakened ministers' case for war, Lord Butler said in his Spectator interview, which was conducted by the magazine's editor, Conservative MP Boris Johnson.The purpose of the dossier was to persuade the British why the government thought Iraq was a very serious threat.""This is from someone who was an insider at the very heart of the Blair government.But Labour former minister Jack Cunningham accused Lord Butler of basing his comments on the first eight months of the incoming Labour administration, when he was cabinet secretary.Lord Butler's report earlier this year into Iraq intelligence said the government's September 2002 weapons dossier did not make clear intelligence about claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin".Mr Howard described Lord Butler's intervention as "very important".

Tory candidate quits over remarkA Conservative election challenger is quitting after being quoted as wanting a "period of creative destruction in the public services".Danny Kruger, who also works in the Tory research unit, had been due to take on Tony Blair in Sedgefield. He says his remark last week was misrepresented but he will not contest the election for fear of damaging the Conservative cause. Tory leader Michael Howard accepted his decision "with regret". Mr Kruger was quoted in the Guardian newspaper saying: "We plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services."In a statement, the party said the comment had been taken out of context. "He fully supports the party's policies on, and approach to, the public services," said the statement. "However, in order to avoid any further misrepresentation of his views and any damage to the Party, he has decided not to stand in the Sedgefield constituency at the next election." Mr Kruger is continuing in his job at the Tory campaign headquarters. Labour election coordinator Alan Milburn claimed Mr Kruger had exposed the Tory agenda for £35bn of cuts to public services. Mr Milburn said: "He is not some unknown hopeful fighting an unwinnable seat. He is a man who has worked at the heart of Conservative policy development... "His claim that the Tories were planning 'a period of creative destruction in the public services' is not a rogue claim. "It is the authentic and shocking voice of the Conservative Party. It reveals the true picture of what they would do."

Labour election coordinator Alan Milburn claimed Mr Kruger had exposed the Tory agenda for £35bn of cuts to public services.A Conservative election challenger is quitting after being quoted as wanting a "period of creative destruction in the public services".Mr Kruger was quoted in the Guardian newspaper saying: "We plan to introduce a period of creative destruction in the public services."He is a man who has worked at the heart of Conservative policy development... "His claim that the Tories were planning 'a period of creative destruction in the public services' is not a rogue claim."He fully supports the party's policies on, and approach to, the public services," said the statement.Mr Kruger is continuing in his job at the Tory campaign headquarters.

Blair stresses prosperity goalsTony Blair says his party's next manifesto will be "unremittingly New Labour" and aimed at producing "personal prosperity for all".The prime minister is trying to draw a line under speculation over the state of his relationship with Gordon Brown with the speech in Chatham, Kent. He is saying that prosperity means both individual wealth and ensuring "radically improved" public services. He is also claiming Labour is more ideologically united than ever. Mr Brown is currently touring Africa after a week of facing questions about reports of his splits with Downing Street.With the election widely predicted for May, angry Labour MPs this week warned Mr Blair and Mr Brown about the dangers of disunity. Now Mr Blair is trying to put the focus on the substance of Labour's platform for a third term in government. Labour made low inflation, unemployment and mortgage rates the centrepiece of a new poster campaign this week.And on Thursday Mr Blair is saying: "I want to talk about the central purpose ofNew Labour - which is to increase personal prosperity and well-being, not justfor a few but for all. "By prosperity I mean both the income and wealth of individuals and theirfamilies, and the opportunity and security available to them through radicallyimproved public services and a reformed welfare state."The Tories are trying to capitalise on the apparent feud at the top of government. On Wednesday they unveiled a poster which pictured the prime minister and Mr Brown under the words "How can they fight crime when they are fighting each other?" Michael Howard and frontbencher John Redwood on Thursday launched new plans to abolish hundreds of quangos. They say government is spending too much and lower taxes are needed to make Britain more competitive.The Liberal Democrats have also claimed infighting its obstructing good government. The latest speculation about relations between New Labour's two most powerful figures came after the publication of a new book, Brown's Britain by Robert Preston. In it he alleges that Mr Blair told Mr Brown in 2003 he would step down as prime minister before the coming general election. The book claims the premier went back on his pledge after support from Cabinet allies and suspicion that Mr Brown was manoeuvring against him. Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe." On Wednesday Mr Blair directly denied Mr Brown made that quote, and before he left for Africa on Tuesday the chancellor told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister."

Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."In it he alleges that Mr Blair told Mr Brown in 2003 he would step down as prime minister before the coming general election.With the election widely predicted for May, angry Labour MPs this week warned Mr Blair and Mr Brown about the dangers of disunity.On Wednesday Mr Blair directly denied Mr Brown made that quote, and before he left for Africa on Tuesday the chancellor told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister."And on Thursday Mr Blair is saying: "I want to talk about the central purpose ofNew Labour - which is to increase personal prosperity and well-being, not justfor a few but for all.Now Mr Blair is trying to put the focus on the substance of Labour's platform for a third term in government.On Wednesday they unveiled a poster which pictured the prime minister and Mr Brown under the words "How can they fight crime when they are fighting each other?"Tony Blair says his party's next manifesto will be "unremittingly New Labour" and aimed at producing "personal prosperity for all".

'More to do' on adult literacyThe government will only hit its target for improving adult maths and literacy skills if courses are made more attractive, a report says.The National Audit Office praised ministers for reaching the benchmark of 750,000 adults in England gaining basic qualifications by this year. But a target of 1.5 million more by 2010 needed "creative" ideas. Some 26 million adults lack maths or English skill levels expected of school-leavers.According to the report, "more than half" the qualifications achieved were by learners aged 16 to 18. These are defined as "adults" by the government for the purpose of compiling these figures. Normally adults are defined as being aged over 19. The number of these people gaining qualifications was "rising slowly". Auditor General Sir John Bourn said: "Higher levels of literacy and numeracy will benefit England both socially and economically. "More people will have the opportunity to live richer lives." In 2001, the government launched the Get On scheme - aimed at reducing illiteracy and innumeracy. Sir John said "substantial progress" had been made since, adding that this was "only the beginning". The government and its partners would "need to be creative and responsive". Some £3.7bn will be spent on implementing the programme by 2006. The report recommends gathering more details on the educational needs of areas, so courses can be set to meet local demand. Existing adult learners could use their "enthusiasm, commitment and local knowledge" to attract other people. The Department for Education and Skills could also use more "personalised learning" and work with voluntary groups, councils and employers.It should also assess adult learners' progress "at frequent intervals", the report adds. When the government announced it had reached its 2004 target earlier this month, Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "only the start of the journey". An estimated 5.2 million adults have worse literacy than that expected of 11 year olds, while 14.9 million have numeracy skills below this level. This is thought to cost the UK economy hundreds of millions of pounds each year. The qualifications achieved by those taking part in the government's scheme range up to GCSE equivalents. Get On's participation target has been set at 2.25 million by 2010, with an interim figure of 1.5 million by 2007. Education minister Ivan Lewis said: "We will continue to use creative ways of involving people with the lowest skill levels and the report shows that our efforts are gathering pace." Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins said: "This is the third report in two days to highlight Labour's failure to ensure young people acquire the necessary levels of literacy and numeracy for their working life. "Employers and business leaders have repeatedly voiced concern over the number of school-leavers without these basic skills, but all the government have offered is more talk." Liberal Democrat education spokesman Phil Willis added: "Far too little has been done to enable adult learners to fit learning into their busy lives."

An estimated 5.2 million adults have worse literacy than that expected of 11 year olds, while 14.9 million have numeracy skills below this level.The government will only hit its target for improving adult maths and literacy skills if courses are made more attractive, a report says.Some 26 million adults lack maths or English skill levels expected of school-leavers.Education minister Ivan Lewis said: "We will continue to use creative ways of involving people with the lowest skill levels and the report shows that our efforts are gathering pace."Existing adult learners could use their "enthusiasm, commitment and local knowledge" to attract other people.The National Audit Office praised ministers for reaching the benchmark of 750,000 adults in England gaining basic qualifications by this year.Shadow Education Secretary Tim Collins said: "This is the third report in two days to highlight Labour's failure to ensure young people acquire the necessary levels of literacy and numeracy for their working life.Get On's participation target has been set at 2.25 million by 2010, with an interim figure of 1.5 million by 2007.According to the report, "more than half" the qualifications achieved were by learners aged 16 to 18.But a target of 1.5 million more by 2010 needed "creative" ideas.Normally adults are defined as being aged over 19.

Chancellor rallies Labour votersGordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts. He told his party's spring conference the Tories must not be allowed to win. The Conservatives and Lib Dems insisted that voters faced higher taxes and means-testing under Labour.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country. Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed. "Never again Tory boom and bust."This will be the central dividing line at the election, between a Conservative Party taking Britain back and planning deep cuts of £35bn in our services, and a Labour government taking Britain forward, which on a platform of stability will reform and renew our hospitals, schools and public services and, I am proud to say, spend by 2008 £60bn more." Turning to the economy, the chancellor promised to continue economic stability and growth in a third term in power.He also pledged to continue the fight against child and pensioner poverty. And he promised help to get young people on the property ladder. "My message to the thousands of young couples waiting to obtain their first home is that housing is rightly now at the centre of our coming manifesto," he said. "And the next Labour government will match our low mortgage rates with a new first-time buyers' initiative." In the speech, which prompted a standing ovation, he also promised to end teenage unemployment within the next five years.He also highlighted plans for 100% debt relief for the world's poorest countries, a national minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds, the creation of a network of children's centres and flexibility in maternity leave. Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown. "We've heard it all before. Instead of talking about the future he kept on talking about the past. "He completely failed to say which taxes he would put up to fill the black hole in his spending plans. "There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it. "For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said. "Gordon Brown has created a system of massive centralisation and bureaucracy, a system which subjects millions of people to means testing, and a system of taxation which is extremely complex. "For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation." Also in Gateshead, the prime minister took questions sent in by e-mail, text message and telephone as part of Labour's attempt to engage the public in their campaign. Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done. He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs".

Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown."There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts.Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed.Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it."For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said.Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country.Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done.He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs"."For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation."

Muslim police stops 'more likely'UK Muslims should accept that people of Islamic appearance are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, a Home Office minister has said.Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists. Qualifications for religious leaders to enter the UK could also be made tougher, she told a Commons inquiry. Her comments have been described as "irresponsible" and "outrageous" by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC)."The threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or who are falsely hiding behind Islam," the Salford MP told the Commons home affairs committee."It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community." It was a reality that should be recognised, she said. "If a threat is from a particular place then our action is going to be targeted at that area," she added. On ministers of religions, such as imams, she said faith groups would be asked what other qualifications and skills, such as civic knowledge and ability to engage the community, should be demanded. Last year, ministers introduced a requirement that ministers should speak English to a certain level.IHRC chairman Massoud Shadjareh accused Ms Blears of "playing an Islamophobia card" in the run-up to a general election."She is demonising and alienating our community," he said. "It is a legitimisation for a backlash and for racists to have an onslaught on our community. "This sort of comment is just music to the ears of racists." Later, the prime minister's official spokesman urged people to put Ms Blears' comments into context. The minister had been saying she understood there was a perception that stop and search was aimed at one community, but that was not what was happening, the spokesman said."What is happening is that those powers are aimed at those who are suspected of carrying out or planning certain activity who happen to come from one community. "It is not aimed at a particular community, it is not police policy to aim these powers at a particular community," he added. Statistics showed that of the 17 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the UK since the 11 September attacks, only four of the 12 whose ethnic backgrounds were known were Muslim, he added Figures published last week showed that people from ethnic minorities were increasingly likely to be targeted by police stop and search tactics.Figures showed that, for 2003/2004, Asians were 1.9 times more likely to be stopped and searched, compared with 1.7 times more likely in the previous year. Separate figures on police searches in England and Wales carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be targeted. Muslim groups have repeatedly claimed that their communities are being victimised under terror laws. In 2003/2004, 12.5% searches under the laws were on Asian people, even though they make up 4.7% of the population. Last July, the police were accused of Islamophobia by Muslim groups after stop and search figures showed the numbers of Asians targeted had risen by 300% since the introduction of anti-terror laws.

UK Muslims should accept that people of Islamic appearance are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, a Home Office minister has said.Statistics showed that of the 17 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the UK since the 11 September attacks, only four of the 12 whose ethnic backgrounds were known were Muslim, he added Figures published last week showed that people from ethnic minorities were increasingly likely to be targeted by police stop and search tactics."It is not aimed at a particular community, it is not police policy to aim these powers at a particular community," he added.The minister had been saying she understood there was a perception that stop and search was aimed at one community, but that was not what was happening, the spokesman said.Last July, the police were accused of Islamophobia by Muslim groups after stop and search figures showed the numbers of Asians targeted had risen by 300% since the introduction of anti-terror laws."She is demonising and alienating our community," he said.Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists.Separate figures on police searches in England and Wales carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be targeted.On ministers of religions, such as imams, she said faith groups would be asked what other qualifications and skills, such as civic knowledge and ability to engage the community, should be demanded."It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community."

Howard 'truanted to play snooker'Conservative leader Michael Howard has admitted he used to play truant to spend time with his school friends at a snooker hall.Mr Howard said his time at Jack's Snooker Hall in Llanelli in the 1950s had not done him "any lasting damage". But he told the Times Educational Supplement that truancy was "very bad" and said "firm action" was needed. Mr Howard also called for a return to O-levels and more classroom discipline.Mr Howard eventually left Llanelli Grammar School - and the snooker hall - to go to Cambridge University. He said: "I don't think it's done me any lasting damage. Nor has it made me a snooker world champion. "There might have been some occasions when we left early of an afternoon."I'm just being honest. I think truancy is a very bad thing and that firm action should be taken to deal with it." Another player who has failed to win snooker's world championship - Jimmy "the Whirlwind " White - has previously admitted missing lessons, instead spending his days in smoky halls. "Tony Meo [another player] and me used to spend all of our spare time there," Mr White said, "We loved the game and the atmosphere. "School went out of the window. I went for a while and then started taking time off." Mr Howard's fellow Welshman Ray Reardon - known by his fellow professionals as "Dracula" - won the snooker world championship six times, having left school at 14 to work as a miner. And Terry Griffiths, like Mr Howard from Llanelli, won the tournament in 1979. It is not known whether the two of them ever clashed cues at Jack's.

Mr Howard said his time at Jack's Snooker Hall in Llanelli in the 1950s had not done him "any lasting damage".Mr Howard eventually left Llanelli Grammar School - and the snooker hall - to go to Cambridge University.Conservative leader Michael Howard has admitted he used to play truant to spend time with his school friends at a snooker hall.Mr Howard's fellow Welshman Ray Reardon - known by his fellow professionals as "Dracula" - won the snooker world championship six times, having left school at 14 to work as a miner."Tony Meo [another player] and me used to spend all of our spare time there," Mr White said, "We loved the game and the atmosphere.And Terry Griffiths, like Mr Howard from Llanelli, won the tournament in 1979.Nor has it made me a snooker world champion.

Conservative backing for ID cardsThe Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats.They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration."Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."

If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards.The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them.And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

Boris opposes mayor apologyKen Livingstone should "stick to his guns" and not apologise for his "Nazi" comment to a Jewish reporter, Tory MP Boris Johnson has insisted.Mr Johnson also claimed Tony Blair's intervention in the row was "an attempt to reassure Jewish voters". London mayor Mr Livingstone says he is "standing by" his remarks which likened an Evening Standard journalist to a "concentration camp guard". But the prime minister says it is time for Mr Livingstone to say sorry.Labour's Mr Livingstone has said his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked. Later the prime minister said: "A lot of us in politics get angry with journalists from time to time, but in the circumstances, and to the journalist because he was a Jewish journalist, yes, he should apologise."However, Mr Johnson, who was forced to apologise last year for an article in the magazine he edits about Liverpudlians grieving over the death of British hostage Ken Bigley, said Mr Blair "should butt out of" the row. "I don't see why the prime minister has to get involved in this," The Spectator editor told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It's a dispute between Ken Livingstone and a reporter on the Evening Standard." Mr Johnson, MP for Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, said he suspected Labour was now trying to reassure Jewish voters "because of this curious way in which Labour seems to be trying to curry favour with disillusioned Muslim voters who may be disillusioned about the war"."Ken doesn't think he's got anything to say sorry for and if that's really his feeling, then I think that he should stick to his guns," he said. Mr Johnson apologised last October for perpetuating an "outdated stereotype" of Liverpool in the leader article on the death of Mr Bigley. The article in the magazine suggested grieving Liverpudlians were wallowing in their victim status. It also attributed blame to drunken Liverpool football fans for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster in which 96 died. Mr Johnson told Today: "It's perfectly true that I got into the grovelling game myself and when I apologised there were some things that I felt I ought to say sorry for ... there were also other things I didn't think I should apologise for," he said. "But here's old Ken - he's been crass, he's been insensitive and thuggish and brutal in his language - but I don't think actually if you read what he said, although it was extraordinary and rude, I don't think he was actually anti-Semitic."

However, Mr Johnson, who was forced to apologise last year for an article in the magazine he edits about Liverpudlians grieving over the death of British hostage Ken Bigley, said Mr Blair "should butt out of" the row.Mr Johnson told Today: "It's perfectly true that I got into the grovelling game myself and when I apologised there were some things that I felt I ought to say sorry for ... there were also other things I didn't think I should apologise for," he said.Labour's Mr Livingstone has said his comments may have been offensive but were not racist, and said earlier this week he would not apologise even if Mr Blair asked.But the prime minister says it is time for Mr Livingstone to say sorry.Mr Johnson apologised last October for perpetuating an "outdated stereotype" of Liverpool in the leader article on the death of Mr Bigley.Ken Livingstone should "stick to his guns" and not apologise for his "Nazi" comment to a Jewish reporter, Tory MP Boris Johnson has insisted.Mr Johnson also claimed Tony Blair's intervention in the row was "an attempt to reassure Jewish voters".

Brown ally rejects Budget spreeChancellor Gordon Brown's closest ally has denied suggestions there will be a Budget giveaway on 16 March.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day. But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules. He was speaking as Sir Digby Jones, CBI director general, warned Mr Brown not to be tempted to use any extra cash on pre-election bribes.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare". He said he hoped more would be done to build on current tax credit rules.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning. Expectations of a rate rise have gathered pace after figures showed house prices are still rising. Consumer borrowing rose at a near-record pace in January. "If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch. "This is a big change in our political culture."During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy. "I don't think we'll see a pre-election spending spree - we certainly did not see that before 2001," he said.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills. His message to the chancellor was: "Please don't give it away in any form of electioneering." Sir Digby added: "I don't think he will. I have to say he has been a prudent chancellor right the way through. Stability is the key word - British business needs boring stability more than anything. "We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away. But if you are going to anywhere, just add something to the competitiveness of Britain, put it into skilling our people'. "That would be a good way to spend any excess."Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary. "I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today. Prime Minister Tony Blair has yet to name the date of the election, but most pundits are betting on 5 May.

But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules.During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy.Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare"."We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning."If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch."I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills.

Blair blasts Tory spending plansTony Blair has launched an attack on Conservative spending plans, saying they are a "ludicrous improbability".The prime minister has told a Labour Party gathering that the Tory policies would cause economic failure. Tory leader Michael Howard has said his party would cut £35bn in "wasteful" spending to allow £4bn in tax cuts. On Saturday, Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories would fund the cuts by removing "inefficiencies" which had "burgeoned" under Labour. In his speech, Mr Blair contrasted a reformed Labour party, which had learned to occupy the political centre ground, with a hidebound Tory party, which he said would turn the clock back with spending cuts. Mr Blair said: "The Conservative tax and spending proposals would put at risk, both Britain's hard-won economic stability - the lowest mortgages, inflation, unemployment, for decades - and the key investment in public services."I believe that the Tory plans are as plain a call to return to the past as it's possible to imagine," he said. "It's a recipe for exactly the same boom and bust economics and cuts in public services that were their hallmark in 18 years of Conservative government." Mr Blair added: "They, the Conservatives have learned nothing." By contrast, he said, New Labour had listened to its electorate and changed.Mr Blair went on to list his government's achievements and to issue a rallying call to the party. "So now we have a choice, we can defend this record and we can build on it and go on and fulfil the promise or give up and go back. And I say we have to fight." In response, David Davis said the Tories would make cuts, such as removing regional assemblies, but would bring in more police officers and match Labour's spending on health and education. "Everybody knows, having lived through this government the last seven years, that they faced lots of stealth tactics, lots of increases in taxes, but no improvement in public services," he said. Mr Davis said Labour had been responsible for "huge waste, huge overspending, not on the frontline at all but on bureaucracy". "The public face a choice between more waste and more taxes with this government, less waste and lower taxes with a Tory government," he concluded.Gordon Brown has addressed the conference behind closed doors. The Chancellor said the Conservatives' plans would see some £50bn in spending cuts by 2011, which the Tories deny. Mr Brown also issued call for party unity and warn of the dangers of allowing themselves to be "distracted or diverted". According to an advance text released by officials, he told delegates: "We must all show the strength and unity of purpose to take the long-term decisions necessary to meet them."Mr Brown warned that the Tories were planning "the biggest cuts ever in the history of any election manifesto". Meanwhile, Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin accused Mr Blair of "misrepresenting" the party's proposals and questioned how Labour would fund its own plans. "He still cannot accept the simple truth, which is that we will spend more on what matters to people - schools, hospitals and police - and that we will offer value for money and lower taxes," Mr Letwin said. "Once again Mr Blair and his Chancellor have failed to answer the question that lies at the heart of this election - which taxes will they put up to fill the £8bn shortfall in their plans?"

In his speech, Mr Blair contrasted a reformed Labour party, which had learned to occupy the political centre ground, with a hidebound Tory party, which he said would turn the clock back with spending cuts.Tory leader Michael Howard has said his party would cut £35bn in "wasteful" spending to allow £4bn in tax cuts.Mr Blair said: "The Conservative tax and spending proposals would put at risk, both Britain's hard-won economic stability - the lowest mortgages, inflation, unemployment, for decades - and the key investment in public services.The Chancellor said the Conservatives' plans would see some £50bn in spending cuts by 2011, which the Tories deny.Meanwhile, Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin accused Mr Blair of "misrepresenting" the party's proposals and questioned how Labour would fund its own plans.On Saturday, Tory shadow home secretary David Davis said the Tories would fund the cuts by removing "inefficiencies" which had "burgeoned" under Labour.The prime minister has told a Labour Party gathering that the Tory policies would cause economic failure.In response, David Davis said the Tories would make cuts, such as removing regional assemblies, but would bring in more police officers and match Labour's spending on health and education.Mr Davis said Labour had been responsible for "huge waste, huge overspending, not on the frontline at all but on bureaucracy"."Once again Mr Blair and his Chancellor have failed to answer the question that lies at the heart of this election - which taxes will they put up to fill the £8bn shortfall in their plans?"

Fox attacks Blair's Tory 'lies'Tony Blair lied when he took the UK to war so has no qualms about lying in the election campaign, say the Tories.Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda". Dr Fox told BBC Radio: "If you are willing to lie about the reasons for going to war, I guess you are going to lie about anything at all." He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat.The prime minister ratcheted up Labour's pre-election campaigning at the weekend with a helicopter tour of the country and his speech at the party's spring conference. He insisted he did not know the poll date, but it is widely expected to be 5 May.In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street." He described his relationship with the public as starting euphoric, then struggling to live up to the expectations, and reaching the point of raised voices and "throwing crockery". He warned his supporters against complacency, saying: "It's a fight for the future of our country, it's a fight that for Britain and the people of Britain we have to win."Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward". Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies. "What we learned at the weekend is what Labour tactics are going to be and it's going to be fear and smear," he told BBC News. The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver. Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election. "We repay loans when they are due but do not comment to individual financial matters," he said, insisting he enjoyed a "warm and constructive" relationship to Lord Ashcroft.Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday. Mr Kennedy is accelerating Lib Dem election preparations this week as he visits Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Somerset, Basingstoke, Shrewsbury, Dorset and Torbay. He said: "This is three-party politics. In the northern cities, the contest is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. "In southern and rural seats - especially in the South West - the principal contenders are the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who are out of the running in Scotland and Wales." The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.

Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward".Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda".Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election.The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver.Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies.In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street."Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday.He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat.

Blair's hope for Blunkett returnThe events leading to David Blunkett's resignation must not "swept under the carpet", the Tories have warned.On Wednesday Tony Blair said he hoped the former home secretary would serve again in government in the future. Mr Blunkett quit in December after a probe linked him to the visa application of his ex-lover's nanny. Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous". Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I know David very well and I believe him to be a man of real integrity and real ability and I was very sad for him as to what happened."He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs. But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet." Senior Labour backbencher Martin O'Neill, who chairs the Commons trade committee, said he believed the prime minister would want one of his "praetorian guard" - a reference to the elite body guard of Roman emperors - back alongside him. But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again.

Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous".But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet."But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again.He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs.

Howard denies split over ID cardsMichael Howard has denied his shadow cabinet was split over its decision to back controversial Labour plans to introduce ID cards.The Tory leader said his front bench team had reached a "collective view" after holding a "good discussion", but admitted it was "not an easy issue". He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration. The Lib Dems have pledged to oppose the bill when it is debated next Monday.Tory sources say senior party figures had argued vociferously against the ID card scheme. Among those reported to have serious reservations over the strategy were senior shadow cabinet members David Davis, Oliver Letwin and Tim Yeo. But Mr Howard denied Mr Yeo, his transport and environment spokesman, said the plans "stink". He also said he was confident shadow home secretary Mr Davis would "set out the position very clearly" when he stands up to debate the matter next week. Mr Howard said the police had said ID cards could "help them foil a terror bomb plot in which people could lose their lives". He added: "When the police say that you have to take them seriously".He acknowledged there were "good libertarian arguments" against the cards, but said the shadow Cabinet had weighed up all the "conflicting interests" before reaching its decision. "I don't pretend that it is an easy decision but at the end of the day a decision has to be taken." He also denied he was afraid of looking "soft" on the issue, compared to Labour. The Conservatives announced their support for the government plans on Monday evening.Sources within the party told the BBC Mr Howard had always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. But the Tories insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would be able to deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten has branded the ID scheme a waste of money and "deeply flawed". He said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards."The chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained." Tory ex-minister Douglas Hogg said he opposed the plans for ID cards branding them a "regressive" step which would intrude into the lives of ordinary citizens without any counterbalancing benefits. He predicted ultimately carrying the cards would become compulsory and that would lead to large numbers of Britain's ethnic minorities being stopped by police.

Michael Howard has denied his shadow cabinet was split over its decision to back controversial Labour plans to introduce ID cards.Mr Howard said the police had said ID cards could "help them foil a terror bomb plot in which people could lose their lives".He said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards."He also said he was confident shadow home secretary Mr Davis would "set out the position very clearly" when he stands up to debate the matter next week.He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration.Tory ex-minister Douglas Hogg said he opposed the plans for ID cards branding them a "regressive" step which would intrude into the lives of ordinary citizens without any counterbalancing benefits.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would be able to deliver them.But Mr Howard denied Mr Yeo, his transport and environment spokesman, said the plans "stink".Sources within the party told the BBC Mr Howard had always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

BAA support ahead of court battleUK airport operator BAA has reiterated its support for the government's aviation expansion plans to airports throughout the country.The comments come a day ahead of a High Court challenge by residents' groups and local councils to the government's White Paper. The judicial review will centre on government plans for expansion at Heathrow, Stansted and Luton airports. BAA, which operates all three, said it was consulting with local communities. "We are...consulting on voluntary compensation schemes which go beyond our statutory obligations," a BAA spokesman said.Groups challenging the plans include Stop Stansted Expansion, Heathrow anti-noise campaigners HACAN Clearskies and the London boroughs of Hillingdon and Wandsworth. At Heathrow, Gatwick, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, BAA launched a series of consultations on blight to properties from the proposed expansion in September 2004, which will close next week. The company is also offering to buy noise-hit properties for an index-linked, unblighted price. Among other measures, BAA has set up a homeowner support scheme for people living near Stansted, and has launched a special scheme for those close to the airport but far enough away not to be covered by the homeowner scheme. At Heathrow, BAA said it was working closely with all interested parties to see how the strict environmental, air quality and noise targets for a third runway can be met.At Gatwick, the company has written to homes and business likely to be affected by any extra runway. Stop Stansted Expansion said the White Paper, published in December 2003, was "fundamentally flawed" and did not follow the proper consultation process. "We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge before us because the courts have never before overturned a government White Paper," said Stop Stansted Expansion chairman Peter Sanders said. HACAN chairman John Stewart said: "Almost exactly a year ago the government published its 30-year aviation White Paper with much fanfare. "It hoped that would be the end of the debate and it could proceed with its plans for a massive expansion of aviation. "Yet, a year later the protesters are still here, and stronger than ever. " A judgement from Mr Justice Sullivan is expected early in February.

"We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge before us because the courts have never before overturned a government White Paper," said Stop Stansted Expansion chairman Peter Sanders said.Stop Stansted Expansion said the White Paper, published in December 2003, was "fundamentally flawed" and did not follow the proper consultation process.UK airport operator BAA has reiterated its support for the government's aviation expansion plans to airports throughout the country.The judicial review will centre on government plans for expansion at Heathrow, Stansted and Luton airports.HACAN chairman John Stewart said: "Almost exactly a year ago the government published its 30-year aviation White Paper with much fanfare.At Heathrow, Gatwick, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, BAA launched a series of consultations on blight to properties from the proposed expansion in September 2004, which will close next week.BAA, which operates all three, said it was consulting with local communities.

EU rules 'won't stop UK spending'The shape of the UK's economy In graphicsBut he denied that he was ruling out British membership of the euro despite saying there would be no assessment of the five economic tests this year. Mr Brown said that it was vital the UK continued to invest in infrastructure, science, and education in the future. Otherwise it would be overtaken by the likes of China, he told MPs.The chancellor said that the EU's planned changes in the growth and stability pact - designed to ensure that countries in the euro zone do not borrow too much - would force Britain to run a budget surplus of 1% over the economic cycle.Under Mr Brown's rules, the UK current budget must be in balance over the economic cycle, but public investment is not counted as part of that deficit. He told the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee that the EU rules "make it difficult for a low debt country to run the investment programmes that are necessary to improve its infrastructure". But he argued that the EU was moving in the direction of the UK principles, and would eventually recognise the need to consider budget deficits over a longer period than one year, to include investment, and to take more account of the total size of government debt as well as the balance each year. Under Mr Brown's "sustainable investment" rule, government debt should be under 40% - in contrast to the 60% allowed under the growth and stability pact.Mr Brown vigorously denied Conservative claims that he had in effect fiddled the figures to ensure that he met his own fiscal rules. In March the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reclassified £3.4bn of spending on road repairs as public investment - shortly before the chancellor announced in the Budget that he would meet his own fiscal budget rule by only £6bn. Conservative Michael Fallon asked Mr Brown whether the Treasury had leaned on ONS to make this change, and said that the ONS had received a written paper from the Treasury on this matter. But the chancellor said Mr Fallon was "impugning the integrity" of the Office of National Statistics and said the decision had been made completely independently. Mr Brown also denied that he was increasing taxes to fund his spending gap. He told the Treasury Select Committee that a growing economy meant more people in work and more profits for companies which would boost Treasury coffers.Earlier, ex-Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke welcomed a relaxation of the rules governing the euro zone. Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said political give and take would replace more "rigid" rules. But fellow Tory David Heathcoat-Amory said the folly of the system was in trying to run Europe's varied economies on one set of rules. "The essential point here is that the stability and growth pact has turned out to be a fake," he said. "The warning is about the European constitution, which we are going to have a vote on in a year or two, and that centralises and entrenches these rules in a constitution. It gives more powers to Brussels to co-ordinate things like employment and economic policy." But, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Gordon Brown said that the new stability pact rules were not part of a binding Treaty and could be changed again the future - potentially opening the way for future euro membership. "The conditions for euro entry are unchanged by this new decision about the stability and growth pact," Mr. Brown said.

"The conditions for euro entry are unchanged by this new decision about the stability and growth pact," Mr. Brown said.The chancellor said that the EU's planned changes in the growth and stability pact - designed to ensure that countries in the euro zone do not borrow too much - would force Britain to run a budget surplus of 1% over the economic cycle.But, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Gordon Brown said that the new stability pact rules were not part of a binding Treaty and could be changed again the future - potentially opening the way for future euro membership.Under Mr Brown's "sustainable investment" rule, government debt should be under 40% - in contrast to the 60% allowed under the growth and stability pact.Mr Brown said that it was vital the UK continued to invest in infrastructure, science, and education in the future.But the chancellor said Mr Fallon was "impugning the integrity" of the Office of National Statistics and said the decision had been made completely independently.Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said political give and take would replace more "rigid" rules.Under Mr Brown's rules, the UK current budget must be in balance over the economic cycle, but public investment is not counted as part of that deficit.Conservative Michael Fallon asked Mr Brown whether the Treasury had leaned on ONS to make this change, and said that the ONS had received a written paper from the Treasury on this matter.

Kennedy to make temple addressCharles Kennedy is set to address 2,000 people at a Hindu temple as part of an appeal to ethnic minority voters.The Liberal Democrat leader will visit the Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Temple in Neasden, north west London. He will say Labour "can no longer lay exclusive claim to the votes of Britain's ethnic minorities". Mr Kennedy will also highlight the anger among people of "all races" over the Iraq war and call for a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism. Saturday's speech comes days after the Lib Dems launched their ethnic minority mini-manifesto. Mr Kennedy is to tell the audience: "Many people in Britain, of all races, cultures and religions, were angry about the way we were taken to war in Iraq. "And they saw the principled stand the Liberal Democrats took at the time."He will also say that the Lib Dems want to "restore Britain's reputation on the world stage" by fighting international poverty and climate change, and protecting human rights. Mr Kennedy will say that a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism would mean "tough measures to make Britain safe - but not at the expense of people's fundamental legal rights like has happened at Belmarsh". He will say it also means acting through the United Nations on terrorism. Mr Kennedy held talks with Tony Blair on Friday over government plans to hold terror suspects under house arrest. He said afterwards that the Prime Minister had offered some "movement" to address his concerns. The plans face trouble in the Lords if Conservative and Lib Dem opposition continues.

Mr Kennedy will also highlight the anger among people of "all races" over the Iraq war and call for a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism.Charles Kennedy is set to address 2,000 people at a Hindu temple as part of an appeal to ethnic minority voters.Mr Kennedy will say that a "balanced approach" to tackling terrorism would mean "tough measures to make Britain safe - but not at the expense of people's fundamental legal rights like has happened at Belmarsh".Mr Kennedy is to tell the audience: "Many people in Britain, of all races, cultures and religions, were angry about the way we were taken to war in Iraq.He will say it also means acting through the United Nations on terrorism.He will also say that the Lib Dems want to "restore Britain's reputation on the world stage" by fighting international poverty and climate change, and protecting human rights.

Mayor will not retract Nazi jibeLondon mayor Ken Livingstone has again refused to retract a Nazi insult made to a Jewish reporter.Labour's Mr Livingstone, who says he is "standing by" his remarks, had accused an Evening Standard journalist of being like a "concentration camp guard". At his weekly press conference on Tuesday he said his comments were not racist and refused to apologise. He said to media representatives: "If you think they are racist, I think you are wrong." The mayor said his comments would not affect the 2012 Olympic bid and added that his determination to stand up for what he believed in may impress bid chiefs, who arrived in London on Tuesday. "I think it is important that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) members realise that when we get the games...they have a mayor who is not going to panic, change course or get in a great flap but will deliver the games on time and to budget," he said.On Tuesday, the mayor said he would be making a full written response to the chairman of the assembly. Two motions were passed by the London Assembly, which is made up of 25 members elected to examine the mayor's activities, on Monday asking him to apologise and withdraw his comments. The mayor said he had recounted to the assembly a number of "examples of intrusion by journalists" into his, and his family's private life. "I don't suggest for one minute that has anything to do with the Holocaust which was uniquely the most evil chapter in history. "But when reporters say to me I'm only doing this because it's my job... that's the same abdication of moral responsibility at the thin end of the wedge that in its most extreme and horrific version ends up with others being prepared to stand as a concentration camp guard."We are responsible for our own choices in this life, I always have been and so have reporters." An official complaint has been made to local government watchdogs by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, demanding an investigation by the Standards Board of England. It has the power to suspended or bar him from office but Mr Livingstone said: "There must have been 20 instances like this over the last 24 years."I have never in response to any of that modified a policy I believed to be right or modified a position I believed to be right and I don't intend to now. "Because if I do that effectively you hand power over your policies and position to the editors of papers." On tape Mr Livingstone, who once worked as a freelance restaurant critic on the paper, is heard asking reporter Oliver Finegold if he is a "German war criminal". Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that." The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

London mayor Ken Livingstone has again refused to retract a Nazi insult made to a Jewish reporter.It has the power to suspended or bar him from office but Mr Livingstone said: "There must have been 20 instances like this over the last 24 years.On Tuesday, the mayor said he would be making a full written response to the chairman of the assembly.The mayor said his comments would not affect the 2012 Olympic bid and added that his determination to stand up for what he believed in may impress bid chiefs, who arrived in London on Tuesday.The mayor said he had recounted to the assembly a number of "examples of intrusion by journalists" into his, and his family's private life.At his weekly press conference on Tuesday he said his comments were not racist and refused to apologise.The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"Labour's Mr Livingstone, who says he is "standing by" his remarks, had accused an Evening Standard journalist of being like a "concentration camp guard".

UKIP's secret weapon?By any measure, New Yorker Dick Morris is that thing Americans love over everything else - a winner.This is the man who, some pundits believe, was almost single-handedly responsible for Bill Clinton's sensational 1992 comeback victory. But Morris is no ideologue. He has worked as election strategist for any number of Republicans as well and, more recently, politicians from Mexico to Uruguay. Now he is back in London as the UK Independence Party's not-so-secret electoral weapon after returning from the Ukraine where he helped - you guessed it - opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko. If there is one regular criticism levelled at Morris, it is that he is too ready to switch allegiances. That he enjoys the game more than the politics.So why Britain and why UKIP which, despite its recent EU election successes, is not likely to pull off a sensational victory in the looming general election. On this subject, Morris appears almost evangelical."I was on a cruise in the Mediterranean and, coincidentally, so was UKIP leader Roger Knapman. "I had just written a piece saying how the English Channel was now wider than the Atlantic which he liked and it went from there". But what is it about UKIP that particularly attracts him? Many might think it is simply another chance to practice his art, irrespective of the politics. "I think the greatest threat to democracy in the world is not terrorism but bureaucratism". A great soundbite, but a surprise coming from a New Yorker post 11 September. "It is the growth of these bodies composed of experts who know better, who don't believe in letting democracy govern but believe in letting the correct solution be determined. "That's international bankers, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and, primarily, the European Union".So he is out to help UKIP take Britain out of this organisation which he believes is unreformable and inherently undemocratic. And he is scathing of the Tory party which he also appears to believe is unreformable. "The Tory party is schizophrenic about Europe. But until somebody says they are willing to leave the EU they can't possibly re-negotiate anything (as Michael Howard is pledged to do). "It's like walking into a liquor store with a gun to rob it and saying: 'before I can proceed with the robbery I want to make clear I am not going to shoot anybody'". Possibly a very American analogy, but another great soundbite. "The basic point is that the EU seeks political integration to move the entire nexus of decision making away from Britain - and we oppose that and the Tories cannot be trusted to oppose it".So is UKIP's job to destroy the Tories, as former member Robert Kilroy-Silk once notoriously declared? "No. The aim of UKIP is to withdraw from the EU and if it has any relation to the Tories it is to stiffen the Tories' spine on the issue by having a large enough UKIP vote so that we move the Tories in the direction they are refusing to move."But it's not just to shift the Tories. I think UKIP had a huge amount to do with Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution and I think it had a huge amount to do with his refusal to go into the euro". And, while we are on the subject of Mr Kilroy-Silk, Mr Morris despatches him with another of his neat soundbites. "Robert Kilroy Silk is not a team player - it is a good idea our party stands for some thing and not some one".So what is the big plan for the general election. How will he achieve the breakthrough? "Look, we are not going to be forming the next government," he said. Neither does UKIP have to fight every seat. As with the 2004 US presidential election, he says, the outcome will be decided by a small number of swing seats - just as he believes it will in Britain. So, with limited resources, the aim is to target those seats and end the day with a significant group in the Commons. He also believes it is possible the internet could have a big part in the poll. "The internet was a decisive factor in the 2004 presidential election - through blogs (individuals posting their views in online diaries). People just did it". "Anything can happen in the next general election. There is an inherent instability at the moment. "Labour and the Tories have drawn the consensus so tightly and to the left there is room for another voice".That might, he suggests, lead to a hung parliament with UKIP and others holding the balance of power. It is a huge task, surely. But there is undoubtedly a sense that the next general election may indeed produce some surprises - even while most still believe it is Labour's for the taking. UKIP's performance in last year's European elections was just such a shocker and showed that Mr Morris may have a point about the new consensus. And after all, he has a reputation to sustain.

So why Britain and why UKIP which, despite its recent EU election successes, is not likely to pull off a sensational victory in the looming general election.UKIP's performance in last year's European elections was just such a shocker and showed that Mr Morris may have a point about the new consensus.The aim of UKIP is to withdraw from the EU and if it has any relation to the Tories it is to stiffen the Tories' spine on the issue by having a large enough UKIP vote so that we move the Tories in the direction they are refusing to move."Anything can happen in the next general election.So what is the big plan for the general election.But there is undoubtedly a sense that the next general election may indeed produce some surprises - even while most still believe it is Labour's for the taking.As with the 2004 US presidential election, he says, the outcome will be decided by a small number of swing seats - just as he believes it will in Britain.So he is out to help UKIP take Britain out of this organisation which he believes is unreformable and inherently undemocratic.I think UKIP had a huge amount to do with Tony Blair's decision to hold a referendum on the European constitution and I think it had a huge amount to do with his refusal to go into the euro".And he is scathing of the Tory party which he also appears to believe is unreformable."I was on a cruise in the Mediterranean and, coincidentally, so was UKIP leader Roger Knapman.And, while we are on the subject of Mr Kilroy-Silk, Mr Morris despatches him with another of his neat soundbites.On this subject, Morris appears almost evangelical."The internet was a decisive factor in the 2004 presidential election - through blogs (individuals posting their views in online diaries).But what is it about UKIP that particularly attracts him?Neither does UKIP have to fight every seat.But Morris is no ideologue.Many might think it is simply another chance to practice his art, irrespective of the politics."Labour and the Tories have drawn the consensus so tightly and to the left there is room for another voice".He has worked as election strategist for any number of Republicans as well and, more recently, politicians from Mexico to Uruguay.

Brown ally rejects Budget spreeChancellor Gordon Brown's closest ally has denied suggestions there will be a Budget giveaway on 16 March.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day. But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules. He was speaking as Sir Digby Jones, CBI director general, warned Mr Brown not to be tempted to use any extra cash on pre-election bribes.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare". He said he hoped more would be done to build on current tax credit rules.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning. Expectations of a rate rise have gathered pace after figures showed house prices are still rising. Consumer borrowing rose at a near-record pace in January. "If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch. "This is a big change in our political culture."During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy. "I don't think we'll see a pre-election spending spree - we certainly did not see that before 2001," he said.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills. His message to the chancellor was: "Please don't give it away in any form of electioneering." Sir Digby added: "I don't think he will. I have to say he has been a prudent chancellor right the way through. Stability is the key word - British business needs boring stability more than anything. "We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away. But if you are going to anywhere, just add something to the competitiveness of Britain, put it into skilling our people'. "That would be a good way to spend any excess."Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary. "I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today. Prime Minister Tony Blair has yet to name the date of the election, but most pundits are betting on 5 May.

But Mr Balls, a prospective Labour MP, said he was confident the chancellor would meet his fiscal rules.During an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Balls said he was sure Mr Brown's Budget would not put at risk the stability of the economy.Mr Balls refused to say whether Mr Brown would remain as chancellor after the election, amid speculation he will be offered the job of Foreign Secretary.Mr Balls, who stepped down from his Treasury post to stand as a Labour candidate in the election, had suggested that Mr Brown would meet his golden economic rule - "with a margin to spare"."We would say to him 'don't increase your public spending, don't give it away.Ed Balls, ex-chief economic adviser to the Treasury, said there would be no spending spree before polling day.He also stressed rise in interest rates ahead of an expected May election would not affect the Labour Party's chances of winning."If the MPC (the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee) were to judge that a rate rise was justified before the election because of the strength of the economy - and I'm not predicting that they will - I do not believe that this will be a big election issue in Britain for Labour," he told a Parliamentary lunch."I think that Gordon Brown wants to be part of the successful Labour government which delivers in the third term for the priorities of the people and sees off a Conservative Party that will take Britain backwards," Mr Balls told Today.His assurances came after Sir Digby Jones said stability was all important and any extra cash should be spent on improving workers' skills.

Jowell rejects 'Las Vegas' jibeThe Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, has hit out at critics of the Gambling Bill.She told the Guardian newspaper there would be no "Las Vegas-style" super-casinos, as rumoured in the press. Meanwhile Labour backbencher Stephen Pound labelled casino-related regeneration schemes "a pile of pants". The MP for Ealing North claimed the legislation would encourage a mafia-like culture of vice and corruption, in an interview on BBC Radio 4. "You look at some of the people who are involved...they aren't in there to regenerate Blackpool. They are in it to fill their boots," Mr Pound told the Today programme. "I just really think that we have made a terrible mistake here. And over all of it hangs the shadow of the men in the chalk-stripe suits with names that rhyme with spaghetti," he said.Ms Jowell complained of the "scale of misrepresentation" in the media over the bill in her interview with the newspaper, her first since the bill was launched. The culture secretary said a four year consultation period had produced a consensus on the need to "protect children and the vulnerable" in a swiftly changing sector. Ms Jowell insisted: "We have a good track record for extracting planning gain in this country, for instance in social housing." And continued: "We can be proud to have one of the lowest rates of problem gambling in the world. I intend to keep it that way." Ms Jowell will set out her position when the Bill is debated in the Commons on Monday. In prime minister's questions last week Tony Blair assured Parliament that 90% of the bill was about tightening up the regulation of the gambling industry.

Ms Jowell complained of the "scale of misrepresentation" in the media over the bill in her interview with the newspaper, her first since the bill was launched.The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, has hit out at critics of the Gambling Bill.Ms Jowell will set out her position when the Bill is debated in the Commons on Monday.In prime minister's questions last week Tony Blair assured Parliament that 90% of the bill was about tightening up the regulation of the gambling industry.They are in it to fill their boots," Mr Pound told the Today programme.She told the Guardian newspaper there would be no "Las Vegas-style" super-casinos, as rumoured in the press.

Opposition grows to house arrestsThe Conservatives have expressed "serious misgivings" about government plans for keeping UK and foreign terror suspects under house arrest.Michael Howard said he would not back the Home Secretary's plans for "control orders" which include home detention. "I do not believe that anyone should be deprived of their liberty on the say so of a politician," he said. The Lib Dems also oppose the proposals, but ministers insist they are proportionate to the terror threat.The government proposed the idea and a range of other new powers after the laws lords said current detentions without trial broke human rights laws. New Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has backed the control orders, saying: "I'm sorry. It is a dilemma, but there is only one choice." But Mr Howard said: "We have serious misgivings about both their effectiveness in protecting life and their consequences for the British way of life."He argued that people accused of terrorist offences should be brought to trial and be held in prison - not at home - while they await trial. Mr Howard said he feared "internment without trial creates martyrs" and could be "a very effective recruiting sergeant" for terrorists". His party plans to move an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill next week that would give a judge responsibility for assessing evidence and ensuring a balanced case is presented to the court. He called on the prime minister to "enter into constructive discussions" with his party to find a "better way forward". Controversy over the issue continues after a foreign terror suspect held in the UK without trial or charge since December 2001 was freed from jail.Home Secretary Charles Clarke said there was not enough evidence to keep the Egyptian man, known only as C, certified as a terrorist suspect. On Monday, the legal team for two Algerian suspects being held without trial told a court the men did not want bail if it meant being put under house arrest. Most of the terror suspects are detained at Belmarsh Prison in London. The Liberal Democrats say they also oppose house arrests and questioned the human rights implications of the measure. Home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's a matter of principle for us that we can't have a situation where the Home Secretary is able to impose house detention now on UK nationals as well as foreign nationals."The Lib Dems believe the Home Secretary should allow phone tapping evidence in prosecutions. "We think there could be a role for some form of control order - tagging, surveillance, limitation on use of mobile phones - but not with the Home Secretary's say so. That must be done with a proper judicial process, a judge involved in making those decisions," said Mr Oaten. Mr Clarke has rejected that idea saying intercept evidence is only a small part of the case against terror suspects and could put the lives of intelligence sources at risk. He said prosecutions were the government's first preference and promised the powers would only be used in "serious" cases, with independent scrutiny from judges.

Michael Howard said he would not back the Home Secretary's plans for "control orders" which include home detention.Home Secretary Charles Clarke said there was not enough evidence to keep the Egyptian man, known only as C, certified as a terrorist suspect.The Conservatives have expressed "serious misgivings" about government plans for keeping UK and foreign terror suspects under house arrest.Mr Clarke has rejected that idea saying intercept evidence is only a small part of the case against terror suspects and could put the lives of intelligence sources at risk.Controversy over the issue continues after a foreign terror suspect held in the UK without trial or charge since December 2001 was freed from jail.Mr Howard said he feared "internment without trial creates martyrs" and could be "a very effective recruiting sergeant" for terrorists".The government proposed the idea and a range of other new powers after the laws lords said current detentions without trial broke human rights laws.On Monday, the legal team for two Algerian suspects being held without trial told a court the men did not want bail if it meant being put under house arrest.But Mr Howard said: "We have serious misgivings about both their effectiveness in protecting life and their consequences for the British way of life."The Lib Dems believe the Home Secretary should allow phone tapping evidence in prosecutions.

Council tax rise 'reasonable'Welsh councils should set their taxes at "reasonable levels" after being given an average funding increase of 6%, says the assembly government.Finance Minister Sue Essex said it was a "good deal" for local government. The £3.2bn settlement includes the "full" £7.4m from the UK Treasury announced by Chancellor Gordon Brown. But opposition parties said rebanding of council taxes would mean steep rises. In addition, £13.4m will come from the business support grant - a scheme which enables local authorities to keep part of business rates. She said where spending rises were kept to around 5% she was "confident that councils will be able to set council taxes at reasonable levels." The Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) had said on the eve of the announcement said that "significant" cuts to services may still be unavoidable. After the announcement WLGA finance spokesman Bob Wellington, of Torfaen, said it was vital that rises were minimsed. "A limited amount of money has come available but this is not the answer to our problems," said Mr Wellington. "It is vital that we start now to plan for future years and accept that resources will continue to reduce while pressures on services increase." On Monday, a delegation of north Wales councils visited Ms Essex to lobby for increased funds. Ms Essex said: "I have listened to the views of local government and council tax payers and recognise the funding pressures and the concerns they have about council tax rises. "I have met a large number of local authorities in recent weeks and I am aware of the pressures on them to provide local services and keep down the level of council tax, particularly for those people to are moving up a band due to the revaluation of domestic properties." She said council taxes could be kept at reasonable levels, "even for those people who have moved up a band".The settlement includes a rise in the grant to help councils with the most deprived communities and a 16.4% rise in capital expenditure support. Ms Essex said: "This is a good deal for local government, which will allow the well-managed councils of Wales to develop their services and charge reasonable levels of council tax. It is now a matter for council leaders to manage their budgets at a local level." Plaid Cymru's local government spokesman Dai Lloyd called the announcement "hugely disappointing". He said: "Wales and its local authorities have been short changed yet again. This is not whinging as the Labour Assembly Government so often claims - it is anger." "This will mean either a massive hike in council tax, massive cuts in services provided by councils, or both." Mike German, leader of the Liberal Democrats in the assembly, claimed that one in three homes were still likely to face council tax rises due to rebanding. Mr German said: "I know from my discussions with Welsh Liberal Democrat council leaders that they are doing their utmost to keep council tax to a minimum. But the random redistribution effect of rebanding...will create a great deal of difficulty." Conservative local government spokesman Glyn Davies said that for the minister to claim that the majority of council tax payers in Wales should see very little change "is taking spin to the very verge of deception". He added: "Around a third of Welsh households have been re-valued upwards by at least one band and inevitably face increases into double figures."

Ms Essex said: "This is a good deal for local government, which will allow the well-managed councils of Wales to develop their services and charge reasonable levels of council tax.Ms Essex said: "I have listened to the views of local government and council tax payers and recognise the funding pressures and the concerns they have about council tax rises.She said where spending rises were kept to around 5% she was "confident that councils will be able to set council taxes at reasonable levels."Mr German said: "I know from my discussions with Welsh Liberal Democrat council leaders that they are doing their utmost to keep council tax to a minimum.Conservative local government spokesman Glyn Davies said that for the minister to claim that the majority of council tax payers in Wales should see very little change "is taking spin to the very verge of deception".She said council taxes could be kept at reasonable levels, "even for those people who have moved up a band".Welsh councils should set their taxes at "reasonable levels" after being given an average funding increase of 6%, says the assembly government.Finance Minister Sue Essex said it was a "good deal" for local government.The Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) had said on the eve of the announcement said that "significant" cuts to services may still be unavoidable.But opposition parties said rebanding of council taxes would mean steep rises."I have met a large number of local authorities in recent weeks and I am aware of the pressures on them to provide local services and keep down the level of council tax, particularly for those people to are moving up a band due to the revaluation of domestic properties."

Plan to give elderly care controlElderly and disabled people would choose how their own budget for personal care was spent and organised under government plans.Ministers say elderly and disabled people themselves, not social workers, should be able to decide on their care and stay in their own homes. They also plan a supremo for adult services in each English area to get different agencies working together. But the government shunned opponents' calls for free long-term care.There are 1.7m people needing care in England and ministers suggest the number could quadruple by 2050. Monday's consultation paper on social care for adults in England is aimed at ending a system which generates dependency. Health Minister Stephen Ladyman said: "This document is the antithesis of the nanny state."It's about taking power away from the state and giving it to individuals and saying that we will help you make these decisions but we are not going to make them for you any more." The government has already allowed local councils to give people money so they can pay for their services directly but take-up of the scheme has been "disappointing".Ministers say the new plans would make direct payments simpler and try to counter reluctance in some local councils to use the payments. They also want to set up a new "half-way house" where social workers tell people how much money is available for their care and help them choose how to spend that "individual budget". The scheme will be funded on existing budgets set until 2008. But Mr Ladyman said the plans could deliver savings in some areas, such as freeing up NHS beds and preventing illnesses. He ruled out free personal care in England - which is on offer in Scotland and Wales, saying it was "unsustainable".David Rogers, from the Local Government Association, said agencies were working together on the kind of innovation proposed by the government. And Tony Hunter, president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said the plans could improve dignity and well-being for thousands of people. But Age Concern argued social care was chronically under-funded and older people were being offered choice in principle, but not in practice. Its director general, Gordon Lishman, said: "Direct payments will not work if there are no services for people to choose from locally."The Tories say people who pay for three years' long-term care directly or through insurance should be guaranteed free care for the rest of their lives. Tory spokesman Simon Burns said more than 80,000 long term care places had been lost since 1997. "After eight years of persistent change, dogmatic enforcement of regulation, and overbearing government initiatives - we need action, not a vision," said Mr Burns. The Lib Dems say they would fund free personal care by a new 50% tax rate on incomes over £100,000. Health spokesman Paul Burstow said: "Promoting independence sounds good and helping people to live in their own homes is a goal we share. "But the risk is that independence can turn into isolation if the right support and care is not available."

Elderly and disabled people would choose how their own budget for personal care was spent and organised under government plans.The Tories say people who pay for three years' long-term care directly or through insurance should be guaranteed free care for the rest of their lives.They also want to set up a new "half-way house" where social workers tell people how much money is available for their care and help them choose how to spend that "individual budget".Ministers say elderly and disabled people themselves, not social workers, should be able to decide on their care and stay in their own homes.There are 1.7m people needing care in England and ministers suggest the number could quadruple by 2050.But the government shunned opponents' calls for free long-term care.But Age Concern argued social care was chronically under-funded and older people were being offered choice in principle, but not in practice.And Tony Hunter, president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, said the plans could improve dignity and well-being for thousands of people.The Lib Dems say they would fund free personal care by a new 50% tax rate on incomes over £100,000.He ruled out free personal care in England - which is on offer in Scotland and Wales, saying it was "unsustainable".

Tories attack EU asylum movesDavid Blunkett has been accused of using the "politics of confusion" to disguise new EU immigration measures.Tory spokesman David Davis told MPs the UK was losing its power of veto over who was allowed to come to Britain. The EU has opted to adopt qualified majority voting in this area - previously measures needed unanimous agreement from all member states. Mr Blunkett told MPs the UK would still be able to reject proposals on immigration it did not agree with.He argued closer co-operation with Europe over asylum and immigration was crucial to controlling the flow of people into the UK. "If we don't like what other EU countries do on immigration and nationality we have the right to opt-in or out to suit the British people," he said. The home secretary was responding to an emergency question from his Tory opposite number Mr Davis. "The government is employing the politics of confusion - I think, deliberately," argued Mr Davis. "By confusing the country it hopes no one will notice the disappearance of the asylum and immigration veto." On Monday Tony Blair insisted closer co-operation did not mean losing control of British borders. He said an enlarged 25-member EU needs a streamlined decision making process. Mr Davis said once Britain had opted into policies then it could not opt out - leaving the UK open to unfavourable interpretations of what those policies actually meant.He accused the government of being "pathetic" when it came to its efforts over immigration and asylum and of "surrendering" on the issue. And he asked why the government was agreeing to the measure on asylum and immigration now when the whole issue was part of the EU constitution, which voters in the UK had been promised a referendum over. Mr Blair told his monthly news conference Britain had the "best of both worlds" and would keep the veto. "There is no question of Britain giving up our veto on our border controls," he said. "With the Treaty of Amsterdam seven years ago, we secured the absolute right to opt in to any of the asylum and immigration provisions that we wanted to in Europe." Mr Blunkett met his EU counterparts in Luxembourg on Monday to consider proposals aimed at streamlining decision making on the issue.The 25 member-states are expected to scrap the requirement for unanimous agreement on immigration policy, in favour of the qualified majority voting (QMV) system. Under this scheme larger states such as Britain are expected to have more power than the smaller EU states. Britain is expected to retain an "opt-in" right which will allow it to ignore any measures it disagrees with. Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten called the change pragmatic and argued it gave a better chance of producing a European asylum solution. "If we don't work together it means some countries can ignore their responsibilities at the expense of their neighbours," said Mr Oaten. "The Liberal Democrats have long argued that Britain should be a safe haven for asylum seekers but it's right that we don't do this in isolation."

And he asked why the government was agreeing to the measure on asylum and immigration now when the whole issue was part of the EU constitution, which voters in the UK had been promised a referendum over."If we don't like what other EU countries do on immigration and nationality we have the right to opt-in or out to suit the British people," he said.He argued closer co-operation with Europe over asylum and immigration was crucial to controlling the flow of people into the UK.Tory spokesman David Davis told MPs the UK was losing its power of veto over who was allowed to come to Britain.Mr Blunkett told MPs the UK would still be able to reject proposals on immigration it did not agree with.Mr Davis said once Britain had opted into policies then it could not opt out - leaving the UK open to unfavourable interpretations of what those policies actually meant."The Liberal Democrats have long argued that Britain should be a safe haven for asylum seekers but it's right that we don't do this in isolation.""By confusing the country it hopes no one will notice the disappearance of the asylum and immigration veto."David Blunkett has been accused of using the "politics of confusion" to disguise new EU immigration measures.He accused the government of being "pathetic" when it came to its efforts over immigration and asylum and of "surrendering" on the issue.

Scots smoking ban details set outSmoke-free areas will save lives and improve Scotland's health, First Minister Jack McConnell has insisted.He told the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday that a "comprehensive ban" on smoking in public places would be introduced by the spring of 2006. Mr McConnell said the country's health rates were "lamentable" not least because of smoking. He said fines of up to £2,500 would be levied on employers and licences would be removed for non-compliance. Earlier, the Scottish Executive considered a range of options but agreed unanimously to introduce an all-out ban on smoking in public places. In a statement to parliament, Mr McConnell said that the licensed trade would be asked to join an expert committee prior to the ban coming into force.The health arguments far outweighed lingering public disquiet about a complete ban and claims by the licensed trade that jobs would be lost, he told MSPs. He said there would be an international marketing campaign whereby "tourists can enjoy smoke free environment and the sick man of Europe image becomes a thing of the past". "There are still national habits which hold us back - the time has come for this parliament to accelerate improvements in health," he declared. "Health rates are lamentable because of a lack of exercise, drugs abuse, excessive drinking and over-eating. "They all make us one of the most unhealthy countries in Europe, and too many smoke. "It is clear that Scotland must not be held back by poor public health - the single biggest contribution devolved government can make is to reduce the toll of preventable death caused by smoking." The legislation will be introduced as part of the Health Service (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which will be considered by parliament before Christmas. Main points of the plan: - A comprehensive ban on smoking in all enclosed public places in Scotland - The legislation will be enforced by environmental health and local licensing officers - Licensees or employers who fail to enforce the law will face fines up to a maximum of £2,500 - Licensees who persistently refuse to comply with the law will face the ultimate sanction of losing their liquor licence - A system of issuing fixed penalty notices for those individuals who break the law will be examined - Individuals who persistently break the law will face a maximum fine of £1,000. Mr McConnell claimed there was evidence that smoking bans had helped smokers to either give up quicker or smoke less. He said there had been falling cigarette sales of 13% in New York and 16% in Ireland. Mr McConnell added that there had been a near nine per cent rise in tax revenues from New York bars and restaurants and, in Ireland, only a one point three per cent volume sales fall, where they were declining before the ban. The afternoon announcement, following a cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning, won broad support from opposition parties.The Scottish National Party's Holyrood leader, Nicola Sturgeon, welcomed the move but added that the public should be consulted as the clock ticked towards the ban date. She said: "The time has come for a ban on smoking in public places. "There is evidence a ban can cut deaths from passive smoking and makes it easier for the 70% of smokers who desperately want to give up the habit. "But we must also recognise that some people have concerns and reservations - there are people who are yet to be persuaded." The Scottish Conservative Party leader, David McLetchie, questioned what would be exempted from the ban. He was keen to know if inmates in Scottish prisons would continue to be allowed to smoke. Mr McLetchie asked: "Would it not be ironic and perhaps entirely typical of the first minister's brave new Scotland that the criminals can be smokers but the smokers will become criminals?" The Scottish Green Party's health spokeswoman, Eleanor Scott, said she was pleased Scotland would be following the "success stories of New York and Ireland". She believed the majority of people in Scotland wanted to go out without having to breathe in harmful tobacco smoke.

He told the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday that a "comprehensive ban" on smoking in public places would be introduced by the spring of 2006.She said: "The time has come for a ban on smoking in public places.The Scottish Green Party's health spokeswoman, Eleanor Scott, said she was pleased Scotland would be following the "success stories of New York and Ireland".Mr McConnell said the country's health rates were "lamentable" not least because of smoking.In a statement to parliament, Mr McConnell said that the licensed trade would be asked to join an expert committee prior to the ban coming into force.Mr McConnell claimed there was evidence that smoking bans had helped smokers to either give up quicker or smoke less.The health arguments far outweighed lingering public disquiet about a complete ban and claims by the licensed trade that jobs would be lost, he told MSPs.The Scottish Conservative Party leader, David McLetchie, questioned what would be exempted from the ban.Earlier, the Scottish Executive considered a range of options but agreed unanimously to introduce an all-out ban on smoking in public places.He said fines of up to £2,500 would be levied on employers and licences would be removed for non-compliance."It is clear that Scotland must not be held back by poor public health - the single biggest contribution devolved government can make is to reduce the toll of preventable death caused by smoking."

Lib Dems 'to target stamp duty'The Liberal Democrats are promising to raise the stamp duty threshold if they win the general election, in a bid to court first-time house buyers.Vince Cable, the party's Treasury spokesman, said raising the threshold to £150,000 would prevent over 400,000 home-buyers from paying the tax. He said first-time buyers were being "squeezed out" of the housing market. The Labour party said the Liberal Democrats needed to explain how they would pay for the plan. The plan forms part of a wider Lib Dems policy to encourage first time buyers and those on lower incomes into the market.Under the proposals, the average saving for a new buyer would be more than £1,000, according to Mr Cable. "First time buyers are being squeezed out of the housing market not only by higher house prices but also by being swept into the stamp duty net," he said. "By failing to uprate the stamp duty threshold Gordon Brown has hit first time buyers and those on low incomes the hardest. "By pledging to increase the threshold to £150,000, the Liberal Democrats will make it possible for many first time buyers to buy a property without facing this tax." Paul Boateng MP, Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "The Lib Dems' sums don't add up. "They can have no credibility until they can say how they would fund their ever growing list of tax and spending commitments." Mr Cable will publish his "Alternative Budget" on Monday.

"First time buyers are being squeezed out of the housing market not only by higher house prices but also by being swept into the stamp duty net," he said.He said first-time buyers were being "squeezed out" of the housing market."By pledging to increase the threshold to £150,000, the Liberal Democrats will make it possible for many first time buyers to buy a property without facing this tax."Vince Cable, the party's Treasury spokesman, said raising the threshold to £150,000 would prevent over 400,000 home-buyers from paying the tax."By failing to uprate the stamp duty threshold Gordon Brown has hit first time buyers and those on low incomes the hardest.

Brown targets OAPs and homebuyersGordon Brown has doubled the level at which house buyers pay stamp duty to £120,000 as he put the economy at the heart of Labour's election campaign.The chancellor also unveiled a one-off £200 council tax refund for pensioners and a rise in child tax credit. Mr Brown put 1p a pint on beer, 4p on a bottle of wine and 7p on 20 cigarettes but froze petrol duty until September. The Tories called it a "vote now, pay later" Budget. The Lib Dems branded it a "sticking plaster" for the election.Tory leader Michael Howard predicted the Budget would do nothing to help Labour's "faltering" election campaign."This government and this chancellor have run out of solutions to the problems Britain faces," Mr Howard told MPs. "Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later." He ended his response with an election challenge to Labour, saying "bring it on". Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy attacked Mr Brown for failing to mention the environment and for his record on social justice. "How can it be right in Britain today that the poorest 20% pay more in tax, as a proportion of their income, than the richest 20%?" he asked.Mr Kennedy criticised Mr Brown for failing to mention the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation, saying it was "high time" the system was replaced by a "local tax based on the ability to pay". During his 49 minute speech Mr Brown told MPs he had defied the pundits by hitting his growth target of 3.1% for 2004.He said his Budget struck a balance "between tax cuts that are affordable, investments that are essential and stability that is paramount". He rejected across-the-board tax cuts in favour of targeted help for families. The child tax credit will rise in line with earnings, giving families an extra £5 a week. In contrast, the personal income tax allowance will rise only in line with inflation from £4,745 to £4,895 next month. Mr Brown told MPs child benefit would rise to a maximum of £63 a week for the first child and £111 for two children. Despite his giveaways, Budget documents show Mr Brown clawed back £265m through a clampdown on tax avoidance and increased revenue from a windfall tax on oil companies. He also scrapped stamp duty relief for commercial property in disadvantaged areas - a measure brought in just over three years ago. BBC political editor Andrew Marr suggested the sweeteners were not big enough to have a transforming effect on voters. But trust in Mr Brown's economic stewardship would be a central election issue, he said.Mr Brown also unveiled plans for a memorial to the Queen Mother, funded through a special coin to celebrate the Queen's 80th birthday. Other measures include equal tax status for same-sex couples and a deal with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to boost low cost home ownership. The level where people start paying inheritance tax will also rise from £263,000 to £275,000 from April. Mr Brown said he had met his financial "golden rule" with a £6bn surplus and he said public borrowing would continue to fall over the next five years.The economy had grown for 50 consecutive quarters, he said, and was forecast to continue doing so over the next year, with a forecast of 3% to 3.5% in 2005 and 2.5% to 3% in 2006. The first £2bn of value-for-money savings identified in the Gershon Review have been achieved, the chancellor said. Some 12,500 civil servant posts have been axed, and 7,800 relocated out of the south east of England, he added. SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown had failed the "tartan test" as there were no measures to boost the Scottish economy. Simon Thomas, of Plaid Cymru, called it a budget for Middle England. UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman attacked the plans for pensioners saying they needed "more money and the dignity of being allowed to spend it how they want," not "free bus rides". The Green Party said the Budget was a "wasted opportunity" for environmental protection, adding: "Brown obviously has an eye on the coming election, and has taken his eye off the needs of the planet."

Mr Kennedy criticised Mr Brown for failing to mention the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation, saying it was "high time" the system was replaced by a "local tax based on the ability to pay".Despite his giveaways, Budget documents show Mr Brown clawed back £265m through a clampdown on tax avoidance and increased revenue from a windfall tax on oil companies.The chancellor also unveiled a one-off £200 council tax refund for pensioners and a rise in child tax credit.Mr Brown told MPs child benefit would rise to a maximum of £63 a week for the first child and £111 for two children.SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown had failed the "tartan test" as there were no measures to boost the Scottish economy.Mr Brown said he had met his financial "golden rule" with a £6bn surplus and he said public borrowing would continue to fall over the next five years.But trust in Mr Brown's economic stewardship would be a central election issue, he said.He said his Budget struck a balance "between tax cuts that are affordable, investments that are essential and stability that is paramount".Gordon Brown has doubled the level at which house buyers pay stamp duty to £120,000 as he put the economy at the heart of Labour's election campaign."Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later."The level where people start paying inheritance tax will also rise from £263,000 to £275,000 from April.The Green Party said the Budget was a "wasted opportunity" for environmental protection, adding: "Brown obviously has an eye on the coming election, and has taken his eye off the needs of the planet."The child tax credit will rise in line with earnings, giving families an extra £5 a week.During his 49 minute speech Mr Brown told MPs he had defied the pundits by hitting his growth target of 3.1% for 2004.

Blair Labour's longest-serving PMTony Blair has become the Labour Party's longest-serving prime minister.The 51-year-old premier has marked his 2,838th day in the post, overtaking the combined length of Harold Wilson's two terms during the 1960s and 1970s. If Mr Blair wins the next election and fulfils his promise to serve a full third term, he will surpass Margaret Thatcher's 11 years by the end of 2008. In 1997, Mr Blair became the youngest premier of the 20th century, when he came to power at the age of 43. The last prime minister to be installed at a younger age was Lord Liverpool, who was a year his junior in 1812.Mr Blair's other political firsts include becoming the first Labour leader to win two successive full terms in power after the 2001 Labour landslide. And the birth of the Blairs' fourth child, Leo, on 20 May, 2000, was the first child born to a serving prime minister in more than 150 years. The last "Downing Street dad" was Lord John Russell in 1848. Labour won a huge majority of 167 over the Conservatives in 2001, but Mr Blair has since been criticised by many in his own party. The war in Iraq and reforms of the health service and education system have provoked dissent from backbenchers.Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer under Mr Blair, became Britain's longest-serving chancellor of modern times in 2004. Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the chancellor would be best placed to take over from Mr Blair. When asked about the future leadership of the party, he told ITV Wales' Waterfront programme: "That contest is a long way away and it will occur only when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, decides he's subscribed all he can and then wants to go. "I think that the main contender will be Gordon Brown, who is a man of virtually unmatched capability and now great experience." Both Mr Brown and Mr Blair rose to prominence when Lord Kinnock led Labour between 1983 and 1992.

Both Mr Brown and Mr Blair rose to prominence when Lord Kinnock led Labour between 1983 and 1992.Former Labour leader Lord Kinnock said the chancellor would be best placed to take over from Mr Blair.Tony Blair has become the Labour Party's longest-serving prime minister.Labour won a huge majority of 167 over the Conservatives in 2001, but Mr Blair has since been criticised by many in his own party.Gordon Brown, chancellor of the exchequer under Mr Blair, became Britain's longest-serving chancellor of modern times in 2004.In 1997, Mr Blair became the youngest premier of the 20th century, when he came to power at the age of 43.

Drink remark 'acts as diversion'The first minister's statement that it was okay to get drunk "once in a while" has diverted attention from the real issues, it has been claimed.Jack Law, chief executive of Alcohol Focus Scotland, said Jack McConnell's comment was "ill-advised". The media attention had helped to move the focus from Scotland's binge drinking problems, Mr Law said. Scotsman journalist Hamish MacDonell said he believed the bigger picture had been "obscured" by the remark. Mr McConnell was speaking on Monday to more than 100 secondary pupils from schools in the Highlands about the problems of binge drinking and drink promotions.The one-sentence comment was immediately criticised by the Scottish National Party which accused him of encouraging young people to get drunk. But the Scottish Executive has insisted Mr McConnell was speaking about adults and his comments were "a recognition that people will get drunk". Mr MacDonell, political editor of The Scotsman, said: "I think we have to say right at the outset that this was a very stupid and ill-advised remark by the first minister. "If you come out with something like this, saying that by all means get drunk, then you will be pilloried for it." However, he added that "perhaps Mr McConnell could feel rightly aggrieved about the coverage".Mr MacDonell said: "I think the problem here is that he did say a lot more things about binge drinking and under age drinking. "But that whole side of things has been lost in the furore over one sentence. I understand why, but I think there is a much bigger message here that has been obscured." Mr Law, from voluntary body Alcohol Focus Scotland, believed damage had been done to Scotland's fight against binge drinking. He said he accepted that young people drank and they did have problems with drink. Mr Law added: "I think the remark was ill-advised - but these remarks are blown out of all proportion and they so easily misrepresent what we are trying to do in Scotland."We don't want to preach to young people, but we need to acknowledge that they do drink problematically. "This diverts us from the real issues which are about promoting responsibility and reducing harm and indeed tackling our drinking culture which is a culture about binge drinking and drunkenness." He said it was vital that young people were properly informed about the risks incurred to themselves and others when they got drunk. Mr MacDonell said that the first minister should know by now that if he said things which were "off the mark", they were bound to "come back and bite him". He added: "Here, Mr McConnell was talking in the Highlands to 100 teenagers and every word he said was put out on a webcast by the Scottish Executive and then looked at by other politicians and reporters. "I think in this instance he has done a lot of really good things and he will be regretting this remark."The Scottish National Party's Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon wrote to Mr McConnell on Tuesday accusing him of an error of judgement and calling for him to apologise for his "ill-judged comment" and withdraw it immediately. In a furious response, the first minister said his comments had been distorted and taken out of context. He told Ms Sturgeon: "It is disappointing that you have contributed to this distortion by saying it is staggering that I 'should encourage young people to get drunk'. "That is completely untrue. Perhaps it would have been wiser for you to find out what was actually said before you rushed to represent my position, undermine the convener of education at Highland Council and insult the intelligence of the young people I spoke with - all for the sake of a simple soundbite."

But the Scottish Executive has insisted Mr McConnell was speaking about adults and his comments were "a recognition that people will get drunk".Mr MacDonell said: "I think the problem here is that he did say a lot more things about binge drinking and under age drinking.Mr MacDonell, political editor of The Scotsman, said: "I think we have to say right at the outset that this was a very stupid and ill-advised remark by the first minister.Mr MacDonell said that the first minister should know by now that if he said things which were "off the mark", they were bound to "come back and bite him".He added: "Here, Mr McConnell was talking in the Highlands to 100 teenagers and every word he said was put out on a webcast by the Scottish Executive and then looked at by other politicians and reporters.He said it was vital that young people were properly informed about the risks incurred to themselves and others when they got drunk.The media attention had helped to move the focus from Scotland's binge drinking problems, Mr Law said.The one-sentence comment was immediately criticised by the Scottish National Party which accused him of encouraging young people to get drunk.Mr McConnell was speaking on Monday to more than 100 secondary pupils from schools in the Highlands about the problems of binge drinking and drink promotions.He said he accepted that young people drank and they did have problems with drink.Mr Law added: "I think the remark was ill-advised - but these remarks are blown out of all proportion and they so easily misrepresent what we are trying to do in Scotland.

Teenagers to be allowed to be MPsTeenagers will be able to become MPs under plans unveiled by ministers.In a written statement, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said the current minimum age of 21 for an MP would be reduced to 18. The proposals follow a recommendation last year by elections watchdog the Electoral Commission. "The government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age," said Mr Leslie, who was elected in 1997 at the age of 24. Even if the move does go ahead it is unlikely it will be in place before the next general election, widely predicted for May.The announcement from Mr Leslie - who was elected in 1997 in a formerly safe Tory seat - prompted calls for a lowering of the voting age to 16. The Votes at 16 alliance said it was a good thing to "engage people" by lowering the candidacy age but argued lowering the voting age would be much more effective. "Candidacy affects only politicians. The voting age affects millions of younger people," said spokesman Alex Folkes. "We would hope that the government will table a bill that is broad enough to allow for amendments to be brought to test support for a reduction in the voting age."Currently candidates in both local and national votes must be 21 while the voting age is 18. That is because the age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1969 but laws dating from 1695 which determine the current voting age stayed in place. Irish republican Bernadette Devlin was one of just a handful of 21-year-olds elected to Parliament in the 20th century winning a seat in 1969. But the youngest is understood to have been Tory Edward Turnour, who won the 1904 Horsham by-election aged 21 and 144 days and served in Parliament for 47 continuous years. Last April's report by the Electoral Commission said there was no strong argument for leaving the age for standing for election at 21. The commission found the most common approach around the world is for the voting age to be the same as the candidacy age.

The Votes at 16 alliance said it was a good thing to "engage people" by lowering the candidacy age but argued lowering the voting age would be much more effective.That is because the age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1969 but laws dating from 1695 which determine the current voting age stayed in place.The commission found the most common approach around the world is for the voting age to be the same as the candidacy age."The government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age," said Mr Leslie, who was elected in 1997 at the age of 24.The announcement from Mr Leslie - who was elected in 1997 in a formerly safe Tory seat - prompted calls for a lowering of the voting age to 16.Last April's report by the Electoral Commission said there was no strong argument for leaving the age for standing for election at 21.The voting age affects millions of younger people," said spokesman Alex Folkes.

Cherie accused of attacking BushCherie Blair has been accused of criticising George W Bush's policies in a private address she gave during a United States lecture tour.The prime minister's wife is said to have praised the Supreme Court for overruling the White House on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Tories said she broke a convention that British political figures do not act in a partisan way when abroad. But Downing Street said she was speaking in her capacity as a lawyer. It said she was not expressing political opinions. Mrs Blair's remarks are said to have been made in a speech to law students in Massachusetts. She said the decision by the US Supreme Court to give legal protection to two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay was a significant victory for human rights and the international rule of law. She also described the US legal code as an outdated grandfather clock and welcomed a decision to throw out a law backed by Mr Bush relating to sodomy in Texas.BBC news correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said Mrs Blair was likely to face further calls for restraint, since the US election is imminent. "There have been some objections from people reasonably close to the Bush administration about her making these comments in their backyard just two days before a presidential election," he said. "Conservatives here too have made their feelings clear. "Cherie Booth has always regarded herself as having an independent career. She has continued to practise as a major human rights lawyer in the courts. "It's not unusual for her to make these sorts of criticisms clear but it can be embarrassing."

She said the decision by the US Supreme Court to give legal protection to two Britons held at Guantanamo Bay was a significant victory for human rights and the international rule of law.It said she was not expressing political opinions.But Downing Street said she was speaking in her capacity as a lawyer.Mrs Blair's remarks are said to have been made in a speech to law students in Massachusetts.BBC news correspondent Gary O'Donoghue said Mrs Blair was likely to face further calls for restraint, since the US election is imminent.The prime minister's wife is said to have praised the Supreme Court for overruling the White House on the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Visa decision 'every 11 minutes'Visa processing staff are sometimes expected to rule on an application every 11 minutes, MPs have said.Pressure was placed on staff to be efficient, rather than to do a thorough examination of an application, the Public Accounts Committee found. Every officer had an annual target of 8,000 applications - equivalent to 40 a day or one every 11 minutes. MPs want research into whether UK visa holders leave at the end of their stays, or vanish into the black market. Committee chairman Edward Leigh said: "There is a worrying tension between quick processing and proper control over the visas issued. "Entry clearance staff are expected to deal with a visa application in about 11 minutes which is surely too little time to look closely at the supporting documents. "The committee's report also discussed the Romanian and Bulgarian visas scandal which led to the resignation of immigration minister Beverley Hughes last year. Committee members said the Home Office had been wrong to dismiss concerns from visa staff abroad who feared the system was being abused. Investigations carried out in the wake of Ms Hughes' resignation found more than 7,000 people had entered the UK under the business visa scheme for Romanian and Bulgarian "entrepreneurs". Mr Leigh said the Home Office should now consider removing those who had not set up a valid business. A Home Office spokesman said the system had been toughened and tightened since the investigation. He added "that the traditional system of a dual decision making process for all pre-entry applications will be replaced by a single pre-entry check at post, which will be simpler and more robust against abuse than the current system".

Visa processing staff are sometimes expected to rule on an application every 11 minutes, MPs have said.Committee members said the Home Office had been wrong to dismiss concerns from visa staff abroad who feared the system was being abused.Committee chairman Edward Leigh said: "There is a worrying tension between quick processing and proper control over the visas issued."Entry clearance staff are expected to deal with a visa application in about 11 minutes which is surely too little time to look closely at the supporting documents. "A Home Office spokesman said the system had been toughened and tightened since the investigation.

Tory expert denies defeat warningThe Conservatives' campaign director has denied a report claiming he warned Michael Howard the party could not win the next general election.The Times on Monday said Australian Lynton Crosby told the party leader to focus on trying to increase the Tories' Commons presence by 25 to 30 seats. But Mr Crosby said in a statement: "I have never had any such conversation... and I do not hold that view." Mr Howard later added there was not "one iota" of truth in the report. The strategist helped Australia's PM, John Howard, win four elections. Mr Howard appointed Mr Crosby as his elections chief last October. Mr Crosby's statement said: "The Conservative Party has been making an impact on the issues of lower tax and controlled immigration over the past week." It added: "The Labour Party will be wanting to do all they can to distract attention away from the issues that really matter to people."

Mr Howard appointed Mr Crosby as his elections chief last October.Mr Crosby's statement said: "The Conservative Party has been making an impact on the issues of lower tax and controlled immigration over the past week."Mr Howard later added there was not "one iota" of truth in the report.But Mr Crosby said in a statement: "I have never had any such conversation... and I do not hold that view."

Blair told to double overseas aidTony Blair is being urged to use all his negotiating powers to end poor countries' debt and double aid.Some 45 million children will die needlessly before 2015 and aid budgets are half their 1960 levels, Oxfam says in a report, Paying the Price. The call comes as the prime minister prepares to assume the presidency of the G8 of top industrialised nations. "As rich countries get richer, they're giving less and less. This scandal must stop," Oxfam's Barbara Stocking said."The world's poorest children are paying for rich countries' policies in aid and debt with their lives. "2005 offers the chance for an historic breakthrough, but unless world leaders act now the year will end in shameful failure," the charity's director added. The report said: "For rich countries, providing aid to help to end global poverty is an obligation and a matter of justice, not an act of charity." It also points out that in 1970 the G8 of top industrialised nations agreed to spend 0.7% of their incomes on aid. But 34 years later none of the organisations members have reached this target and many have not yet set a timetable, the report says.It argues that the price of not investing in poor countries' sustainable development will be felt across the world. The report said: "Global poverty threatens our shared prosperity and security. "Environmental crises and natural disasters, disease and drug trafficking know no national borders. Poverty heightens the likelihood of conflict and unrest. "New threats to the peace and security of rich nations arise from poverty and gross inequalities. "Criminal and terrorist networks are more likely to operate where state institutions are weak."Both the prime minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown have called for urgent action to fight world poverty. Mr Blair, who has described Africa as a "scar" on the world's conscience, has already said tackling world poverty would be one his G8 priorities along with climate change and the Aids epidemic. Mr Brown has also pledged to write off the debt owed to Britain by the world's poor nations. A spokeswoman for the Department for International Development said: "The government had made a clear commitment to reaching 0.7% of gross national income for overseas development aid by 2013. "If Britain's proposal for an International Finance Facility were adopted, the objective of 0.7% could be achieved earlier, by 2008-09. "These additional resources will be used to increase UK bilateral aid to Africa to at least £1.25bn a year by 2008 and spend at least £1.5bn on HIV/Aids related work over the next three years."

The report said: "For rich countries, providing aid to help to end global poverty is an obligation and a matter of justice, not an act of charity.""The world's poorest children are paying for rich countries' policies in aid and debt with their lives.The report said: "Global poverty threatens our shared prosperity and security.A spokeswoman for the Department for International Development said: "The government had made a clear commitment to reaching 0.7% of gross national income for overseas development aid by 2013.Mr Blair, who has described Africa as a "scar" on the world's conscience, has already said tackling world poverty would be one his G8 priorities along with climate change and the Aids epidemic.Tony Blair is being urged to use all his negotiating powers to end poor countries' debt and double aid.It also points out that in 1970 the G8 of top industrialised nations agreed to spend 0.7% of their incomes on aid."New threats to the peace and security of rich nations arise from poverty and gross inequalities.Both the prime minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown have called for urgent action to fight world poverty.

Howard rejects BNP's claimTory leader Michael Howard has dismissed claims that his immigration policy was "moving onto the turf" of the British National Party (BNP).BNP leader Nick Griffin told the Independent he expected some BNP voters to switch to the Tories over the issue. But Mr Howard said he rejected the idea that the Tories and BNP appealed to the same voting instincts. Asked if he would welcome BNP voters he told the BBC: "I don't want anybody to vote for these extremist parties". He added, on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you want good community relations in this country...then you have to have firm, fair immigration controls."The Tories have promised an upper limit on the number of people allowed into Britain with the slogan: "It's not racist to impose limits on immigration". All parties are stepping up campaiging in the run-up to the general election, widely expected to be called for 5 May. Labour has unveiled its own "points system" for ensuring migrants who want to work in the UK have skills that are required, but have rejected immigration quotas. The Liberal Democrats have warned both parties against "pandering to prejudice".Mr Griffin told the Independent the Tories' plans were "a definite move onto our turf". He said: "I quite freely accept that on a nationwide basis, the Tories will con enough people to make a significant hole in our vote." Asked whether he was comfortable with the perception that the Conservatives and the BNP appeal to the same voting instincts, Mr Howard told the BBC: "I reject that entirely". He said he found BNP's policies "abhorrent" but he said the UK had to take a different approach to immigration, which he said was out of control. "The government doesn't want to limit it in any way, we do, there's a legitimate difference between us there which we can discuss in a calm, rational and reasonable way," he said. He again rejected newspaper speculation that his own father entered Britain illegally.

But Mr Howard said he rejected the idea that the Tories and BNP appealed to the same voting instincts.BNP leader Nick Griffin told the Independent he expected some BNP voters to switch to the Tories over the issue.Tory leader Michael Howard has dismissed claims that his immigration policy was "moving onto the turf" of the British National Party (BNP).Asked whether he was comfortable with the perception that the Conservatives and the BNP appeal to the same voting instincts, Mr Howard told the BBC: "I reject that entirely".Asked if he would welcome BNP voters he told the BBC: "I don't want anybody to vote for these extremist parties".Mr Griffin told the Independent the Tories' plans were "a definite move onto our turf".

Labour's Cunningham to stand downVeteran Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham has said he will stand down at the next election.One of the few Blair-era ministers to serve under Jim Callaghan, he was given the agriculture portfolio when Labour regained power in 1997. Mr Cunningham went on to become Tony Blair's "cabinet enforcer". He has represented the constituency now known as Copeland since 1970. Mr Blair said he was a "huge figure" in Labour and a "valued, personal friend".During Labour's long period in opposition, Mr Cunningham held a number of shadow roles including foreign affairs, the environment and as trade spokesman. As agriculture minister he caused controversy when he decided to ban beef on the bone in the wake of fears over BSE. He quit the government in 1999 and in recent years has served as the chairman of the all-party committee on Lords reform and has been a loyal supporter of the government from the backbenches.

Veteran Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham has said he will stand down at the next election.Mr Blair said he was a "huge figure" in Labour and a "valued, personal friend".One of the few Blair-era ministers to serve under Jim Callaghan, he was given the agriculture portfolio when Labour regained power in 1997.Mr Cunningham went on to become Tony Blair's "cabinet enforcer".

England children's tsar appointedThe first children's commissioner for England has been appointed.Great Ormond Street Hospital professor of child health, Al Aynsley-Green, was chosen by the government and will start the £100,000-a-year job immediately. He will oversee a £2.5m annual budget and have the power to look into "any matter relating to the interests and well-being of children". Prof Aynsley-Green has also been the national clinical director for children in the Department of Health. He promised to make sure that children's opinions "count"."I will be drawing on my experience of working with children and young people to help ensure that those with the power to improve children's lives do live up to their responsibilities. "I want all children and young people to know that they can approach me to discuss any matter that affects them, knowing that I will value their opinion." Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said Prof Aynsley-Green would "strengthen the voice of children and young people". Prof Aynsley-Green was a lecturer at Oxford University, trained at Guy's Hospital Medical School, University of London; Oriel College, Oxford; and in Switzerland. He is described as "a proud grandfather" of four. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have children's commissioners.

"I will be drawing on my experience of working with children and young people to help ensure that those with the power to improve children's lives do live up to their responsibilities.Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said Prof Aynsley-Green would "strengthen the voice of children and young people".Prof Aynsley-Green has also been the national clinical director for children in the Department of Health."I want all children and young people to know that they can approach me to discuss any matter that affects them, knowing that I will value their opinion."Great Ormond Street Hospital professor of child health, Al Aynsley-Green, was chosen by the government and will start the £100,000-a-year job immediately.

Lib Dems' 'bold' election policyCharles Kennedy has told voters his Liberal Democrats will offer them an "honest choice" at the next general election.With the other two big parties battling over which will impose the lowest taxes, Mr Kennedy is going into the looming election pledged to increase taxation. It is a bold policy and certainly ensures there is that choice between the Lib Dems and the other two. With his party's previous pledge to increase taxes by one penny in the pound to spend on public services already adopted by the government, he has switched tack. Now he is promising to levy a "modest" increase of the same amount on earnings over £100,000 a year to allow him to finance a series of pledges. They are to scrap student fees, finance free long term care for the elderly and replace the council tax with a local income tax. That last policy will also see about 3% of the most well off paying more while others, pensioners in particular, will pay less.Labour and the Tories have attacked his policies as both unworkable and not properly costed.Inevitably they insist there is no need to raise taxes to fund improvements in services. The Tories claim they can improve services AND cut taxes through £35bn efficiency savings, while Labour has offered £22bn savings but has yet to map out precise tax proposals, although there is little chance they will propose increases. In many ways the argument between the Lib Dems and the others over taxation and spending echo the sort of arguments that raged between Labour and the Tories in the 1980s and early 1990s. But, unlike the old Tory-Labour debate, he believes voters are ready to see "modest" tax increases on the well off in order to fund improvements in services. That is a view partly endorsed by recent polls suggesting people would rather have cash spent on public services than tax cuts.Similarly there is a different tone to the Lib Dem approach to asylum and immigration, with Mr Kennedy stressing politicians should not "foment an artificial debate" about immigration and attacking Michael Howard's proposals for quotas. Once again, with the two other big parties singing similar songs on immigration, Mr Kennedy is stressing the different, more liberal approach of his party. Mr Kennedy was also in buoyant mood over his party's election chances, declaring the Tories were not going to be "significant players" in the poll. He repeated his pledge not to do post-election deals with either party after the election. Mr Kennedy went on to suggest the re-election of a Labour government with a small majority would amount to a "massive vote of no confidence " in Tony Blair's government. That suggests the Lib Dem leader believes he may well find himself in a powerful, even pivotal position in a vastly different House of Commons after the next election. It is a dream the third party has dreamed many times before.

With the other two big parties battling over which will impose the lowest taxes, Mr Kennedy is going into the looming election pledged to increase taxation.Once again, with the two other big parties singing similar songs on immigration, Mr Kennedy is stressing the different, more liberal approach of his party.But, unlike the old Tory-Labour debate, he believes voters are ready to see "modest" tax increases on the well off in order to fund improvements in services.The Tories claim they can improve services AND cut taxes through £35bn efficiency savings, while Labour has offered £22bn savings but has yet to map out precise tax proposals, although there is little chance they will propose increases.With his party's previous pledge to increase taxes by one penny in the pound to spend on public services already adopted by the government, he has switched tack.Mr Kennedy was also in buoyant mood over his party's election chances, declaring the Tories were not going to be "significant players" in the poll.Charles Kennedy has told voters his Liberal Democrats will offer them an "honest choice" at the next general election.Similarly there is a different tone to the Lib Dem approach to asylum and immigration, with Mr Kennedy stressing politicians should not "foment an artificial debate" about immigration and attacking Michael Howard's proposals for quotas.

Chancellor rallies Labour votersGordon Brown has issued a rallying cry, telling supporters the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the forthcoming general election.The chancellor said the vote - expected to fall on 5 May - will give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Conservative cuts. Speaking at Labour's spring conference in Gateshead, Mr Brown claimed the NHS was not safe in Conservative hands. He said Tory plans to cut £35bn tax would "cut deep into public service".To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, the chancellor said the cuts proposed by shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country, he told activists. Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed. "Never again Tory boom and bust."This will be the central dividing line at the election, between a Conservative Party taking Britain back and planning deep cuts of £35bn in our services, and a Labour government taking Britain forward, which on a platform of stability will reform and renew our hospitals, schools and public services and, I am proud to say, spend by 2008 £60bn more." Turning to the economy, the chancellor pledged to continue economic stability and growth in a third term in power.He said after seven years Labour had transformed from a party not trusted with the economy to "the only party trusted with the economy". It was now a "party not just of employees, but of employers and managers", he said. In the speech - which prompted a standing ovation from an audience clearly "warm" to Mr Brown - he also promised to end teenage unemployment within the next five years. He also highlighted plans for 100% debt relief for the world's poorest countries, a national minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds and the creation of a network of children's centres and flexibility in maternity leave. The prime minister is to take part later on Saturday in an interactive question and answer session, fielding queries sent in by e-mail, text message and telephone as part of Labour's attempt to engage the public in their campaign.

He said Tory plans to cut £35bn tax would "cut deep into public service"."This will be the central dividing line at the election, between a Conservative Party taking Britain back and planning deep cuts of £35bn in our services, and a Labour government taking Britain forward, which on a platform of stability will reform and renew our hospitals, schools and public services and, I am proud to say, spend by 2008 £60bn more."The chancellor said the vote - expected to fall on 5 May - will give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Conservative cuts.He said after seven years Labour had transformed from a party not trusted with the economy to "the only party trusted with the economy".It was now a "party not just of employees, but of employers and managers", he said.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, the chancellor said the cuts proposed by shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country, he told activists.

Brown visits slum on Africa tripChancellor Gordon Brown has visited Kenya's biggest shantytown as he opened a week-long visit to Africa.Mr Brown's trip is designed to highlight how the UK wants to make Africa's problems a priority of its chairmanship of the G8 this year. He will see an HIV/Aids orphanage in Tanzania and a women's credit union in Mozambique before chairing a meeting of the Commission for Africa in Cape Town. At slums in Narobi on Wednesday, he said education needs had to be tackled.Speaking outside the Olympic Primary School, Mr Brown said: "It is simply not acceptable in the modern age for the rest of the world to stand by and have hundreds of millions of children not getting the chance at education." He pointed to international plans to invest $10bn for education in Africa over the next decade. The school is on the edge of Kibera, where 800,000 live often in huts made of mud, scrap metal and cardboard. Mr Brown's aides say he wants to find out more about the Kenyan Government's education policies, which included introducing free primary education in early 2003. The chancellor has already unveiled proposals for a G8 aid package which he has likened to the Marshall Plan used by the United States to rebuild Europe after World War Two. The trip follows claims of infighting between Mr Brown and Tony Blair detailed in a new book. Conservative leader Michael Howard is expected to seize on those reports at prime minister's questions at 1200 GMT on Wednesday.

Speaking outside the Olympic Primary School, Mr Brown said: "It is simply not acceptable in the modern age for the rest of the world to stand by and have hundreds of millions of children not getting the chance at education."Mr Brown's aides say he wants to find out more about the Kenyan Government's education policies, which included introducing free primary education in early 2003.He pointed to international plans to invest $10bn for education in Africa over the next decade.At slums in Narobi on Wednesday, he said education needs had to be tackled.Chancellor Gordon Brown has visited Kenya's biggest shantytown as he opened a week-long visit to Africa.

Immigration to be election issueImmigration and asylum have normally been issues politicians from the big parties have tiptoed around at election time.But no longer. Both Labour and the Tories have signalled their intention of making them central to their election campaigns. They have been struck by the level of concern amongst voters about the issues, with internal surveys showing they have the potential to swing large numbers of votes. That was also true at the last general election and the issue did briefly become a campaigning issue. But it sparked the probably predictable furore with claims politicians were either stoking up xenophobia or, alternatively, running scared of addressing the problem. But this time around it looks set to be one of the core battlegrounds with both the big parties competing to set out tough policies.The Tories are already committed to imposing annual limits on immigration, with a quota for asylum seekers and with applications processed outside the UK. Labour has already branded the proposal unworkable but party strategists have seen the Tories seizing a poll advantage over the issue.Now Home Secretary Charles Clarke has come up with alternative proposals for a points system to ensure only immigrants who can benefit the economy will be granted entry, and to kick out more failed asylum seekers. That has been attacked by the Tories as too little, too late and for failing to tackle the key issue of the numbers entering the UK. The Liberal Democrats have not been drawn too deeply into the argument but have called for a Europe-wide policy on immigration.But, while all the parties appear to agree the time has come to properly debate and address the issue, there are already signs they will run into precisely the same problems as before. Former union leader Sir Bill Morris has already accused both the big parties of engaging in a "bidding war about who can be nastiest to asylum seekers"."My concern is that, whilst the Labour Party and the Conservative Party will take a constructive approach to the debate, right-wing political parties, picking up on statements like `burden to Britain' will exploit this and create a lot of fear and uncertainty". It is precisely that concern - and the possible suggestion the issue is playing to the far right's racist agenda - that will provoke strong reactions from many concerned with this issue. The challenge for the big parties is to ensure they can engage in the debate during the cut and thrust of a general election while also avoiding that trap.

Immigration and asylum have normally been issues politicians from the big parties have tiptoed around at election time.But, while all the parties appear to agree the time has come to properly debate and address the issue, there are already signs they will run into precisely the same problems as before.Labour has already branded the proposal unworkable but party strategists have seen the Tories seizing a poll advantage over the issue.Former union leader Sir Bill Morris has already accused both the big parties of engaging in a "bidding war about who can be nastiest to asylum seekers".The challenge for the big parties is to ensure they can engage in the debate during the cut and thrust of a general election while also avoiding that trap.That has been attacked by the Tories as too little, too late and for failing to tackle the key issue of the numbers entering the UK.That was also true at the last general election and the issue did briefly become a campaigning issue.

Assembly ballot papers 'missing'Hundreds of ballot papers for the regional assembly referendum in the North East have "disappeared".Royal Mail says it is investigating the situation, which has meant about 300 homes in County Durham are not receiving voting packs. Officials at Darlington Council are now in a race against time to try and rectify the situation. The all-postal votes of about two million electors are due to be handed in by 4 November. A spokesman for Darlington Council said: "We have sent out the ballot papers, the problem is with Royal Mail. "Somewhere along the line, something has gone wrong and these ballot papers have not been delivered. "The Royal Mail is investigating to see if they can find out what the problem is."A spokeswoman for Royal Mail said: "We are investigating a problem with the delivery route in the Mowden area of Darlington. "This is affecting several hundred properties, which have failed to receive ballot papers. "We are working closely with the council and will do all we can to help rectify the problem. "No-one will not receive their ballot paper as special hand deliveries will take place where necessary. "We are unaware of any other problems of this kind to do with the regional assembly vote."The Darlington Council spokesman added: "Initially we had complaints from a couple of residents in Mowden to say they thought they should have had their ballot papers by now. "We then made further investigations and it became clear this was a bigger issue." A spokeswoman for the Electoral Commission told BBC News Online that letters were being sent out to those homes affected. She said the commission was satisfied that measures had been put in place to ensure all voters received ballot papers in time. So far a total of 569,072 ballot envelopes have been scanned by bar code at counting offices across the North East.

A spokesman for Darlington Council said: "We have sent out the ballot papers, the problem is with Royal Mail.A spokeswoman for Royal Mail said: "We are investigating a problem with the delivery route in the Mowden area of Darlington.The Darlington Council spokesman added: "Initially we had complaints from a couple of residents in Mowden to say they thought they should have had their ballot papers by now.She said the commission was satisfied that measures had been put in place to ensure all voters received ballot papers in time.Hundreds of ballot papers for the regional assembly referendum in the North East have "disappeared"."The Royal Mail is investigating to see if they can find out what the problem is.""No-one will not receive their ballot paper as special hand deliveries will take place where necessary.

Civil servants in strike ballotThe UK's biggest civil service union is to ballot its 290,000 members on strikes in protest at government plans to extend their pension age to 65.The Public and Commercial Services Union will co-ordinate any action with up to six other public sector unions. Unions have already earmarked 23 March for a one-day strike which could involve up to 1.4 million UK workers. The government says unions will be consulted before any changes are made to the pension system.PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink."For a government that lectures everyone on choice - choice on public service, choice on this and choice on that - isn't it ironic that they're saying to public sector workers there is no choice," he said. "If you want the pension you were promised when you started you must work for an extra five years - that is working until people drop. "In the 20th century, it's completely unacceptable." BBC correspondent Stephen Cape said the combined unions represented "a formidable force" which could embarrass the government in the run-up to the General Election. A stoppage involving civil servants, in particular, could seriously disrupt or close government departments, agencies and museums, he said.Opposition to raising the retirement age is "one thing all the unions are agreed on", our correspondent added. Unison's 800,000 workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union's 70,000 and Amicus' 20,000 are among those being balloted about a 23 March walkout. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures on Thursday night. Our correspondent said that he understood no deal had been offered in that meeting but that there was room for further negotiations. There was "some possibility" of the strike action being avoided, he added.

BBC correspondent Stephen Cape said the combined unions represented "a formidable force" which could embarrass the government in the run-up to the General Election.The UK's biggest civil service union is to ballot its 290,000 members on strikes in protest at government plans to extend their pension age to 65.The government says unions will be consulted before any changes are made to the pension system.The Public and Commercial Services Union will co-ordinate any action with up to six other public sector unions.PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink.Unions have already earmarked 23 March for a one-day strike which could involve up to 1.4 million UK workers.

Pre-poll clash on tax and spendLabour and the Tories have clashed over tax and spending plans as the row over Gordon Brown's Budget turned into a full scale pre-election battle.Tony Blair claimed a Tory government would "cut" £35bn from public services hitting schools, hospitals and police. Tory chairman Liam Fox accused Labour of "at best misrepresentation at worst a downright lie" and said the "smear" tactics were a sign of desperation. The Lib Dems accused Mr Brown of ducking the issue of council tax rises.Appearing together at a Labour poster launch, the prime minister hailed his chancellor's "brilliant" performance. And he claimed the Tories would cut £35bn from public services, which was the equivalent of sacking every doctor and teacher in the UK.The Tories said they would not cut spending but agreed public spending would increase more slowly under their plans - leading to a total of £33.5bn less spending than that anticipated by Labour by 2011. But they say not a single doctor, teacher or nurse will be cut. Dr Fox said: "We have said we will be spending more, year on year over and above inflation. "And to call that a cut is at best a misrepresentation, at worst a downright lie."Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin also predicted Mr Brown would have to raise taxes by £10bn or £11bn if Labour was re-elected because he was borrowing and spending too much. For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable said the chancellor had failed to deal with the "looming problems" of revaluation of council tax bands which he argued would result in "massive increases" for some. Mr Brown and Mr Blair staged a show of unity on Thursday morning, the day after the chancellor delivered a record-breaking ninth Budget.Mr Cable said taxation as a share of the economy would go up under all three of the main parties. The chancellor meanwhile insisted his spending plans were "affordable". In Wednesday's Budget, Mr Brown doubled the level at which homebuyers pay stamp duty, unveiled a rise in child tax credit and a £200 council tax refund for over-65s. Defending the plans, he told Today: "I will take no risks with the stability of the economy. "All our spending plans announced yesterday [Wednesday], including what we can do for pensioners, as well as for young families and on stamp duty and inheritance tax, all these are costed and affordable." In a further sign, if any were needed, that the election is approaching, the House of Commons authorities have formally told MPs their offices will be "deep cleaned" during the three-week poll campaign. Mr Blair has yet to name the day - but it is widely expected to be 5 May.

The Tories said they would not cut spending but agreed public spending would increase more slowly under their plans - leading to a total of £33.5bn less spending than that anticipated by Labour by 2011.Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin also predicted Mr Brown would have to raise taxes by £10bn or £11bn if Labour was re-elected because he was borrowing and spending too much.And he claimed the Tories would cut £35bn from public services, which was the equivalent of sacking every doctor and teacher in the UK.Mr Cable said taxation as a share of the economy would go up under all three of the main parties.Tory chairman Liam Fox accused Labour of "at best misrepresentation at worst a downright lie" and said the "smear" tactics were a sign of desperation.Labour and the Tories have clashed over tax and spending plans as the row over Gordon Brown's Budget turned into a full scale pre-election battle.The Lib Dems accused Mr Brown of ducking the issue of council tax rises.For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable said the chancellor had failed to deal with the "looming problems" of revaluation of council tax bands which he argued would result in "massive increases" for some.

UK rebate 'unjustified' - ChiracFrench president Jacques Chirac has called the UK's £3bn rebate from the European Union "unjustified".Speaking after a summit meeting he said unless it was put up for discussion the EU would never be able to reach agreement on its medium term finances. Earlier Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK was prepared to veto any bid to reduce the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. He said it remained justified because less EU farm money came to the UK.Mr Chirac told reporters in Brussels: "One can only have a reasonable budgetary balance if we put back on the table the British cheque. It can no longer be justified. It was from the past." But a UK Government official responded: "Even with the rebate, the UK pays two and a half times more than France contributes to the EU budget. Without it we would pay 14 times as much as France. "There can be no deal on future financing which does not protect the rebate."The 25-member EU is gearing up for tough negotiations on its budget plans for the period 2007-2013, with the bloc's Luxembourg presidency hoping to strike a deal at a June summit. Earlier Conservative Graham Brady said the rebate was a "crucial test" of how firmly ministers were prepared to stand up for Britain. EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has indicated he wants the rebate to come to an end. Mr Straw said that as well as the veto over the rebate the UK wanted to keep a tight rein on national contributions.The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the European Commission has urged an increase to 1.26%. Mr Straw has said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget. Shadow Europe minister Mr Brady said: "I believe it is essential that Britain keeps the rebate and I think it's a crucial test of how firmly the British government is prepared to stand up for Britain internationally in Europe."The UK is already one of the biggest net contributors to the EU ." The foreign secretary meanwhile said the "justice" of the rebate remained. "We have one of the lowest net receipts of any EU country because of the relatively small size of our agriculture sector and its efficiency. "That continues to be the case."UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman said the rebate was "set in stone" and there was no reason to negotiate about it. "It is extraordinary to do it at this time, just as we are becoming the biggest contributor to the EU. If we lose our rebate as well, the British taxpayer is going to be bled at such a rate that I think everyone will go off the European project." EU leaders are holding talks in Brussels on how to re-energise the sluggish European economy. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is meeting his EU counterparts to finalise a package of measures aimed at stimulating growth and boosting employment ahead of a series of referendums on the European Constitution. The plans could introduce a free market into everything from computer services to construction. Critics - including Germany and France - believe liberalisation could result in companies shifting staff to cheaper bases in Eastern Europe, undercutting large EU economies and undermining social protections. There are also concerns about the number of workers from eastern European countries who will head west, exacerbating the already high unemployment levels in Germany.Mr Straw insisted there was nothing to fear from the services directorate. "European countries overall have benefited hugely from the free market in goods," he said. "What we are now talking about is developing that market into an internal market in services." Britain's low unemployment meant there was less "neurosis" about people coming from eastern European countries. "In countries like Germany and France, where frankly because of a tighter social market they have much higher levels of unemployment, there is increasing anxiety about other people coming in," he said.

He said it remained justified because less EU farm money came to the UK.But a UK Government official responded: "Even with the rebate, the UK pays two and a half times more than France contributes to the EU budget.Earlier Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the UK was prepared to veto any bid to reduce the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.Mr Straw has said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget.UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman said the rebate was "set in stone" and there was no reason to negotiate about it.Mr Straw said that as well as the veto over the rebate the UK wanted to keep a tight rein on national contributions."The UK is already one of the biggest net contributors to the EU ."The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the European Commission has urged an increase to 1.26%.Earlier Conservative Graham Brady said the rebate was a "crucial test" of how firmly ministers were prepared to stand up for Britain."European countries overall have benefited hugely from the free market in goods," he said.Speaking after a summit meeting he said unless it was put up for discussion the EU would never be able to reach agreement on its medium term finances.The foreign secretary meanwhile said the "justice" of the rebate remained."In countries like Germany and France, where frankly because of a tighter social market they have much higher levels of unemployment, there is increasing anxiety about other people coming in," he said.Shadow Europe minister Mr Brady said: "I believe it is essential that Britain keeps the rebate and I think it's a crucial test of how firmly the British government is prepared to stand up for Britain internationally in Europe.

Stalemate in pension strike talksTalks aimed at averting national strikes over pension reforms have ended without agreement after 90 minutes.Five public sector unions met Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at the Labour spring conference in Gateshead. They want the government to withdraw regulations - due to be introduced in weeks - which would raise the pension age for council workers from 60 to 65. Up to 1.4 million workers could take part in strikes earmarked for 23 March. Discussions will resume next week.A spokesman for Unison, Britain's biggest union, said after Saturday's meeting: "At least we are still talking." All sides are anxious to avoid a major confrontation in the run up to the general election, said BBC labour affairs correspondent Stephen Cape. In four days, Unison will start balloting 800,000 local government workers on strikes. Other public sector unions have pledged to follow. The five unions which met Mr Prescott want the government to withdraw these regulations. This would allow months of tough negotiations to follow, said our correspondent. But a spokesman for Mr Prescott warned that the changes to the local government pension scheme would have to go ahead in April.Privately ministers believe this will be the "less painful" option, our correspondent added. The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) will co-ordinate any industrial action with up to six other public sector unions. PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned last week that there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink. "For a government that lectures everyone on choice - choice on public service, choice on this and choice on that - isn't it ironic that they're saying to public sector workers there is no choice," he said. "If you want the pension you were promised when you started you must work for an extra five years - that is working until people drop. "In the 20th century, it's completely unacceptable."Unison's 800,000 workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union's 70,000 and Amicus' 20,000 are among those being balloted about a 23 March walkout. Mr Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures last week. It is understood no deal was offered in that meeting but there was room for further negotiations.

The five unions which met Mr Prescott want the government to withdraw these regulations.They want the government to withdraw regulations - due to be introduced in weeks - which would raise the pension age for council workers from 60 to 65.Five public sector unions met Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at the Labour spring conference in Gateshead.Mr Prescott held a private meeting with senior union figures last week.Other public sector unions have pledged to follow.But a spokesman for Mr Prescott warned that the changes to the local government pension scheme would have to go ahead in April.PCS leader Mark Serwotka warned last week that there could be further walkouts unless there was a government rethink.The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) will co-ordinate any industrial action with up to six other public sector unions.A spokesman for Unison, Britain's biggest union, said after Saturday's meeting: "At least we are still talking."

Amnesty chief laments war failureThe lack of public outrage about the war on terror is a powerful indictment of the failure of human rights groups, Amnesty International's chief has said.In a lecture at the London School of Economics, Irene Khan said human rights had been flouted in the name of security since 11 September, 2001. She said the human rights movement had to use simpler language both to prevent scepticism and spread a moral message. And it had to fight poverty, not just focus on political rights for elites.Ms Khan highlighted detentions without trial, including those at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and the abuse of prisoners as evidence of increasing human rights problems. "What's a new challenge is the way in which this age-old debate on security and human rights has been translated into the language of war," she said. "By using the language of war, human rights are being sidelined because we know human rights do not apply in times of war." Ms Khan said such breaches were infectious and were now seen in almost very major country in the world. "The human rights movement faces a crisis of faith in the value of human rights," she said. That was accompanied by a crisis of governance, where the United Nations system did not seem able to hold countries to account.The Amnesty secretary-general said a growing gap between the perceived influence of human rights group and what they could actually achieve was fuelling scepticism. "Public passivity on the war against terror is the single most powerful indictment on the failures of human rights groups," she said. Ms Khan said the movement had failed to mobilise public outrage about what was happening to the human rights system. There needed to be a drive to use simpler language, talking about the basic morality of the issues rather than the complexity of legal processes. Such efforts could make the issues more relevant to people across the world, she said.The human rights groups also had to recognise there were new groups which had to be tackled in new ways as power dripped away from state governments. Al-Qaeda, for example, was not going to be impressed by a traditional Amnesty letter writing campaign. More also needed to be done to develop a human rights framework for international business corporations. Amnesty International members voted in 2001 to extend the organisation's work from political and civil rights to cover social and economic rights too. Ms Khan said the human rights movement would make itself irrelevant if it turned away from the suffering caused by economic strife. "We would be an elitist bunch working for the elites, for those who cannot read the newspaper of their choice rather than those who cannot read," she said. Despite her concerns, Ms Khan dubbed herself a "hope-monger", saying she was confident the passions of the human rights movement could overcome the new challenges.

Ms Khan said the movement had failed to mobilise public outrage about what was happening to the human rights system."The human rights movement faces a crisis of faith in the value of human rights," she said."By using the language of war, human rights are being sidelined because we know human rights do not apply in times of war."Ms Khan said the human rights movement would make itself irrelevant if it turned away from the suffering caused by economic strife.She said the human rights movement had to use simpler language both to prevent scepticism and spread a moral message."Public passivity on the war against terror is the single most powerful indictment on the failures of human rights groups," she said.The lack of public outrage about the war on terror is a powerful indictment of the failure of human rights groups, Amnesty International's chief has said."What's a new challenge is the way in which this age-old debate on security and human rights has been translated into the language of war," she said.The Amnesty secretary-general said a growing gap between the perceived influence of human rights group and what they could actually achieve was fuelling scepticism.

Tutu's Guantanamo release callArchbishop Desmond Tutu has called for the release of the remaining inmates at Guantanamo Bay and terror suspects detained without trial in the UK.His comments follow news that all four Britons held by the US in the Cuban camp will be freed within weeks. The South African archbishop said detentions without trial were "unacceptable" and "distressing". Twelve foreign nationals are being held indefinitely without trial in the UK under anti-terror laws. Referring to the detentions in Cuba, Archbishop Tutu told BBC News: "It is utterly unacceptable. "The rule of law is in order to ensure that those who have power don't use their power arbitrarily and every person retains their human rights until you have proven conclusively that so-and-so is in fact guilty."Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, and Martin Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Feroz Abbasi, from London, have been held by the US at Guantanamo Bay for almost three years. On Tuesday Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Commons that the US had agreed to release the four after "intensive and complex discussions" over security. The Britons were detained as part of the US-led "war on terror". The archbishop added: "Whilst we are saying thank you that these have been released, what is happening to those left behind? "We in South Africa used to have a dispensation that detained people without trial and the world quite rightly condemned that as unacceptable."Now if it was unacceptable then how come it can be acceptable to Britain and the United States. It is so, so deeply distressing." Following Mr Straw's announcement, lawyer Louise Christian, who represents Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the government should have acted sooner. Foreign nationals detained in the UK are being held at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. In December the House of Lords, the UK's highest court, ruled that the anti-terror measures broke human rights laws. But the men are still behind bars.Archbishop Tutu criticised the measures, saying: "I am opposed to any arbitrary detention that is happening, even in Britain." Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, has called on the government to "practise what it preaches" and either free or charge the detained men. But the Home Office defended the measures. A spokesman said: "These individuals cannot currently be prosecuted because some evidence, such as that provided by third parties, cannot safely be disclosed in criminal proceedings without putting others at risk. "It is also currently the case that intelligence gained from covert intercepts cannot be used in a court of law."

The South African archbishop said detentions without trial were "unacceptable" and "distressing".Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for the release of the remaining inmates at Guantanamo Bay and terror suspects detained without trial in the UK.Twelve foreign nationals are being held indefinitely without trial in the UK under anti-terror laws."We in South Africa used to have a dispensation that detained people without trial and the world quite rightly condemned that as unacceptable.Archbishop Tutu criticised the measures, saying: "I am opposed to any arbitrary detention that is happening, even in Britain."Referring to the detentions in Cuba, Archbishop Tutu told BBC News: "It is utterly unacceptable.Foreign nationals detained in the UK are being held at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons.Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, has called on the government to "practise what it preaches" and either free or charge the detained men.The archbishop added: "Whilst we are saying thank you that these have been released, what is happening to those left behind?

Howard and Blair tax pledge clashTony Blair has said voters will have to wait for Labour's manifesto to see if the party has plans to increase tax.The premier was responding to a challenge from Tory leader Michael Howard who said Labour would raise taxes in its post-election Budget. Mr Blair derided Tory claims they could cut £35bn in "wasteful spending" saying the party had got its sums wrong. The two political leaders clashed just days after the opening salvoes of the pre-election period. Mr Howard told MPs that "every independent expert" from the International Monetary Fund to the Institute of Fiscal Studies had suggested the "government was spending more than it is raising and a Labour chancellor would have to put up taxes". Mr Blair replied: "I think they are wrong for this very simple reason: that the Treasury forecasts on the economy have been proven right." The Tories on Monday highlighted their plans for tax cuts worth £4bn, although the specific taxes to be cut have not been announced.They also spelled out their plans for reduced government borrowing and more spending on key services. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services. But Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes. The Liberal Democrats have also launched their pre-election platform, with leader Charles Kennedy saying his party was the "authentic opposition", particularly on the Iraq war, council tax and university tuition fees. Labour hit back at the Tory proposals even before their publication with election coordinator Alan Milburn accusing Mr Howard of producing a "fraudulent prospectus".

The premier was responding to a challenge from Tory leader Michael Howard who said Labour would raise taxes in its post-election Budget.But Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes.Mr Blair derided Tory claims they could cut £35bn in "wasteful spending" saying the party had got its sums wrong.Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services.Mr Howard told MPs that "every independent expert" from the International Monetary Fund to the Institute of Fiscal Studies had suggested the "government was spending more than it is raising and a Labour chancellor would have to put up taxes".

Game warnings 'must be clearer'Violent video games should carry larger warnings so parents can understand what their children are playing, the trade and industry secretary has said.Patricia Hewitt is expected to call for the law banning the sale of 18-rated games to children to be enforced better at a games industry meeting on Sunday. She is concerned too many children are playing games aimed at adults which include "high levels of violence". Parents are expected to spend millions on video games as Christmas presents.Violent games have been hit by controversy after the game Manhunt was blamed by the parents of 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah, who was stabbed to death in Leicester in February. His mother, Giselle, said her son's killer, Warren Leblanc, 17 - who was jailed for life in September - had mimicked behaviour in the game. Police investigating the Stefan's murder dismissed its influence and Manhunt was not part of its legal case. Ahead of Sunday's meeting in London, Ms Hewitt said she was proud of the UK's "vibrant games industry" but was concerned too many children were playing games which should only be sold to adults. Roger Bennett, head of gaming industry body ELSPA, said banning violent games would be wrong. He said: "We don't want to go down that route. We have seen that the government is supportive of the industry." The government is holding a further meeting on Friday with industry and retail representatives as well as the British Board of Film Classification to discuss how labelling can be made clearer. Ms Hewitt said: "Adults should be treated as adults and children as children. It is important that retailers respect the classifications and do not sell games with high levels of violence to minors."Equally parents need to know what they might be buying for their children. "Video games are different to films or videos, and not all parents have grown up playing games in the way our children do. "We need to look carefully at how we improve content warnings and strengthen sales enforcement." Her call was backed by Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Tessa Jowell who said: "You wouldn't let your child watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. You wouldn't let them go to a strip club. "So you shouldn't let them play an 18-rated game. It's the same principle - adults can make their own informed choices, but children can't always and need to be protected." Anyone convicted of selling an 18-rated game to a child can be jailed for six months and fined up to £5,000. Rockstar Games, the makers of Manhunt, has said in the past it markets its games responsibly and only targets its adverts at adults.

Ahead of Sunday's meeting in London, Ms Hewitt said she was proud of the UK's "vibrant games industry" but was concerned too many children were playing games which should only be sold to adults.Violent video games should carry larger warnings so parents can understand what their children are playing, the trade and industry secretary has said.Patricia Hewitt is expected to call for the law banning the sale of 18-rated games to children to be enforced better at a games industry meeting on Sunday."Video games are different to films or videos, and not all parents have grown up playing games in the way our children do.Violent games have been hit by controversy after the game Manhunt was blamed by the parents of 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah, who was stabbed to death in Leicester in February.She is concerned too many children are playing games aimed at adults which include "high levels of violence"."So you shouldn't let them play an 18-rated game.Roger Bennett, head of gaming industry body ELSPA, said banning violent games would be wrong.Anyone convicted of selling an 18-rated game to a child can be jailed for six months and fined up to £5,000.Ms Hewitt said: "Adults should be treated as adults and children as children.

Burglar defence guidelines issuedHouseholders who injure or even kill intruders are unlikely to be prosecuted - providing they were acting "honestly and instinctively", new guidelines say.The law also protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon. The leaflet, published by police and prosecutors, aims to combat confusion about current legislation, which lets people use "reasonable force". The guidance, relating to England and Wales, follows a recent decision by ministers not to change the law. Doing what you "honestly and instinctively" believed was necessary would be the strongest evidence of acting lawfully, the guidance said.And the law protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon, said the leaflet published jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).As a general rule, the more extreme the circumstances and fear felt, the more force can be used lawfully in self-defence, it said, adding that householders do not have to wait to be attacked before defending themselves. But knocking someone unconscious then killing them or hurting them further, or setting a trap for an intruder without involving the police were given as examples of "excessive and gratuitous" force. The Tories have called for a change in the law so householders are only prosecuted if they use "grossly disproportionate" force. Their demands have been backed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens. Tory frontbencher Patrick Mercer is now pursuing the proposal through a private member's bill in Parliament.The government instead mounted a publicity campaign to clear up public uncertainty after a review concluded no law change was necessary. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said: "I believe in that old adage 'an Englishman's home is his castle'. That's exactly what should be the case and I believe the current law provides that." An "informal trawl" of CPS records found 11 people had been prosecuted after attacking intruders in the past 15 years, five of whom were convicted. They included a man who laid in wait for a burglar on commercial premises in Cheshire, before beating him up, throwing him into a pit and setting him on fire.A CPS spokesperson said the figures were not definitive because prosecutions are not listed according to whether they were committed by a householder on an intruder. In one of Britain's highest profile cases, Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was jailed for life for murdering 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras, in 1999. The conviction was later reduced to manslaughter on appeal and the sentence cut to five years. Mr Martin was freed from prison in July 2003. The guidance published on Tuesday, said the police had a duty to investigate all incidents involving a death or injury. In cases involving householders attacking intruders prosecutors and police were "determined" they would be dealt with "as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible", it said.

And the law protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon, said the leaflet published jointly by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).In cases involving householders attacking intruders prosecutors and police were "determined" they would be dealt with "as swiftly and as sympathetically as possible", it said.The Tories have called for a change in the law so householders are only prosecuted if they use "grossly disproportionate" force.Doing what you "honestly and instinctively" believed was necessary would be the strongest evidence of acting lawfully, the guidance said.The guidance published on Tuesday, said the police had a duty to investigate all incidents involving a death or injury.A CPS spokesperson said the figures were not definitive because prosecutions are not listed according to whether they were committed by a householder on an intruder.The leaflet, published by police and prosecutors, aims to combat confusion about current legislation, which lets people use "reasonable force".The law also protects those who use "something to hand" as a weapon.But knocking someone unconscious then killing them or hurting them further, or setting a trap for an intruder without involving the police were given as examples of "excessive and gratuitous" force.

Kennedy begins pre-election tourLiberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has begun a week-long tour to persuade voters they are the "real opposition".Mr Kennedy is visiting constituencies in Somerset and Hampshire on Monday - rural seats where his party is hoping to make gains from the Conservatives. Later he will visit places, such as Liverpool, where Labour is targeted. Labour say a Lib Dem vote could "let the Tories in", while the Tories say the Lib Dems would mean "higher taxes, soft crime laws, more power to Europe". Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May. On Tuesday Mr Kennedy will visit Leicester South, where Lib Dem MP Parmjit Singh Gill overturned a big Labour majority to win the seat in last year's by-election.Stops in Shrewsbury, North Dorset, Liverpool, Manchester, Basingstoke and west London are planned for later in the week. The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories. Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience". Asked whether it was realistic to assume the Liberal Democrats could win the general election, he said: "There's no limit to the ambitions we have as a party. "But we have got to be responsible, we have got to be credible, we have got to demonstrate to people that we are up to that task."Mr Kennedy said the British public felt let down by Labour on issues from Iraq to top-up fees and the Conservatives were not "asking the critical questions". And he said people were "highly sceptical" about Labour and Conservative promises on tax. But he brushed off Labour suggestions a vote for his party would mean letting the Tories in "by the back door". "If you look at the four previous parliamentary by-elections, the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that, not only can we leapfrog the Conservatives where we start in a third place position, but we can go on to defeat the government. "That's going to be the story, I think, of this coming general election."

The Liberal Democrats say in the northern cities, the race is between them and Labour, while in southern seats - particularly the south west - it is between them and the Tories.Mr Kennedy said the British public felt let down by Labour on issues from Iraq to top-up fees and the Conservatives were not "asking the critical questions".Mr Kennedy's tour comes as he, Labour leader Tony Blair and Conservative leader Michael Howard all step up campaigning ahead of the next General Election, widely expected to be held on 5 May.On Tuesday Mr Kennedy will visit Leicester South, where Lib Dem MP Parmjit Singh Gill overturned a big Labour majority to win the seat in last year's by-election.Asked whether it was realistic to assume the Liberal Democrats could win the general election, he said: "There's no limit to the ambitions we have as a party.Speaking to the BBC's Westminster Hour on Sunday, Mr Kennedy said the upcoming general election - widely tipped for 5 May - would be much more unpredictable than any others in "recent experience".And he said people were "highly sceptical" about Labour and Conservative promises on tax.

Defection timed to hit tax pledgeWith impeccable and precisely-calculated timing, Tory defector Robert Jackson and his new Labour bosses have attempted to overshadow Michael Howard's latest announcement on taxation and spending.With just about everyone in Westminster now working towards a May general election, Mr Howard is eager to map out some clear and distinctive policies aimed at finally shifting the Tories' resolutely depressing poll showings. The big idea is his £35bn savings on waste and bureaucracy which Mr Howard has pledged to plough back into public services and tax cuts. And it was virtually certain his pledge on tax cuts was meant to be the core message from his interview on the BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme. He and his shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin have been edging towards an announcement on this front for some months now, but without any concrete pledges. But Mr Howard announced that, of the £35bn he has earmarked from savings, £12bn will be used to plug Labour's claimed financial black hole with any left over going to tax cuts in Mr Letwin's first budget. He would not be precise, but there are already suggestions he is set to announce lifting the threshold on income tax and reforming or abolishing inheritance tax. But he did, for the first time, say there would be such tax cuts."At this election, people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair who will waste more and tax more and the Conservative party which will give value for money and tax less". It is the Tories' attempt to open that famed "clear blue water" between them and the Labour party and return to a traditional Tory agenda that will both reassure the middle England voters who have abandoned him and appeal to core Conservative voters. So it is a pretty safe bet to assume that, when Robert Jackson finally decided to jump ship and swim over to the Labour benches, his new masters decided to time the announcement for the greatest possible impact. Mr Howard, however, was dismissive. "These things happen from time to time. There are disagreements between Robert Jackson and me."The election is not going to be decided on what Robert Jackson did," he added. And that is certainly true. The election will be decided on "the economy stupid". Other issues like the Iraq war and the "trust" thing will also play a major part. But it is the economy that will probably be the greatest influence over the way people finally vote. And many on the Tory benches have been crying out for Mr Howard to get back onto the old Tory tax cuts agenda. Mr Howard knows that risks accusations that, as a result, he would slash public services, so he has attempted to shoot that fox first. With polls suggesting voters would rather any government cash surpluses were spent on schools and hospitals before tax cuts, he has suggested that is exactly what he will do. Whether this will finally be enough to shift those polls remains to be seen.

But he did, for the first time, say there would be such tax cuts."At this election, people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair who will waste more and tax more and the Conservative party which will give value for money and tax less".So it is a pretty safe bet to assume that, when Robert Jackson finally decided to jump ship and swim over to the Labour benches, his new masters decided to time the announcement for the greatest possible impact.The big idea is his £35bn savings on waste and bureaucracy which Mr Howard has pledged to plough back into public services and tax cuts."The election is not going to be decided on what Robert Jackson did," he added.But Mr Howard announced that, of the £35bn he has earmarked from savings, £12bn will be used to plug Labour's claimed financial black hole with any left over going to tax cuts in Mr Letwin's first budget.And many on the Tory benches have been crying out for Mr Howard to get back onto the old Tory tax cuts agenda.With just about everyone in Westminster now working towards a May general election, Mr Howard is eager to map out some clear and distinctive policies aimed at finally shifting the Tories' resolutely depressing poll showings.Mr Howard knows that risks accusations that, as a result, he would slash public services, so he has attempted to shoot that fox first.Mr Howard, however, was dismissive.

Profile: Gordon BrownThe ultimate prize of 10 Downing Street may continue to elude him but, as he prepares to deliver a record-breaking ninth budget, Gordon Brown can at least console himself with the thought that he is the longest serving chancellor of modern times.He reached that milestone last June, when he overtook David Lloyd George, who served for seven years and 43 days between 1908 and 1915. How much longer Mr Brown will continue in the job is not clear (he once said there are two types of chancellor: "those who fail and those who get out in time.") There are rumours he will be moved to the Foreign Office if Labour wins the general election. But, for now, Mr Brown dominates the domestic political scene like few chancellors - or politicians - before him.Gordon Brown was born in Glasgow on 20 February 1951, the son of a Church of Scotland Minister in the small Fife town of Kirkcaldy. At 12, he was canvassing for Labour and by his 20s he was a leading political activist in Scotland. He achieved a first class degree in history from Edinburgh University, where he went on to complete a PhD. His early career was spent lecturing, working in television and making a name for himself in the Scottish Labour Party.His first attempt to enter Westminster, for Edinburgh South in 1979, was thwarted by the present Tory spokesman on foreign affairs, Michael Ancram. But in 1983, he took Dunfermline East, a new constituency including Rosyth naval base, pit villages and coastal towns.Entering Westminster, he came to share an office with the newly elected MP for Sedgefield, Tony Blair. Within four years, Mr Brown had gained his first frontbench post as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury. He became shadow chancellor under John Smith's leadership in 1992. After the death of leader John Smith in 1994 he stood aside, agreeing to give Tony Blair a clear run at the leadership during a now infamous meal at the Granita restaurant in Islington.The other part of the deal, that Mr Blair will one day stand down in favour of the chancellor, is the stuff of Westminster legend. Mr Blair's supporters say such a deal never existed and endless newspaper columns - and even a television film - have been devoted to the alleged deal. But if his leadership ambitions were at least temporarily thwarted in 1994, Mr Brown continued his devotion to politics. During the 1997 election campaign, he is said to have worked an average of 18 hours a day, six days a week after running on a treadmill for an hour each morning.This dedication to his career was underlined by a comment by Mr Brown's former girlfriend of five years, Princess Marguerite of Romania, the eldest daughter of ex-King Michael of Romania, who said a relationship with him was "politics, politics, politics".If that was true then, Mr Brown, who married PR executive Sarah Macaulay in 2000, changed his perspective when the couple were hit by tragedy early in 2002. Their daughter Jennifer died in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, 10 days after being born seven weeks prematurely. A year later, in October 2003, the couple had a son - John - an event which again gave the chancellor an opportunity to show his softer side. A trip to Africa earlier this year, to publicise his scheme to cancel the debt of poor nations, also gave the chancellor an opportunity to show his more human side.The ideological differences between Mr Brown and Mr Blair remain relatively modest. The chancellor opposes the further encroachment of the market into the NHS and is seen as being more "Old Labour" than Mr Blair in his approach to wealth redistribution. But their shared belief that market economics are compatible with social justice continues to form the ideological heart of the New Labour project. Yet they are portrayed by the media as being locked in almost permanent conflict, with Mr Brown supposedly nursing resentment at being betrayed by his younger Downing Street neighbour over the succession. Mr Blair, for his part, is said to be frustrated that his public service reforms are being thwarted by a vengeful Mr Brown, who reportedly delights in keeping the prime minister in the dark over the contents of his Budget until the last possible minute. After a recent run of negative headlines, Labour MPs took the unprecedented step of making a direct appeal to the two men stop bickering, for the good of the party. Events like this, and the testimony of former ministerial colleagues, make it impossible to dismiss the Brown/Blair feud as just journalistic hearsay, cooked up by hacks and camp followers in the hothouse atmosphere of Westminster. How much it damages the ability of government to do its job is open to question.A truce appears to have been called in the run up to the general election after a fresh spat was sparked by Blairite Alan Milburn being brought in over the head of Mr Brown to run the election campaign. But with the Tories having appeared to get the better of the pre-election campaign thus far there are reports that Mr Brown - using the Budget as a springboard - is to revitalise Labour's campaign. Amid all this it is easy to forget that Mr Brown remains the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader. There may be no shortage of possible contenders for the crown - including Mr Milburn - but none can command the sort of support in the parliamentary party and beyond that Mr Brown can. And Mr Blair's decision to name his own retirement date has at least given Mr Brown something to aim for - even if the prime minister's intention to "serve a full third term" if elected, took the shine off the announcement for the chancellor and his supporters.

The ideological differences between Mr Brown and Mr Blair remain relatively modest.Amid all this it is easy to forget that Mr Brown remains the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair as Labour leader.How much longer Mr Brown will continue in the job is not clear (he once said there are two types of chancellor: "those who fail and those who get out in time.")But, for now, Mr Brown dominates the domestic political scene like few chancellors - or politicians - before him.Mr Blair, for his part, is said to be frustrated that his public service reforms are being thwarted by a vengeful Mr Brown, who reportedly delights in keeping the prime minister in the dark over the contents of his Budget until the last possible minute.The other part of the deal, that Mr Blair will one day stand down in favour of the chancellor, is the stuff of Westminster legend.And Mr Blair's decision to name his own retirement date has at least given Mr Brown something to aim for - even if the prime minister's intention to "serve a full third term" if elected, took the shine off the announcement for the chancellor and his supporters.There may be no shortage of possible contenders for the crown - including Mr Milburn - but none can command the sort of support in the parliamentary party and beyond that Mr Brown can.But if his leadership ambitions were at least temporarily thwarted in 1994, Mr Brown continued his devotion to politics.The chancellor opposes the further encroachment of the market into the NHS and is seen as being more "Old Labour" than Mr Blair in his approach to wealth redistribution.A truce appears to have been called in the run up to the general election after a fresh spat was sparked by Blairite Alan Milburn being brought in over the head of Mr Brown to run the election campaign.If that was true then, Mr Brown, who married PR executive Sarah Macaulay in 2000, changed his perspective when the couple were hit by tragedy early in 2002.Within four years, Mr Brown had gained his first frontbench post as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.But with the Tories having appeared to get the better of the pre-election campaign thus far there are reports that Mr Brown - using the Budget as a springboard - is to revitalise Labour's campaign.This dedication to his career was underlined by a comment by Mr Brown's former girlfriend of five years, Princess Marguerite of Romania, the eldest daughter of ex-King Michael of Romania, who said a relationship with him was "politics, politics, politics".

Sainsbury's Labour election giftScience Minister Lord Sainsbury has made a £2m donation to the Labour Party for its General Election fund.It is the latest hefty donation to the party by the billionaire - he has contributed more than £10m since 1999. David Sainsbury said he was pleased to give cash to a party that had the "vision" to deliver economic prosperity and better public services for Britain. General Secretary Matt Carter said it was "a fantastic gift" that would help Labour "fight and win the election"."Through the generosity of David Sainsbury and other Labour supporters, Labour will be campaigning hard to take Britain forward and to stop the Tories taking us back," Mr Carter said. Lord Sainsbury added: "I am pleased to be able to make this contribution to the general election funds of the Labour Party because I believe that they are the only party that has the vision to deliver both economic prosperity and better public services for Britain." The 64-year-old latest donation follows a £2.5m gift to the party in 2003. Lord Sainsbury was created a life peer in 1997, a year before he was appointed as minister for science.

Science Minister Lord Sainsbury has made a £2m donation to the Labour Party for its General Election fund.Lord Sainsbury added: "I am pleased to be able to make this contribution to the general election funds of the Labour Party because I believe that they are the only party that has the vision to deliver both economic prosperity and better public services for Britain."David Sainsbury said he was pleased to give cash to a party that had the "vision" to deliver economic prosperity and better public services for Britain.The 64-year-old latest donation follows a £2.5m gift to the party in 2003.

Labour seeks to quell feud talkLabour's leadership put on a show of unity at a campaign poster launch after MPs criticised Tony Blair and Gordon Brown over reports of their rift.Mr Brown was joined at the launch by John Prescott and Alan Milburn, the man controversially put in charge of election planning by Mr Blair. A private meeting on Monday saw normally loyal MPs warn that feuding could jeopardise their election hopes. It follows a new book charting disputes between prime minister and chancellor.The event was the first time Mr Milburn has shared a platform with the chancellor since taking Mr Brown's traditional poll planning role. But the pair chatted amicably and Mr Brown insisted he was happy with his current campaign task. Asked about how he would deal with claims that he did not trust the prime minister, Mr Brown replied: "You can see that our record on the economy is about the British people trusting us to run the economy."He refused to comment on the new book, saying nobody should be distracted from the business of government. Mr Brown later told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister." Downing Street cited that comment when reporters' suggested Mr Brown had pointedly failed to deny claims he had once told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe". Labour's new posters say Britain is enjoying the lowest inflation since the 1960s, lowest unemployment for 29 years and the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years. They urge voters not to let the Tories take things backwards. Mr Milburn promised a poll campaign "which is upbeat, confident and above all else optimistic about the future of our country".Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox derided the photo call, saying: "The show of unity was the worst acting I have seen since Prisoner Cell Block H." Labour had broken promises by raising taxes 66 times and brought the slowest economic growth in the English-speaking world, he said.The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made in journalist Robert Peston's new book. Mr Blair told MPs and peers: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need." Labour's Paul Flynn said the pair had had a "scorching" from MPs.On Tuesday, deputy prime minister Mr Prescott told BBC News: "They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line." The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war. Mr Blair then changed his mind in June 2004, after Cabinet allies intervened and amid suspicion the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston. Mr Prescott said there was a dinner but the discussions were confidential. "Of course as a waiter for 10 years I have a professional ability here," he joked.

The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war.Mr Brown later told reporters: "Of course I trust the prime minister."Mr Brown was joined at the launch by John Prescott and Alan Milburn, the man controversially put in charge of election planning by Mr Blair.Downing Street cited that comment when reporters' suggested Mr Brown had pointedly failed to deny claims he had once told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe".The event was the first time Mr Milburn has shared a platform with the chancellor since taking Mr Brown's traditional poll planning role.Mr Blair then changed his mind in June 2004, after Cabinet allies intervened and amid suspicion the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston.Mr Prescott said there was a dinner but the discussions were confidential.On Tuesday, deputy prime minister Mr Prescott told BBC News: "They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line."But the pair chatted amicably and Mr Brown insisted he was happy with his current campaign task.

Kilroy launches 'Veritas' partyEx-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk has said he wants to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party.Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party,said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration. He told a London news conference that Veritas - Latin for "truth" - would avoid the old parties' "lies and spin". UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he was glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election. He said Veritas would also announce detailed policies on crime, tax, pensions, health and defence over the next few weeks. And he announced the party would be holding a leadership election. On Thursday he is due to announce which constituency he will run in at the next general election - that will come amid speculation he has his sights set on Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's Ashfield seat. He was joined in the new venture by one of UKIP's two London Assembly members, Damien Hockney who is now Veritas' deputy leader. UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left.Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his decision to quit UKIP at a public meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire last week. It came after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party. He said he was ashamed to be a member of a UKIP whose leadership had "gone AWOL" after the great opportunity offered by its third place at last June's European elections. "While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said. "I will be standing at the next general election. I shall be leading a vigorous campaign for the causes I believe in. "And, unlike the old parties, we shall be honest, open and straight."Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party. A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly. The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down. Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the [European] election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," he said. UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.This is just what the Europhiles pray for. As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe. Having multiple parties with the same view point just splits the vote further.Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election!It is very sad to see the cause of Britain regaining its proper relationship with Europe damaged by this split within UKIP. Robert Kilroy-Silk could have a lot to offer. Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause. Under the present electoral system, people must work together, and small parties have no hope of representation. Last summer, UKIP achieved a major advance, partly and only partly due to Kilroy-Silk. It is a great shame this has been dissipated in in-fighting.UKIP has a wide platform of policies, not just withdrawal from the EU. This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party. Neither the English Democrats nor the New Party were interested in letting him join them and take over their leadership speaks volumes. Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk.If he believes in truth and democracy then he and the two assembly members should resign and force a by-elections to stand on their own platform rather than this backdoor approach to politics of being elected for one party then defecting to another.So UKIP was good enough for him to lead, not good enough for him to follow!Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name!Every opinion poll points to an overwhelming anti-Europe feeling in this country. Kilroy-Silk could be on the verge of something huge if he can broaden his appeal beyond this one issue. He is an extremely able communicator with years of political experience. We wants quality schools, top hospitals, clean and efficient public transport, punishments that fit the crime, limited asylum, a purge on bureaucracy and less taxes. It needs courage and honesty, two qualities sadly lacking in our politicians. Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities. Recruit the right colleagues, Robert, and your time may have come!Well if you cannot get enough limelight being an ordinary MP then go out and start up your own Party. It's all flash and no real policy hereLet's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity.Veritas? The name will doom it. But perhaps I am wrong for surely all modern schoolchildren will understand it since they do still learn Latin in the classroom do they not? The whole essence of what RKS represents is Euroscepticism, so explain to me how the too-twee label of Veritas symbolises that?

UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party."He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the [European] election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," he said.Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he was glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election!Ex-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk has said he wants to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party."While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said.Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his decision to quit UKIP at a public meeting in Hinckley, Leicestershire last week.This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party.Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk.And he announced the party would be holding a leadership election.Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election.Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause.The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down.UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left.Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name!As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe.It's all flash and no real policy here Let's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity.Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party,said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration.A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly.Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities.

Police probe BNP mosque leafletPolice are investigating a British National Party leaflet posted to homes in south Wales opposing plans for a new mosque.Anti-racism campaigners in Swansea have handed copies to South Wales Police. Swansea's Muslim community is raising money to open a new mosque and community centre in the former St Andrews United Reform Church. The building on George Street has been derelict since the 1980s.Taha Idris, director of the Swansea Bay Race Equality Council, said his organisation contacted police after receiving complaints from the public. "I'm quite shocked to see this sort of leaflet by the BNP in Swansea," he said."The BNP has tried in the past to get into Swansea and this is another example of them trying again. "I am in no doubt that the BNP are not needed and not wanted here." A South Wales Police spokeswoman confirmed that they were looking at the contents of the leaflet. According to the BNP's website, they have been posted to homes in the Castle ward. The BNP website carries a photograph of party leader Nick Griffin - who lives near Welshpool, mid Wales - delivering the leaflet. The BNP has denied it is trying to stir up hatred of any race or religion, but argues that they should be able to debate this without fear of arrest. Swansea Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is meeting this week to plan a campaign. Following the death earlier this year of Kalan Kawa Karim, an Iraqi Kurd living in Swansea, it organised an anti-racism march in the city that was supported by more than 1,000 people. It is planning its own mail shot campaign and may launch a petition in support of the plans for the mosque.Andy Richards, of Swansea UAF, said the leaflet was exactly what he had come to expect from the BNP."The people of Swansea will not put up with this." Swansea's Muslim community bought the former church, just across the road from the existing mosque on St Helen's Road, in the late 1990s. Mr Idris said the community was now raising money to renovate the building. "It is a landmark building in Swansea and would otherwise just crumble," he said. "It is the ideal opportunity for the building to be restored and used in the proper manner. "It will be a Muslim community centre. It's a holistic place used for education, weddings, deaths and births." He said space was limited in the current mosque and on some occasions Muslims had to travel to Llanelli for cultural events.

Andy Richards, of Swansea UAF, said the leaflet was exactly what he had come to expect from the BNP."I'm quite shocked to see this sort of leaflet by the BNP in Swansea," he said."It is a landmark building in Swansea and would otherwise just crumble," he said.Police are investigating a British National Party leaflet posted to homes in south Wales opposing plans for a new mosque.Mr Idris said the community was now raising money to renovate the building.Anti-racism campaigners in Swansea have handed copies to South Wales Police."The BNP has tried in the past to get into Swansea and this is another example of them trying again.Swansea's Muslim community is raising money to open a new mosque and community centre in the former St Andrews United Reform Church."The people of Swansea will not put up with this."Taha Idris, director of the Swansea Bay Race Equality Council, said his organisation contacted police after receiving complaints from the public.

Blair defends terror law changesThe prime minister has defended measures to allow house arrest without trial, saying "several hundred" people in the UK are plotting terror attacks.The government is facing opposition from Tory and Lib Dem MPs and its own backbenchers as it prepares for the final Commons debate on the changes. But Tony Blair said there could be no concession on the "basic principle". Mr Blair told the BBC the "control orders" would only be used in the most limited circumstances. Critics in the opposition and civil rights activists are worried that the home secretary will have the power to issue the detention orders. But the government has so far resisted pressure for judges to be responsible for making the orders, instead saying judges will be able to quash them.An explanation is being sent by Home Secretary Charles Clarke to all MPs and peers ahead of the final debate in the House of Commons. On Sunday, Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis claimed judges would get the powers to issue detention orders. And Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said some concessions had already been offered by the government during last-minute negotiations. Some 32 Labour MPs voted against the legislation last week. Barbara Follett, whose first husband was killed while under house arrest in South Africa during the apartheid era, confirmed she would vote against the government.But the government is continuing to insist that "control orders" must be issued by the home secretary. Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour: "We are being advised by the police and the security services... "What they say is you have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - you have got to give us power in between just surveying them and being able, being sure enough of the proof, to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt. "And these will be restrictions on their liberty that we will use only in the most limited circumstances."A YouGov poll in the Daily Telegraph suggested 75% of respondents thought action was sometimes necessary against people who had not committed an offence but who had been found by intelligence services to be planning a terrorist attack. But Tory leader Michael Howard told BBC News that the government was again making a mistake in "rushing" anti-terrorism legislation. "I very much hope it would be possible to reach a compromise on this." He said after meeting Tony Blair he had been left with the impression that "he really wasn't interested in any of the various proposals we have put forward". Mr Clarke wants house arrest and other powers to replace indefinite jail for terror suspects - something the law lords have ruled against on the basis that it breaches human rights. BBC political correspondent Vicky Young said some form of concession on the measures was likely to be needed to get the legislation through the House of Lords, where Labour does not have a majority and would require support from other parties. Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties pressure group Liberty, said who was able to issue the control orders was not the main issue. She said the legislation was "a travesty and a perversion of justice" and would remain "unpalatable" even if a judge was involved early in the process.

Mr Blair told the BBC the "control orders" would only be used in the most limited circumstances.BBC political correspondent Vicky Young said some form of concession on the measures was likely to be needed to get the legislation through the House of Lords, where Labour does not have a majority and would require support from other parties.On Sunday, Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis claimed judges would get the powers to issue detention orders.She said the legislation was "a travesty and a perversion of justice" and would remain "unpalatable" even if a judge was involved early in the process.Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties pressure group Liberty, said who was able to issue the control orders was not the main issue.But Tory leader Michael Howard told BBC News that the government was again making a mistake in "rushing" anti-terrorism legislation.But the government is continuing to insist that "control orders" must be issued by the home secretary.Barbara Follett, whose first husband was killed while under house arrest in South Africa during the apartheid era, confirmed she would vote against the government.Critics in the opposition and civil rights activists are worried that the home secretary will have the power to issue the detention orders.

Blair ready to call electionTony Blair seems certain to end weeks of phoney war on Monday and announce there will be a general election on 5 May.The date has been pencilled into the diaries of politicians and political journalists for many months and, despite occasional panics that the prime minister was on the verge of calling a snap poll, it has not shifted. Over the weeks, there have been any number of signs that 050505 was going to be the day Mr Blair would go for an historic third term. And the calling of a special political cabinet meeting has only added to the belief that the announcement is imminent. The prime minister and his campaign boss Alan Milburn have already insisted the election will be fought on the economy and what they claim is a stark choice between Labour's stability and investment against Tory cuts and boom and bust.And Chancellor Gordon Brown has stepped into the front line of the campaign - to the relief of many of his supporters in Westminster - to underline that economic message. And it is certain one of the big arguments at the centre of the election battle will be around the big parties' tax and spend policies.During the phoney campaign, Labour got into trouble over its central claim that Michael Howard was planning £35 bn cuts in public services. The prime minister found himself struggling to explain how a smaller, slower increase in spending planned by the Tories compared to Labour's plans was a cut. And it looked like the Labour campaign - which was already being criticised for being thrown into defensive mode by Mr Howard on issues such as immigration and health - was on the rocks. Then deputy Conservative Chairman Howard Flight was reported to have suggested Mr Howard was secretly planning even bigger "cuts".He was sacked for his gaffe, but the damage had been done and the faltering Labour campaign was back on track. A second central argument will be over taxation, with the Tories claiming the Chancellor has to fill a black hole at the centre of his finances and will be forced to raise taxes if Labour wins again. Mr Brown slaps that aside, claiming his forecasts are accurate and that previous claims of looming economic disaster have proved inaccurate. As usual, the Liberal Democrats will have to fight to get their voice heard over the sounds of battle between the two big parties. But leader Charles Kennedy believes he has set out a distinctive manifesto with plans for a tax rise for the wealthiest to finance extra spending and the abolition of the council tax in favour of a local income tax. Other issues are certain to play a part - immigration and asylum, the war on Iraq, law and order and education, for example. But, as ever, it will be the economy that will almost certainly decide the outcome. And, whatever that outcome, 2005 is set to be a far more lively, even bitter campaign than 2001's non-event.

And it looked like the Labour campaign - which was already being criticised for being thrown into defensive mode by Mr Howard on issues such as immigration and health - was on the rocks.During the phoney campaign, Labour got into trouble over its central claim that Michael Howard was planning £35 bn cuts in public services.He was sacked for his gaffe, but the damage had been done and the faltering Labour campaign was back on track.Then deputy Conservative Chairman Howard Flight was reported to have suggested Mr Howard was secretly planning even bigger "cuts".The date has been pencilled into the diaries of politicians and political journalists for many months and, despite occasional panics that the prime minister was on the verge of calling a snap poll, it has not shifted.And it is certain one of the big arguments at the centre of the election battle will be around the big parties' tax and spend policies.A second central argument will be over taxation, with the Tories claiming the Chancellor has to fill a black hole at the centre of his finances and will be forced to raise taxes if Labour wins again.The prime minister and his campaign boss Alan Milburn have already insisted the election will be fought on the economy and what they claim is a stark choice between Labour's stability and investment against Tory cuts and boom and bust.

Royal couple watch nation's moodPrince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are awaiting the nation's reaction after announcing they are to be married on 8 April.Mrs Parker Bowles will take the title HRH Duchess of Cornwall after a civil ceremony to be held at Windsor Castle. A Daily Telegraph poll of 1,313 people suggests two-thirds of Britons support the couple's decision to marry. But only 40% think Mrs Parker Bowles should become Princess Consort as planned after Charles becomes king. Some 47% believe she should have no title, while 7% think she should become queen.The poll also found that the majority of Britons would prefer the monarchy to miss a generation, with the Queen handing the throne to her grandson Prince William, 22, on her death or abdication. On Thursday night, Prince Charles, 56, and Mrs Parker Bowles, 57, hosted a dinner at Windsor Castle, their first public appearance since announcing their engagement. Mrs Parker Bowles said the prince went down on one knee to propose and added: "I'm just coming down to earth." She displayed her diamond engagement ring - a Royal Family heirloom - to reporters. Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted". Their marriage will end years of speculation on a relationship which dates back to 1970.The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh said the news had made them "very happy". Princes William and Harry said they are "very happy" and wish the couple "all the luck in the future". The wedding will be a civil ceremony followed by a service of prayer and dedication in St George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will preside.The marriage is likely to be a sensitive issue because Mrs Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive. If he became king, Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees. "His divorce from Diana and the disappointment the country felt over how Diana had been treated... opened up a sense of disillusionment with [Prince Charles]," said Ros Coward, who wrote the authorised biography of Diana, princess of Wales. The Archbishop of Canterbury said: "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step." Tony Blair said he was "delighted" for the couple and offered his congratulations, as did Conservative leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy. Australia's Prime Minister John Howard also offered his congratulations, adding that their decision to marry was a "sensible and a good thing". Mrs Parker Bowles has joined the prince at numerous engagements in recent years - mostly at evening events for The Prince's Trust. Clarence House staff were at pains to point out that she attended these events in a private capacity.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said: "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step."But only 40% think Mrs Parker Bowles should become Princess Consort as planned after Charles becomes king.On Thursday night, Prince Charles, 56, and Mrs Parker Bowles, 57, hosted a dinner at Windsor Castle, their first public appearance since announcing their engagement.Mrs Parker Bowles has joined the prince at numerous engagements in recent years - mostly at evening events for The Prince's Trust.Mrs Parker Bowles said the prince went down on one knee to propose and added: "I'm just coming down to earth."Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are awaiting the nation's reaction after announcing they are to be married on 8 April.Mrs Parker Bowles will take the title HRH Duchess of Cornwall after a civil ceremony to be held at Windsor Castle.Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted".The marriage is likely to be a sensitive issue because Mrs Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive.

'Errors' doomed first Dome saleThe initial attempt to sell the Millennium Dome failed due to a catalogue of errors, a report by the government's finance watchdog says.The report said too many parties were involved in decision-making when the attraction first went on sale after the Millennium exhibition ended. The National Audit Office said the Dome cost taxpayers £28.7m to maintain and sell in the four years after it closed. Finally, a deal to turn it into a sport and entertainment venue was struck. More than £550m could now be returned to the public sector in the wake of the deal to regenerate the site in Greenwich, London.The NAO report said that this sale went through because it avoided many of the problems of the previous attempt to sell the Dome. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said a good deal had been secured. "Delivery of the many benefits secured through this deal will continue the substantial progress already made at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the peninsula," he said. But Edward Leigh, who is chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, warned the government would have to work hard to ensure taxpayers would get full benefit from the Dome deal. He said: "This report also shows that the first attempt to sell the Dome proved a complete fiasco. Every arm of government seems to have had a finger in the pie. The process was confused and muddled." He added: "Four years after the Millennium Exhibition closed, the Government finally has a deal to find a use for what has been a white elephant since it closed in a deal that, incredible as it may seem, should bring in some money and provide a benefit for the local area and the country as whole. However, it was more a question of luck that a strong bid turned up after thefirst abortive attempt." NAO head Sir John Bourn said: "In difficult circumstances following the failure of the first competition, English Partnerships and the office of the deputy prime minister have worked hard to get a deal."

The NAO report said that this sale went through because it avoided many of the problems of the previous attempt to sell the Dome.He said: "This report also shows that the first attempt to sell the Dome proved a complete fiasco.Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said a good deal had been secured."Delivery of the many benefits secured through this deal will continue the substantial progress already made at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the peninsula," he said.NAO head Sir John Bourn said: "In difficult circumstances following the failure of the first competition, English Partnerships and the office of the deputy prime minister have worked hard to get a deal."The report said too many parties were involved in decision-making when the attraction first went on sale after the Millennium exhibition ended.

'Super union' merger plan toutedTwo of Britain's big trade unions could merge to form a "super union" of two million members.The move by Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) would be a seen as a bid to carry more weight with ministers and employers. Amicus has 1.2 million members and the TGWU has 800,000. Any merger would have to be approved by the unions' executives and their membership. It is understood meetings will be held on Wednesday about the proposal. Along with the GMB and Unison, the TGWU and Amicus worked closely together in the last year to hammer out a 56-point deal with Labour's leadership over equality at work, holidays and pensions - the Warwick Agreement. Both unions are remaining tight-lipped about the merger rumours, but one insider pointed out to the BBC News website that "nobody is denying suggestions a merger could be on the agenda" when the two unions' executives hold their meetings on Wednesday. Amicus's executive was due to meet in any case although the TGWU is holding specially scheduled talks.

Both unions are remaining tight-lipped about the merger rumours, but one insider pointed out to the BBC News website that "nobody is denying suggestions a merger could be on the agenda" when the two unions' executives hold their meetings on Wednesday.The move by Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) would be a seen as a bid to carry more weight with ministers and employers.Any merger would have to be approved by the unions' executives and their membership.Amicus has 1.2 million members and the TGWU has 800,000.

Brown in appeal for Labour unityGordon Brown has made an appeal for unity after reports claimed Mr Blair went back on a pledge to stand down before the next general election.The chancellor would not comment on the reports, but insisted he would not be "diverted or distracted" from tackling the challenges faced by the country. His only "motivation" was to ensure Labour was re-elected, he insisted. Mr Blair earlier dismissed the claim he had reneged on a promise to stand aside for Gordon Brown as old news. According to a new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.In an interview with BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't. "What both of us are actually concentrating on are the issues that concern the country."In a separate interview with BBC political editor Andrew Marr, Mr Brown said: "It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government. "I think it is very important to stress that that is the motivation that I have. "That is my purpose in politics, and that is what every day I seek to do. And I am not going to be diverted or distracted, nor is Tony Blair, by newspaper stories or books or rumours or gossip. "The only reason why we are in government is to get on with the job in a unified way to deal with the challenges facing this country." Mr Brown also said he had discussed the general election campaign with the prime minister on Saturday and pledged to play his part as he had been asked to do.But Mr Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other and that Mr Blair had decided in November 2003 he would quit because he felt he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war. He then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, according to the book. Andrew Marr said: "This is enormously damaging. Gordon Brown knows it as well as Tony Blair. "I think the relationship is genuinely, privately, very poor indeed. Things are very difficult." He added: "Lots of ministers believe Tony Blair will attempt to move Gordon Brown out of the Treasury after the election. "That depends on whether there's still a Labour government and their majority."Senior MPs are expected to raise concerns about the latest reports of infighting at the regular meeting of Labour backbenchers on Monday.Health Secretary John Reid said those fuelling such reports were damaging Labour's re-election chances and would not be easily forgiven. Fresh speculation of a rift recently followed Mr Blair and Mr Brown's separate responses to the Asian tsunami. These rumours were fuelled by Mr Blair's decision to hold his monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster. But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense". Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of"squabbling like schoolboys". Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government".

In a separate interview with BBC political editor Andrew Marr, Mr Brown said: "It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government.Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government".According to a new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.But Mr Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other and that Mr Blair had decided in November 2003 he would quit because he felt he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war.Mr Brown also said he had discussed the general election campaign with the prime minister on Saturday and pledged to play his part as he had been asked to do.Gordon Brown has made an appeal for unity after reports claimed Mr Blair went back on a pledge to stand down before the next general election.Mr Blair earlier dismissed the claim he had reneged on a promise to stand aside for Gordon Brown as old news.Fresh speculation of a rift recently followed Mr Blair and Mr Brown's separate responses to the Asian tsunami.In an interview with BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago.Gordon Brown knows it as well as Tony Blair.He added: "Lots of ministers believe Tony Blair will attempt to move Gordon Brown out of the Treasury after the election.Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of"squabbling like schoolboys".

Green fear for transport ballotThe Green Party is concerned thousands of residents may not be able to vote in Edinburgh's transport referendum.Edinburgh City Council is to ballot constituents on proposals to introduce congestion charging in the capital. But Green MSP Mark Ballard fears people not on the council's edited electoral register may miss out. Local authorities can only send ballot papers to those on the edited list over non-statutory matters, such as the transport referendum. Therefore, residents who have exercised their right to have their details left off the list could miss the chance to vote.However, there is still time for those who are not on the list to contact the council and make sure they are sent ballot forms ahead of February's voting deadline. Mr Ballard said: "This vote will set the future of transport in Edinburgh for decades to come. "It is therefore vital that as many residents as possible in Edinburgh City and the surrounding areas, are registered to vote in the ballot. "Many people are not aware that they may miss out on their chance to have a say. "Everyone involved in this debate - both for and against - wants the ballot to be as fair and representative as possible, and that means encouraging people to take part." The ballot will ask residents to vote for or against the council's proposed congestion charge scheme and a host of transport improvements to be funded by it. The outcome of the referendum will be known next month after the ballot forms are sent out and returned to the council. Towards the end of February, the council will meet to decide whether to proceed with an application to Scottish ministers for approval for its planned congestion charging scheme and the other parts of its transport package.

The ballot will ask residents to vote for or against the council's proposed congestion charge scheme and a host of transport improvements to be funded by it."It is therefore vital that as many residents as possible in Edinburgh City and the surrounding areas, are registered to vote in the ballot.The Green Party is concerned thousands of residents may not be able to vote in Edinburgh's transport referendum.Edinburgh City Council is to ballot constituents on proposals to introduce congestion charging in the capital.Local authorities can only send ballot papers to those on the edited list over non-statutory matters, such as the transport referendum.Therefore, residents who have exercised their right to have their details left off the list could miss the chance to vote.

Tory 'stalking horse' Meyer diesSir Anthony Meyer, the Tory backbencher who challenged Margaret Thatcher for the party leadership in 1989, has died.He was 84, had been suffering from cancer for many months, and died at his London home. That failed "stalking horse" leadership challenge made it easier for Michael Heseltine to mount his own bid. That in turn paved the way for John Major to move into 10 Downing Street, after the second ballot. Meyer's constituency party, Clwyd North West, which he had represented as an MP for more than 20 years, deselected him as a result of that challenge. Sir Anthony John Charles Meyer was born on 27 October, 1920. Educated at Eton, and at New College, Oxford, he served in the Scots Guards from 1941 to 1945 and was wounded in tanks in Normandy. He worked under Edward Heath on Europe at the Foreign Office and subsequently won the Eton and Slough seat for the Tories in 1964 - by 11 votes. Labour regained the seat two years later, and Meyer had to wait until 1970 before he could re-enter Parliament. His prospects of a front bench slot remained remote because he tended to defy the party line.

Sir Anthony Meyer, the Tory backbencher who challenged Margaret Thatcher for the party leadership in 1989, has died.Sir Anthony John Charles Meyer was born on 27 October, 1920.He was 84, had been suffering from cancer for many months, and died at his London home.Educated at Eton, and at New College, Oxford, he served in the Scots Guards from 1941 to 1945 and was wounded in tanks in Normandy.