TOP 100 ENGLAND SITES
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
|
| |||
| Kinnock warns Labour against self-inflicted wounds | Andrew Sparrow Former Labour leader delivers warning to his partyI had never heard of the Opposition Studies Forum until today. It is a research group devoted to the study of opposition and it was launched last year, with Neil Kinnock and Michael Howard – two opposition leaders who never made it to No 10 – as co-presidents. Kinnock spoke at an event it organised last night and, according to the quotes carried on its website, he used it to deliver a warning to his party.Opposition can be hell. But the lessons you learn whilst you're there are hugely important – if you learn them. One is that real disabling damage can often come from inside. I think that applies to all oppositions, and it certainly applies to governments. You get a bad cut from the other side, it'll hurt but you can usually deal with it. Self-inflicted wounds are the ones that turn septic most quickly, and where gangrene sets in. We had to stop harming ourselves, learn some discipline and get serious before anyone else would take us seriously, and we should never forget that.Howard and former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy both delivered messages about the importance of opposition. Kinnock's comments about "self-inflicted wounds" were clearly inspired by his experience as Labour leader when the party was engaged in civil war in the 1980s. But it's obvious that he was not just talking about opposition. He was referring to what's happening to his party in government.LabourPolitics pastAndrew Sparrowguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Professions told: 'Cut private school recruits' Government to tell professions like medicine and the law to stop recruiting as many new entrants who were privately educated. telegraph.co.uk |
New Zealand dumps 'biblical' gunsights Country's military orders removal of coded messages on rifle sights used by its troops in AfghanistanNew Zealand military chiefs have ordered the removal of coded biblical messages stamped into gunsights used by troops in Afghanistan.Soldiers from New Zealand, the UK and the US have been unknowingly using rifle sights stamped with references to verses from the New Testament. They were manufactured by Trijicon, a Michigan-based company that invokes its "biblical standards" in its marketing material.The markings, which blend into the serial number and other product Âinformation stamped into the metal, include JN8:12, an apparent reference to John 8:12. The verse reads: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."Trijicon, founded by a devoutly Christian South African, has acknowledged that the markings refer to biblical passages.The company told the Associated Press: "As part of our faith and our belief in service to our country, Trijicon has put scripture references on our products for more than two decades."But the existence of explicitly Christian messages stamped on military kit used in a Muslim country risks raising tensions and fears that Nato and other western countries are engaging in a religious crusade. Furthermore, thousands of Muslims, Jews and agnostics serve in the US military, which prohibits proselytising.The US military has pledged to review the procurement, although one military official was unperturbed, likening the citation to the "In God We Trust" motto that graces US currency. The Ministry of Defence said it was not aware of the message and bought the sights because they were the best available. The Church of England denounced the messages.The New Zealand military is examining ways to remove the messages."It's put us in an uncomfortable situation," said Major Kristian Dunne. "We can see how they would cause offence. We are unhappy they didn't make us aware of it. They didn't violate any policy but we consider them inappropriate. It also could be used against us by other religions."New Zealand has about 220 troops in the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, mostly in the region surrounding Bamyan.New ZealandUS militaryMilitaryguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Tories retain lead in ICM poll, but Liberal Democrats gain at 21% All sorts of things might change the public mood before polling day, but if nothing does, a Guardian/ICM poll gives a good snapshot of the likely result.Like most other polls from different companies this year, it puts the Tory lead at about 10 points, the party's share at about 40% and Labour's share at about 30% – the precise scores are 40% to 29%, an increased lead of 11 points. Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats are creeping into contention for an influential third place, at 21%.Another way of summing things up is to look at the answers to the Guardian's regular "time for a change" question. In the poll 66% think this is a moment for a change of government, against 25% who say continuity matters more and who want to stick with Labour.These are not far off the figures from March last year. Then 69% wanted change and 25% more of the same. Back in September 2006, when discontent with Tony Blair was at its height, 70% of people wanted change. Immediately after Gordon Brown took over that dropped to 55%.But now the public mood seems made up. There may be nothing the governing party can do to shift it. Even among people who backed Labour in 2005, 38% think it is time for a change.Labour's hope must lie partly in the economy, with figures tomorrow expected to show that Britain has finally left recession. But even here the polls have bad news for the party.Asked whether on balance Brown's leadership has helped Britain through recession or made things worse, 50% say worse – including 28% who say he made things a lot worse. Against that, 43% think he has helped the situation, but only 6% say he made things a lot better, and 37% a little better. If the prime minister is looking for gratitude, he is not going to get it.Unsurprisingly, Labour voters remain loyal to the former chancellor: 72% think he helped to limit recession. But Lib Dems are unconvinced, and Tory supporters strongly hostile. If recovery strengthens, Labour may not get the credit. Of people who say they voted Labour in 2005, 32% think Brown made the recession worse.If figures such as these do not change dramatically over the next few months, Labour's main ambition will be to deny the Conservatives a parliamentary majority. This is certainly possible. Last week, at a conference in London, leading pollsters expressed confidence in their methodologies for calculating shares of party support, but there is less certainty about the best way to estimate the number of seats each party will win.One reason is that this contest will go in at least three directions, with Lib Dem support holding up and the party fighting both Labour (mostly in the north) and the Conservatives (in the south and west). About one in 10 2005 Labour supporters now back the Conservatives, as do about one in five 2005 Lib Dems. Meanwhile One in 10 current Lib Dems has switched from Labour.Smaller parties however may prove less influential than looked likely during the European elections last year. Put together, other parties are down to 10%, against 15% last June. Nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland account for 4%, the Greens 2%, Ukip 2% and the BNP 1%.Opinion pollsGeneral election 2010LabourGordon BrownConservativesLiberal DemocratsGreen partyUK Independence party (Ukip)BNPJulian Gloverguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Goldsmith U-turn on Iraq took two months – adviser • Wilmshurst says Goldsmith change legal stance in early 2003• Sir Michael Wood challenges evidence given by Jack Straw• Review the live blog for full coverage of today's hearingThe attorney general Lord Goldsmith completely changed his view about the legality of the Iraq war over a two-month period, the Chilcot inquiry heard today.Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, revealed that Goldsmith initially sent a "provisional" view to Tony Blair in January 2003 that a second UN resolution would be required for the invasion to be legal.But by 7 March the position of Goldsmith, who gives evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, was that there was a reasonable case for arguing the war would be legal without a second resolution. Then by 17 March, just days before the war, he said there was no need for second resolution.In a dramatic day at the inquiry, which Blair will face on Friday, Jack Straw's chief legal adviser at the time of the Iraq invasion also today told inquiry that the then foreign secretary overruled his advice against military action. The revelation by Sir Michael Wood, the top Foreign Office lawyer at the time, challenges the evidence Straw, now justice secretary, gave to the inquiry last week in which he insisted that he had "very reluctantly" supported the conflict.Wilmshurst, who was the only civil servant to quit over the Iraq war, is the first witness to reveal that Goldsmith's view as late as January 2003 was that a second UN resolution may be required for the invasion to be legal. She said said she thought it was unprecedented for a prime minister to be consulted in this way.She told the inquiry panel, which is looking into the legality of the war, that she was shown this advice unofficially at the time. "His draft advice, his provisional view, was that a second resolution was needed, as I recall," she said.The lawyer, who told her superiors that an invasion without UN sanction would be a "crime of aggression" when she quit a few days before the invasion, said today that the way ministers handled the legal arguments over the war was "lamentable".Declassified documents released by the inquiry also show that Wood warned ministers three months before the invasion that it was not certain if military action would be legal.David Brummell, then a senior aide to the attorney general, also revealed that Lord Goldsmith warned both No 10 and Straw in November 2002 he was "pessimistic" that UN security council resolution 1441 could be used to justify military action without a second resolution.Today, in a collection of evidence that intensifies the pressure on Blair, the panel also released a memo written by Wood that refers to a Foreign Office cable detailing a meeting between Straw and Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, in which the foreign secretary reassured his American counterpart a year before the invasion that he was "entirely comfortable" making the case for war.The meeting took place before Blair visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, where the then prime minister was accused of "signing in blood" an agreement to join the US in an invasion.This morning Wood told the inquiry panel, which is looking at the legality of the war, that he had rejected the government's argument that resolution 1441 – passed in November 2002 – requiring Saddam Hussein to disarm was a sufficient basis for military action."I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," he said."In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the security council, and had no other basis in international law."However, when he presented his view to Straw in January 2003, he said it was dismissed out of hand."He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn't used to people taking such a firm position," said Wood."When he had been at the Home Office, he had often been advised things were unlawful but he had gone ahead anyway and won in the courts."He said this was "probably the first and only occasion" that a minister rejected his legal advice in this way."Obviously there are some areas of international law that can be quite uncertain. This however turned exclusively on the interpretation of a specific text and it is one on which I think that international law was pretty clear," he said."Because there is no court, the legal adviser and those taking decisions based on the legal advice have to be more scrupulous in adhering to the law."In a newly declassified letter to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, released by the inquiry, Straw complained at the attitude taken by government lawyers."I have been very forcefully struck by the paradox in the culture of government lawyers, which is the less certain the law is, the more certain in their views they become," he said.Wood said there had been a reluctance by ministers to seek the attorney general's views until very late in the day."They really needed advice, even if they didn't want it at that stage, in order to develop their policy in the weeks leading up to the failure to get a second resolution," he said.Iraq war inquiryPolitics and IraqIraqDefence policyJack StrawTony BlairColin PowellHelen PiddHĂ©lène Mulhollandguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |