Nick Griffin Calls World Leaders Mass Murderers At The Copenhagen Climate Conference

How sully can the BNP get when they have two representatives in the European Parliament when the leader of the BNP makes stupid statements like World Leaders Mass Murderers when the BNP refuses to acknowledges that Jews were persecuted in the second world war by their almighty brain washing leader Hitler.

Nick Griffin has accused world leaders at the Copenhagen climate conference of the “biggest hoax in history” that will kill more people than the great famines under Stalin and Mao.

The leader of the British National Party and MEP is at the international summit as a representative of the European Parliament.

But he said global warming was a “hoax” designed to impose tax increases on the citizens of the world through putting up the price of energy.

He said world leaders and advocates of action on climate change such as Al Gore are “mass murderers” by supporting biofuels.

He said land for growing food is being taken to grow fuels for crops and it will cause starvation greater than the famines caused by Russian dictator Stalin during the 1930s and Chairman Mao in the 1950s.

"It is a crime against humanity which in future will be seen as an enormous man-made famine. Under Stalin 20 million people died, under Chairman Mao 30 million died. This will be the third and the greatest famine of the modern era and I regard that as a crime.”

However Mr Griffin’s own party would not give more money to the third world.

“Britain is bankrupt. We cannot afford to go giving money to the third world,” he said.

Mr Griffin has no official role at the conference but will be speaking to delegates in an attempt to “stop the juggernaut”.

“My message is stop and think before imposing the most outrageous tax increase on people ever proposed by a group of nations on the basis of an unproven theory that is contradicted by an increasing number of scientists,” he added.

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said Mr Griffin will bring nothing helpful to the talks.

“Mr Griffin’s conversion to cause of the developing world is surprising as it is cynical,” he said. “In reality the environmental and development groups he has been disparaging have been in the forefront of concerns about biofuels. Griffin’s claims that climate change is a hoax is one of many curious things going on between his ears.”

Why A March Election Would Be The Wrong Move

There's been much speculation circulating over the past few days that the Tories - and Labour - are preparing for an early election on March 25th. This could be a media ploy by the Tories to try and motivate complacent activists, or it may just be newspapers filling column inches as Christmas approaches.

But it is now being discussed as a serious proposition around Westminster and amongst lobby journalists. David Cameron today called it a "likely date" for an election, and Ray Collins, Labour's General Secretary, is reported to have told Number 10 that the party machine is ready to go.

I think an ballot on any day other than May 6th would be the wrong move for two main reasons. First - and most importantly - with council elections already mandated for May 6th, the cost of holding two elections within 6 weeks of each other would be excessive - and would be deemed to be excessive by the public.

The second, related, reason is that an election on any other date would dramatically reduce voter turnout for the local council elections - and after the decimation of Labour's council position last June, that would be very unhelpful to Labour Groups who are battling to maximise support.

So unless the May 6th council elections were also brought forward, which would be difficult to do at this late stage, it would be seen as a crude and unnecessary move which wouldn't play well with either grassroots activists or the wider electorate.

Did Labour Really Create Welfare Dependency?

It’s a common criticism from Conservatives that Labour has created its ‘client electorate’ in the form of people drawing state benefits, that is, people dependent on the state for their beer, baccy and bingo money.

The reality is different. The Conservatives, between 1979 and 1997, created “welfare dependency” on a scale hitherto unseen. Take a look at the following table (numbers obtained from the Annual Abstract of Statistics for various years):

* (i) SSB: total social security benefits, cash

* (ii) RP: retirement pensions, cash

* (iii) total payments minus retirement pensions payments (cash paid to those commonly called ‘social security scroungers’, ‘layabouts’, ‘spongers’).

Now, if social security payments to the ‘scroungers, layabouts and spongers’ (SLS) increase as a proportion of GDP, only two possibilities exist: (i) the number of SLS has increased, or (ii) we are paying the SLS more. Personally, I would have thought that neither possibility would be an attractive contemplation for a Conservative.

National Statistics (ONS) changed the way that it reported Social Security spending (‘cash benefits’) after 2000/01. Table 10.24 in Annual Abstract of Statistics, 2009 shows that ‘total Government expenditure on social security benefits and administration’ was 11.5% of GDP in 2000/01, rising to 12.0% of GDP in 2003/04, and falling to 11.4% of GDP in 2006/07.

Then, take a look at the rows for 93/94 and 96/97, and compare to 78/79.

Did Labour create “welfare dependency?”

I think not.

Three by-Election Wins Sees BNP, Lib Dems and Tories beaten by Labour

Labour won three by-elections yesterday in Nuneaton, Dorset and Hampshire, with big swings from the Tories to Labour in both Westminster and Hastings.

Labour’s Ian Lloyd gained from the BNP in Camp Hill Ward for the Nuneaton and Bedworth Council, increasing the Labour vote by 17%.

Another gain for Labour was made by Kate Wheller in the Wyke Regis Ward by-election for Weymouth and Portland Council, who took the seat from the Conservatives with a swing of 17% since 2008.

In the Heron Wood Ward by-election for Rushmoor Council, Labour’s Alex Crawford won the seat from the Liberal Democrats, increasing the Labour vote by 11%.

Labour also held the seat in Queens Park Ward for Westminster Council, with Patricia McAllister increasing Labour’s vote by more than 10%.

In the St Helens Ward by-election for Hastings and Rye Councl, Michael Ward increased Labour’s vote by 12.5%.

Full details of yesterday’s by-election results.

Other news from Labour Matters

• If George Osborne had delivered yesterday's PBR... - 10 December 2009
• Labour launches Pre-Budget Report online ad campaign - 9 December 2009
• Sun readers conned: Labour's NHS spending has gone on nursing staff - 9 December 2009

Learn more about Labour Matters

Third World 'Must Get Financial Help'

Top UN officials kicked off crunch climate change talks in Copenhagen on Monday, telling delegates that they must agree a way to raise and channel funds to developing countries.

The 10-day summit, which gathers members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, aims to hammer out a blueprint for tackling man-made greenhouse gases, blamed for trapping solar heat and disrupting the Earth's climate system.

On December 18, world leaders are scheduled to sign a political deal that sets down the course of action, including a raft of national pledges.

Further negotiations are expected to take place in 2010 to fill in the details, before a legally binding treaty would take effect from the end of 2012.

UN chief climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri declared that the "evidence is now overwhelming" that the world needs early action to combat global warming.

Mr Pachauri defended climate research in the face of a controversy over emails, pilfered from the University of East Anglia, which global warming sceptics say show scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence that doesn't fit their theories.

"The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," he told the conference, referring to the leading UN scientific body for assessing climate change.

Conference president Connie Hedegaard said that the key to an agreement was finding a way to raise and channel public and private financing to poor countries for years to come to help them fight the effects of climate change.

In Vienna, another senior UN official warned that the fight against climate change must not "cannibalise" development financing.

Director-general of the UN Industrial Development Organisation Kandeh Yumkella said that developing countries needed "fresh money" to combat global warming not funds diverted from efforts to improve maternal health or fight world hunger.

Chinese state media renewed calls on Monday for rich states to provide adequate funding.

The People's Daily reiterated Beijing's stance that the emissions of Western states were far greater than the vast majority of the world's countries after centuries of industrialisation, putting the onus on the developed countries.

"And of course, this industrialisation process has led to developed nations taking the lead on other nations on the technology front," the newspaper observed, adding that a low-carbon lifestyle was an "unprecedented" issue for mankind.

This decade has been the warmest on record and this year is likely to be the fifth warmest, according to the World Meteorological Organisations’s (WMO) assessment of global average temperatures.

There were sharp differences between regions, with central Africa and parts of southern Asia having their warmest year but the United States and Canada experiencing cooler than average conditions.

The WMO released the preliminary data at the Copenhagen climate summit in what the Met Office, which contributed to the figures, admitted was an attempt to influence the negotiations over cutting greenhouse gases.

The WMO is also anxious to quell doubts about the scientific analysis of temperature records raised by the publication of stolen e-mails in the “Climategate” scandal.

The WMO and the Met Office base their reports partly on data and analysis supplied by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

Phil Jones, the unit’s director, has stood down while an investigation takes place into allegations that he manipulated data, attempted to block publication of alternative scientific views and tried to delete information requested by climate change sceptics.

The WMO, which has data going back to 1850, said that the ten years from 2000 to 2009 were 0.44C warmer than the annual average of 14C between 1961 to 1990.

The Met Office, one of three main sources for the WMO figures, said its records showed that each of the last six decades had been warmer than the previous one.

Since the 18th century, the global temperature has risen just over 0.7C.

The Copenhagen summit is trying to agree global action to prevent the temperature rising more than 2C above the pre-industrial average.

The Met Office said: “These figures highlight that the world continues to see global temperature rise most of which is due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and clearly shows that the argument that global warming has stopped is flawed.

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said the final figures for 2009 would not be available until early next year but the preliminary estimates based on January to November data were being released today to influence the debate at the summit.

The Met Office is more certain about this being the warmest decade than it is about 2009 being the fifth warmest year. The WMO said 2009 might only rank in the top 10 warmest years, depending on temperatures this month. This year has been warmer than last year, which was the eleventh warmest on record. The warmest year was 1998.

The Met Office predicted last month that there was a 50/50 chance that next year would be warmer than 1998.

This is largely because of the natural El Niño cycle, the warming phase in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean which began this summer and is expected to continue for at least another six months.

The WMO said this year had been the third warmest in Australia, which experienced three exceptional heatwaves that contributed to a disastrous bush fire that killed 200 people.

China suffered its worst drought for five decades and the monsoon season in India was one of the weakest since 1972, damaging the harvest in 40 per cent of districts. A drought in East Africa “led to massive food shortages”.

Spain had its third-warmest summer and parts of Germany, Austria and the Czech republic reported the warmest May on record.

The Met Office today responded to criticisms about lack of transparency by releasing land temperature records gathered from more than 1,500 stations around the world.

It said it would release the data from the other 3,500 other stations as soon as it received permission from the national meteorological offices which owned it.

The Met Office said: “We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code that aggregates the individual station temperatures into the global land temperature record.

“The University of East Anglia fully supports the Met Office in making this data publicly available and is continuing to work with the Met Office to seek the necessary permission from national data owners to publish, as soon as possible as much of the data that we can gain permission for.”

Ms Pope said the Met Office analysed land temperature data using a computer code developed by CRU. She said CRU also supplied the Met Office with original data from some remote weather stations which had a significant impact on the global average.

'We Won't Let Sceptics Hijack Climate Talks'

It has been billed as the most important meeting for half a century, and yesterday, with 15,000 people in attendance, the Copenhagen Climate Conference opened with a robust and angry defence of the science of global warming by two of the world's leading climate science figures.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the Nobel-Prize winning head of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), and Dr Jonathan Pershing, the head of the US delegation to the conference, both hit out at the theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which has been used by climate sceptics in Britain, the US and elsewhere to allege that global warming is not man-made.

There has been widespread speculation that the timing of the theft represented a specific attempt to destabilise the conference, in which the world community will attempt to construct a new treaty to cut back on the emissions of carbon dioxide causing the atmosphere to warm.

But yesterday Dr Pershing said that all the incident had done was to "release a barrage of further information which makes clear the robustness of the science." He said it was "shameful" how some of the scientists involved were now being pilloried.

Dr Pachauri told the conference opening ceremony, presided over by the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, that some people clearly found it "inconvenient" to accept the inevitability of the changes that would have to be made in the face of the climate change threat.

"The recent incident of stealing the emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC," he said. "But the panel has a record of transparent and objective assessment stretching back over 21 years, performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe."

The conference, being held at the giant Bella Centre in Copenhagen's southern suburbs, is bringing together 192 countries, all of whom accept the verdict of the IPCC's most recent report, published in 2007, that the warming of the climate system is "unequivocal" and that there is a better than nine out of 10 chance that it is being caused by human actions – principally the emissions of carbon dioxide from industry, transport and deforestation, which retain the Sun's heat in the atmosphere.

The 2007 report said that if CO2 emissions continued without being checked, the Earth's temperature would be likely to rise by between 1.8C and 4C over the coming century – with an outside chance that it could hit 6C, which would be disastrous for the natural world and human society. But more recent scientific assessments have suggested that emissions are now rising so fast that the Earth is firmly on track to hit the 6C rise if action is not taken.

Dr Pachauri listed for the conference – and for the world – some of the consequences global warming would lead to if it were left unchecked. They included widespread increases in droughts and floods, greater stress on water resources, increases in tropical cyclone intensity, more extinctions of wild species and the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which would cause sea levels around the world to rise by more than 20 feet.

Cutting back on the emissions responsible was now the urgent task of the "historically important meeting", he said. But it will not be a matter just for the thousands of delegates. Mr Rasmussen announced that the number of world leaders who would be attending the finale of the conference at the end of next week had now reached 110. He said: "Their presence reflects an unprecedented mobilisation of political determination to combat climate change. It represents a huge opportunity – an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss."

This morning the negotiations proper get under way, with the aim being an agreement in which the industrialised countries such as the US and Britain make strong commitments to cut back their CO2 by up to 40 per cent by 2020, with the leading developing countries such as China and India making firm pledges to move away from "business as usual" in terms of their emissions growth.

Underpinning the deal will have to be a major new financial agreement which provides the developing nations with billions of dollars from the rich world in new climate aid, to help them cut their emissions and also adapt to climate change which is now probably unavoidable, such as widely increased flooding.

Day One: The highlights

*UN Climate Conference, two years in preparation, opens in Copenhagen with 15,000 delegates, observers and media personnel in attendance.

*United Nations climate chief and head of American delegation attack climate sceptics and defend science behind global warming.

*110 heads of state and government, including US President Barack Obama, now preparing to attend conference finale next week.

*European Union says it wants stronger commitments from the US and China to cut CO2 before raising its own ambitions.

*South Africa is final big developing country to announce a climate target.

*Danish Prime Minister apologises to delegates for lack of Little Mermaid figurine in their conference kits.

Poll List: Tory Slump Sticking But Labour Not Capitalising

A new ICM poll for tomorrow's Telegraph shows the recent Tory slipping has stuck - but that Labour have failed to take full advantage. The poll shows the Tories down two points on 40%, with Labour unchanged on 29% and the Liberal Democrats on 19%.

The poll would suggest recent hopes for a hung parliament may be premature; transferred to an election these new numbers would result in a Tory majority of 20. If the Tories hit 40% in the general election - which is likely - Labour will need at least 31% for a hung parliament. To retain a majority, Labour will need to change the game completely.

The task now will be for Labour to take advantage of the Tories' failure to seal the deal. While recent polls have shown the Conservatives support is fragile, Labour has yet to capitalise with its own consistent increase. The gap is likely to continue to narrow over the next six months, but time is shortening.

In a second poll for tomorrow's Times, the Tory lead has reverted back to 13 points, which is much the same place it was immediately after conference season.

Four Years On, What Do I Think Of Cameron's Leadership?

Today is the fourth anniversary of David Cameron's election as Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I think we should all just have a moment's reflection, and ask ourselves what we consider to be the most telling moment, thought, image or (honestly, come on, let's try) 'policy' of those four years.

For me, I am still struck by some of his early environmental image work...the wind turbine on the Notting Hill roof, the cycling to work (albeit weakened by the gas-guzzler following on behind), the brief flirtation with 'vote blue, get green' and above all that great picture of him all bright-eyed and rosy-cheeked at the Arctic Circle on a sled pulled by huskies.

I am now however even more struck by the paucity of environmental policy and the thin-ness of environmental voice that he lends to the debate in advance of what could be one of the most important events of his political lifetime, namely the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

The contrast between huskies back then, and near silence now, does lead one to the conclusion that there is something to the charge that he is more worried about pictures than he is about policy and substance.

I was talking to someone the other day who is on the fringes of the Tory strategic debate (he works for one of the pollsters the Tories use) who said that Cameron's current strategy was to make a bit of noise every now and then but a lot of the time to keep his head down.

His health and safety speech would fit in the 'make a bit of noise every now and then' category. His lack of a big message pre-Copenhagen or pre-Pre Budget Report falls into the 'head down' side of the ledger.

It suggests he really does believe governments lose elections, rather than that oppositions win them. But while it is true that back in 1997 we were helped by the Tories, and might have won whatever we did, I doubt it, and I am sure the size of the majority was down as much to what we did as to anything the Tories did.

Indeed, when you look at the scale of change led by Tony Blair in his three years as Opposition Leader, and the extent to which we dominated the political debate as the Party went through a major process of change to policy, Constitution and pretty much everything else, Cameron's four years of leadership seem pale and inactive by comparison.

The notion that as we enter an election year the Leader of the Opposition should opt to coast, and keep his head down, is bizarre. But it is to some extent confirmed by the approach to his team, something Andrew Rawnsley writes about in his Observer column today. Cameron is deemed by the Tory image-makers to be just about palatable to the public, WIlliam Hague and Ken Clarke are already well-known public figures from their previous incarnations, George Osborne is bound to have a profile as shadow chancellor. But apart from them, every single one of the shadow cabinet could walk down any street in the UK pretty much unerecognised and unmolested. It is pretty odd to think they could within a matter of months be running every department in Whitehall.

Enough from me though...what do you see as the thus far abiding image, comment, observation or policy?

Massive Demo Ahead Of Climate Talks Be Accountable

Tens of thousands of people are expected to join in demonstrations calling for action on climate change ahead of crunch UN talks.

World leaders will meet next week in Copenhagen with the aim of securing a new deal to tackle rising temperatures.

Environmental campaigners, aid agencies, trade unions and organisations including the Women's Institute are travelling to London from across the country to take part in "The Wave" to demand a strong deal on climate change.

Similar protests - all organised by the Stop Climate Chaos coalition - will also be taking place in Dublin, Belfast and Glasgow.

In London, an ecumenical service with an address by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams will take place in Westminster Central Hall, before campaigners march from Grosvenor Square to Big Ben.

A "climate emergency" rally will also take place at Hyde Park Corner, organised by the Campaign Against Climate Change, with MPs including Michael Meacher, Simon Hughes, Jon McDonnell and MEP Caroline Lucas addressing protesters before they join The Wave march on Parliament.

Meanwhile, there is a "climate emergency" bike ride being planned from Lincoln's Inn Fields. Hundreds of students will perform a "splash dance". Elsewhere, members of the Camp for Climate Action are planning to camp out at an as-yet secret location in the capital.

The march on Parliament will be led by an open-topped double decker bus, and will feature a ukulele-playing trapeze artist, cycling bishops, an 18ft long blue dragon and a coal monster. The Co-operative is supporting the protest and has chartered two trains from Manchester to London and one from West Yorkshire for its members to travel to the event, along with scores of buses from other locations.

The event, in which people are being asked to dress in blue, is being supported by pop group Blue's singer Antony Costa, who said: "Climate Change is the most important issue facing us all and so the politicians must get it right in Copenhagen."

The Stop Climate Chaos coalition, which includes groups such as Oxfam, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF, is demanding the UK government increases its targets for EU-wide efforts to cut emissions.

Hundreds of nurses, hospital porters, social workers and home carers will join climate campaigners today to march on the Houses of Parliament to demand action to stop global warming.

Prior to next week’s crucial UN climate summit in Copenhagen, tens of thousands of people from all walks of life will march through the streets of London to demonstrate their support for a safe climate future.

The Wave march will call on world leaders to take urgent action to secure a fair international deal to stop global warming exceeding the danger threshold of 2?C.

Public-sector union Unison is calling for an official recognition of the role trade unions can play in fighting climate change.

“Key to helping countries cope with the worst effects of climate change will be increasing investment in their public sector,” a spokeswoman said.

Unison head of business and environment Mike Jeram explained that it was only right that world leaders commit to a “just transition” when they meet in Copenhagen.

“This must include green policies that are worker-friendly, including good green jobs and training,” he said.

“Key to tackling climate change is making sure people change their behaviour at work.

“Unions have a network of branches, reaching into workplaces all over the world. Using this network to promote efficient green practise would be a good place to start. Unison thinks this role should be officially recognised.”

He added: “Some countries will be hard hit by the effects of climate change. As a public-sector union, we know that these regions will need to step up their investment in public services such as disaster prevention, energy efficiency, healthcare and water management.

“We hope that world leaders will help make this possible in their negotiations.”

Join me and friends who are at the climate change demonstration as this one of the biggest event in the world followed by millions of people.

In an unprecedented move, 56 newspapers from around the world have today published a common editorial - "14 days to seal history's judgement on this generation" - aiming to speak with one voice to the leaders negotiating a deal at Copenhagen this week.

The papers signing up to the editorial include The Guardian, El Pais, The Miami Herald, Le Monde, The Toronto Star, The Brunei Times and 50 others from countries including Rwanda, Tanzania and Bangladesh.

Ian Katz of the Guardian, who largely coordinated the editorial, says the purpose of the joint editorial is to show:

"if all of us who disagree about so much can agree on what must be done, then surely you can too...If the editorial lacks the detail that will have to be cracked over the next 14 days in Copenhagen, it should be a source of encouragement that such a diverse coalition was able to agree about so much - not least the precariousness of our situation, and the need for Copenhagen to deliver a full treaty by summer 2010 at the latest."

The editorial says:

"Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.

The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based."

It continues:

"Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions...The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing."

Overdrawn and overpaid

After all the favours which the powers that be have done for the banking industry recently, it wasn't too much of a surprise to see the Supreme Court cossetting the parasites yet again.

And it certainly isn't much of a shock to see the banks declaring that the Office of Fair Trading hasn't got jurisdiction over their charges. Let's face it, banks and fair trading never have had much in common.

But for their representatives to claim that "unarranged overdraft charges are an important part of current account services" is pitching it a bit strong.

There can't be many people whose account hasn't slipped accidentally into the red by a few quid from time to time and it is arguable that some charge for that could be justified.

But the scale of those charges and the consequences of making them are way out of proportion.

It would not seem to be beyond the wit of man to organise banking software so that, should a standing order drive you into overdraft, that payment is not made. Certainly, if you try to withdraw money from the local hole in the wall that isn't in your account, it simply won't let you, so it can't be impossible to run account banking that way.

But banks never have. They allow the accounts to overdraw, charge you for the unarranged overdraft and then add insult to injury by charging you for the letter that they send telling you that you are overdrawn. On that, they make a fat profit.

And if that charge puts you even more overdrawn, why they charge you again for any other payments that bounce as a consequence.

All of which is unjust, unfair and stinks of usury, especially since a letter doesn't cost around £25 to produce and, even if you are only a pound over the top, an accidental overdraft will cost you around a minimum of £50 in the end, if not more.

It's not surprising that people - apart, that is, from Supreme Court judges whose wallets are so securely cushioned by the big fat salaries they are paid that they have probably never been down to within their last fifty grand - get a little upset.

And the upset is compounded by the fact that it's not the bank's money to begin with.

They hold your money, they lend other people your money, they make a profit on doing so and pay their top people big fat bonuses from the profit on lending your money out, but when you have a bit of trouble, they just make it worse for you.

And that means that those least able to pay for banking services are lumbered with paying the most.

It's not as if you have any choice in the matter. Try living without a bank account when nearly every employer pays through the banking system.

But what really rankles with people is not the charges themselves. It's the gross unfairness. Even the government admits, in the words of Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury Sarah McCarthy-Fry: "It's clear that, in the past, banks were not thinking enough about their customers. That needs to change for the future."

Too right, it does, but why should the banks be allowed to get away with such appalling past behaviour?

Let's face it, when it comes to unarranged overdrafts, the biggest offenders in history are the banks themselves, who have just had a multibillion-pound unarranged overdraft from the taxpayer to pay for their irresponsible and profligate handling of our money.

If banks need to charge up to £50 for an unarranged overdraft of a fiver, then just how much should the taxpayer be seeing as a return on all those billions?

They are clearly getting off a lot more lightly than they are allowing their customers to.

And it's highly unlikely that the majority of unarranged overdrafts were incurred by foolish betting and gambling at ridiculous odds. We generally leave that to the banks and the bankers.

I would urge people to join

1 Million PPL Say Bank Overdraft Charges Are Wrong on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?members&gid=184391222612#/group.php?gid=184391222612&ref=nf

Beijing Plans 45 % Emissions Cut By 2020

I find it very hard to believe that China will take carbon emissions by up to 45% as it still will not help the climate change. China and other nations should do a lot more to bring about climate change which includes the UK.

China has announced plans to cut its carbon emissions by up to 45 per cent as measured against its economic output.

The commitment from the world's largest polluter builds momentum before a widely anticipated climate conference in Copenhagen next month.

China also declared that Premier Wen Jiabao would take part in the Copenhagen meeting to demonstrate the country's commitment to the global effort to reduce greenhouse emissions.

The world's fifth-biggest greenhouse gas emitter India has proposed a similar policy to link emissions to growth in GDP, defined as a broad measure of the value of the nation's total output of goods and services.

China: Rich Nations Must Bear The Cost

China's climate envoy Yu Qingtai

China's top climate envoy has said that it plans to seek binding pollution targets for developed countries but reject similar requirements for developing nations at the Copenhagen climate conference next month.

Climate envoy Yu Qingtai said that it was unfair to oblige poorer countries to play a role combating global warming since most of the environmental damage was caused by developed nations during their industrialisation over the last 100 to 200 years.

Mr Yu said: "Developed countries should not make requirements of developing countries that are unreasonable.

"Developed countries should also earnestly ask themselves: 'In solving this problem that I have created, am I keeping my promises and honouring my commitments'?"

The Copenhagen summit aims to negotiate 2020 emissions reduction targets for industrial countries.

It will also ask developing countries to contribute by presenting detailed plans for how they could cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It is unclear how that would be written into any agreement and if developing nations would be required to keep their promises.

China, like other developing countries, wants to keep the framework of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which commits 37 wealthy nations to cutting greenhouse gas emissions but doesn't require any binding commitments from developing countries.

The United States was the only major industrialised nation to reject Kyoto, arguing such cuts would harm its economy.

President Barack Obama, reversing his predecessor George W Bush's position, says the US wants to join a new post-2012 global agreement to rein in emissions.

But in exchange, US negotiators seek some level of commitment from China, India, Brazil and other poorer nations.

China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has pledged to reduce its energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20 per cent between 2005 and 2010 and said renewables such as solar and wind power will supply 15 per cent of its energy needs by 2020.

But Beijing is resisting binding emission caps.

Why Conservatives Failed The Test On Islamic Schools

Conservative Party officials made two basic errors in their attack on two schools said to be run by a radical Islamic group, it emerged Wednesday.

During Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday and in briefings afterwards the Conservatives claimed there was no evidence that the schools had been registered or inspected by Ofsted, the education standards watchdog; they also said the schools had received money from an anti-terrorism fund. But yesterday the claims were beginning to unravel. The most obvious mistake was the allegation that they appeared not to have been registered or inspected.

In fact, one of the two schools – in Slough, Berkshire – had posted a glowing commendation from Ofsted on its website. The report was easily accessible by Googling the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, and its veracity could be confirmed with Ofsted.

It praised the school for its "broad and balanced curriculum" and for its commitment to the "spiritual, moral, social and cultural development" of its 55 four- to 10-year-old pupils.

The second error, over the allegation that state finance from a fund designed to combat terrorism was being channelled into an extremist school dedicated to the overthrow of Western culture, was perhaps more serious.

The waters here were slightly muddier, although the Conservatives were mistaken again. Money from a government fund was paid to both schools – the second is in Haringey, north London – but the £113,000 concerned came from a fund designed to promote nursery education and distributed by local councils; the fund just happened to have the same name, Pathfinder, as the anti-terrorist fund.

Haringey council suspended funding when the controversy over the running of the two schools broke a month ago. An official inquiry has found "no evidence to suggest inappropriate content or influence in the school".

Slough council said it was satisfied with its school, citing the Ofsted report in the school's defence.

A third allegation concerned the extent of Hizb ut-Tahrir's involvement with the school. The Government has faced pressure to ban the organisation, which supports "Muslim liberation", for alleged extremist views.

David Cameron, the Conservative Party leader, told the House of Commons: "Two schools have been established by an extremist Islamist foundation, the ISF, which is a front organisation for Hizb ut-Tahrir." He added: "Two of its four trustees are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the headteacher and proprietor of one of the schools [in Slough] are members of Hizb ut-Tahrir."

Farah Ahmed, the head in question, told the BBC she was not a member. The proprietor of the Slough school, Yusra Hamilton, who is the wife of a Hizb ut-Tahrir member, has since resigned as a trustee of the school.

The Haringey school has told the local council it no longer has links with "any of the individuals alleged to have connections with Hizb ut-Tahrir".

Brown & Cameron Clash Over Budget Deficit

I know where I would put my money to run the country see link below:

Gordon Brown and David Cameron clashed over plans to tackle Britain’s budget deficit on Monday, as the party leaders sought political advantage on an issue that is set to dominate next year’s election.The prime minister and Conservative leader both claimed international backing for their approach, as each warned the annual conference of the CBI employers’ organisation that their rival’s strategy would jeopardise the economic recovery.

Mr Cameron rejected suggestions that he had switched emphasis from “austerity” measures to tackle the £175bn deficit to growth in response to fears that his party’s poll lead was under pressure.

Asserting that his message had not changed, Mr Cameron said his plans for an “emergency growth Budget” within 50 days of taking office were interlinked with his call for urgent measures to tackle the deficit.

“Dealing with this deficit is not an alternative to economic growth – the two go hand in hand,” he said.

The Tory leader asserted that a failure to address the deficit with sufficient urgency posed the “greatest single risk to sustained economic recovery”. He told delegates there was a growing consensus behind the Tory argument that “urgent action is vital to recovery”.

But the prime minister scored a coup when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, lauded Mr Brown’s global leadership and backed his warning that fiscal stimulus should not be withdrawn too quickly.

“We recommend erring on the side of caution, as exiting too early is costlier than exiting too late,” Mr Strauss-Kahn told the event in London.

But Mr Cameron’s approach received tacit backing from the European Central Bank, which warned that delays in unwinding exceptional measures taken to combat the economic crisis could backfire. Speaking in Madrid, Jean-Claude Trichet, ECB president, said threats to public finances posed by stimulus packages meant that “there is an increasingly pressing need for ambitious and realistic fiscal exit strategies and for fiscal consolidation”.

Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an ECB executive board member, said on Friday history showed that the late implementation of “exit strategies” could cause future crises.

“In my view, the ‘err on the side of being late’ paradigm is potentially as dangerous as the ‘productivity growth’ paradigm of the late 1990s and the ‘fear of deflation’ paradigm of the early 2000s, which led some advanced economies to implement policy stimuli for too long, sowing the seeds of the subsequent crisis,” Mr Bini Smaghi said in Paris.

Mr Brown sought to capitalise on the IMF’s support for his stance by suggesting that the Tory growth “soundbite” was meaningless without substantive policies to support it. The prime minister criticised the Conservative call for immediate action on the deficit, warning that “choking off the recovery too soon would be fatal to world growth”.

Business reacted with bemusement to the ferocity of the debate, suggesting that the clashes were largely for political effect since – whoever wins next year’s general election – significant spending cuts were unlikely to bite until 2011-12.

“The instincts of Mr Cameron and Mr Brown are clearly different. There may not be in policy terms all that much [to separate the duo],” Richard Lambert, CBI director-general, said.

“Business is focusing on a different issue [to the rhetoric on exit from the fiscal stimulus],” said John Cridland, CBI deputy director-general. “Business knows that significant fiscal tightening has to be achieved at some point in the cycle but it’s how we do it.”

Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war - live

If that is the case what about the Major Government and Lib Dems who also supported the first Gulf war as soon as the troops arrived into a position that they could take out Saddam the troops did a U turn on the comrades in Iraq so that they could turn on Saddam.

So the question is given the circumstances all the countries that all was involved in the war all the countries that went into the first Gulf War & second Gulf War should be held to account yes?

Follow the action as inquiry into one of the most contentious decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence.

Sir John Chilcot, who is chairming the inquiry into the Iraq war. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

10.49am: Chilcot asks about the "smart sanctions" policy. How did we get there, and what happened in the security council?

Patey says that by March 2001 Britain had reached agreement with the US to narrow and strenthen sanctions. At one stage eggs had been subject to sanctions (because they could be incubated to produce WMD). The Americans and the British wanted to get away from that, by moving towards a "controlled goods list" and tightening border monitoring. The government wanted to "narrow the scope of sanctions and make their implemention more effective".

10.48am: More Iraq inquiry jargon: the NFZ operation. That stands for the no-fly zones.

10.47am: Webb says that "the question of regime overthrow was mentioned" but that Britain was not being asked to support it at that stage.

10.43am: Chilcot asks about "regime change". When did it start to "loom" as an object of US policy.

Ricketts says that the notion of regime change was around when the Bush adminstration took over. "We did hear voices [talking about] arming the Iraqi opposition." But this was not being pushed heavily, Ricketts says. The State Department was in charge.

Patey says that in February 2001 British policy makers were "aware of the drumbeats in Washington" relating to regime change. But Britain's policy was to "keep well away" from this option.

10.41am: They're talking about the Americans now. Ricketts says that from Bush's election until 9/11, the State Department (ie, Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State) was in the lead in relation to US policy towards Iraq.

Patey says the State Department was being "given a chance" to see if it could "make containment work".

10.40am: BBC News is still showing the hearing. Sky has given up already.

10.38am: Webb says there were different opinions about the threat posed by Iraq at the time. In Kuwait there was a lot of concern.

Patey talks about the need for "P5 unity".

We're going to have to get used to Iraq inquiry jargon. P5 stands for the permament five - the five permanent members of the UN security council.

10.36am: Webb explains how the arms embargo was working in 2001. "Almost all members of the UN were abiding by it," he says. It was preventing Iraq acquiring "major new weapons systems". But there was "some leakage of parts and components that allowed them to be a bit more effective. They appeared to be flying their aircraft a bit more regularly [than expected]."

10.33am: Ricketts starts with an opening statement saying that by 2001 the various policies in place to contain Saddam Hussein were not working well.

10.24am: The three witnesses introduce themselves. I gave some details about them in my post at 8.42am but they add a few details.

Ricketts says he is now permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He starts by saying how anxious people within government are to cooperate with the inquiry.

Patey says he is now ambassador to Saudi Arabia. After leaving his Middle East job in the Foreign Office in 2002 he became ambassador to Sudan.

Webb says he is now working in the Cabinet Office on a project on "crisis management". He also says he is on part-time secondment to the Football Association helping prepare the World Cup bid.

This is interesting. Webb also says that, during the time in question, he received a promotion in the MoD after going through a selection process that involved two members of the inquiry assessing candidates - Lady Prashar, who, as First Civil Service Commissioner, was involved in senior appointments of this kind and Sir Lawrence Freedman, who I presume was on the panel as a member of the "great and the good". This disclosure does rather reinforce the impression that the inquiry represents the establishment interrogating itself.

10.21am: This morning the inquiry will focus on "broad lines of policy" relating to Iraq before the way, Chilcot says. In the afternoon the hearing will concentrate on the no-fly zones policy and sanctions.

10.18am: Chilcot is now telling members of the public that, if they disrupt proceedings, they will be thrown out.

10.16am: Chilcot has mentioned the "protocols" for witnesses giving evidence. There are three of them and they are available on the inquiry's website. They explain how the process will work and when witnesses will be allowed to give evidence in private, or anonymously.

10.10am: My 10am post was based on the text we were given in advance. Chilcot is speaking now. He starts with a moment's silence in memory of all those killed in Iraq.

10.00am: Chilcot is about to give his opening statement. We've been given a text in advance. Here are the highlights.

He reasserts his determination to be rigorous and frank - and, where necessary, to attibute blame.

My colleagues and I come to this task with open minds. We are apolitical and independent of any political party. We want to examine the evidence. We will approach our task in a way that is thorough, rigorous, fair and frank ...

As I have said before, we are not a court or an inquest or a statutory inquiry; and our processes will reflect that difference. No-one is on trial. We cannot determine guilt or innocence. Only a court can do that. But I make a commitment here that once we get to our final report, we will not shy away from making criticisms where they are warranted.

He renews his appeal for evidence from ordinary members of the public. This suggests he is trying hard to stop it becoming an establishment-only affair.

We don't want to, and are not, just hearing from the 'official' representatives. We value hearing a broad spectrum of views from a wide range of people and organisations. We want to know what people across Britain think are the important questions. We want to get a range of challenging perspectives on the issues we are considering.

He urges people to be patient. The first round of witness hearings will begin today and run until early February 2010. Then (after the election) he will hold a further round of hearings in the middle of 2010.

We expect to invite back some previous witnesses and, where relevant, call some new ones. What I would like to stress now is that people should not jump to conclusions if they do not hear everything they expect to in the first round of hearings: there will be more to follow.

He says the inquiry will not start considering issues relating to the legality of the war until the hearings in the New Year

And, finally, he explains what he wants to learn from the early hearings.

We want to establish a clear understanding of the various core elements of the UK's involvement in Iraq, and how these developed over time. We will start by hearing from the senior officials and military officers who had a key role in developing advice for Ministers and/or implementing government policy. We want them to take us through the main decisions and tasks. That will give us a clear understanding of the various strands of British policy development and implementation since 2001. We will learn the reasons why particular policies or courses of action were adopted, and what consideration was given to alternative approaches.

9.54am: Ian Drury in the Daily Mail says that Gordon Brown is not expected to give evidence to the inquiry. Iain Dale on his blog says he finds this "incredible".

If [Brown] had stood up to Blair and said no, it is almost inconceivable that Blair could have gone ahead and proceeded as he did.

9.48am: Some 53% of "Westminster insiders" polled by PoliticsHome think the Iraq inquiry will be "sufficiently independent", while 38% do not.

9.44am: Rose Gentle (see my 9.20am post) is on Sky and News 24, giving different interviews, at the same time. (One is a pre-record.) She tells Sky that she thinks this inquiry will be different.

This time the families have been allowed to ask questions. The families have put in a lot of questions. If the questions are not answered, we can always says 'why were our questions not asked?'

9.38am: This is what Michael Howard had to say about the Iraq inquiry on the Today programme this morning.

Tony Blair told the House of Commons that the intelligence he received on weapons of mass destruction was 'detailed, extensive and authoritative'. What he had actually been told by the intelligence community was that the information they had was 'limited, sporadic and patchy'. He translated those words 'limited, sporadic and patchy' into 'detailed, extensive and authoritative' and ... that is a clear example of how he misled the House of Commons and the nation.

"The point about the Chilcot Inquiry is that it has wide points of reference. There may well be evidence that wasn't available to Butler. I hope we get the truth. T

9.20am: Change of plan. The Chilcot inquiry are only letting one journalist per media organisation into the building. I'm going to let one of my colleagues take the Guardian seat and I'm back in the Commons, where I'll watch proceedings on the web feed. There are a few seats for reports in the room where the hearings will take place and there's a separate overflow room next door where reporters can watch a live feed. But apparently there are only spaces for 80 journalists in total and they are massively oversubscribed, particularly because of the international interest. I saw about half a dozen names from Al Jazeera alone on the accreditation list at the door.

I'm not one to make a fuss, but some journalists can get very prickly about this kind of thing and I expect there will be some very angry newspaper writers prowling around Parliament Square soon. Not a good start, Sir John.

And you can't say you weren't warned. As the Iraq Inquiry Digest reported last month, Chilcot was asked when he had a meeting with relatives whether they would all be able to attend when Tony Blair gave evidence. Chilcot told them that he could not give them that guarantee, because there might not be enough room. Rose Gentle, whose son was killed in the war, had a simple response:

We want to be face-to-face with him – get a bigger hall.

8.42am: At last. After six years of fighting and insurgency in Iraq, two parliamentary inquiries, the Hutton inquiry into the death of David Kelly, the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the conflict and a long campaign for a full inquiry into the whole affair, which culminated in Gordon Brown having to abandon his attempt to have the evidence heard in private, we have finally come to the day when the Chilcot inquiry is going to start hearing evidence.

Sir John Chilcot, the chairman, is going to open proceedings with a statement at 10am and then we're going to hear from three witnesses this morning on the subject of "UK policy towards Iraq in 2001". They are:

• Sir Peter Ricketts - chairman of the joint intelligence committee 2000-01 and director general political at the Foreign Office 2001-03

• Simon Webb - director general operations policy at the Ministry of Defence 1999-2001 and policy director at the MoD 2001-04

• Sir William Patey - head of the Middle East department at the Foreign Office 2001-03

They won't be the most interesting witnesses to give evidence to the inquiry. But today's session will nevertheless be fascinating, because we will be able to start forming a judgment about how rigorous and revelatory the proceedings are going to be.

The hearings are taking place at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster, a large, charmless-but-functional conference centre about two minutes' walk away from the House of Commons. I'm heading off there now. I'll start blogging again once I'm up and running in the press room.

China Executes Two For Contaminated Milk

Where is the human rights that China has promised to reform, for many Chinese living abroad we all say China is our land, but we must continue to stand our ground to protest in a democratic society. See link below to read the article and then log onto www.chinese forlabour.org to see what help you can give. Thanks

Official news agency says death sentences carried out on pair who added industrial chemical to infant formula

Zhang Yujun, second right, seen here before the trial last December, was executed for endangering public safety. Photograph: China Daily/Reuters

China executed two men today for their roles in a tainted milk powder scandal in which at least six children died and more than 300,000 became sick.

Zhang Yujun was executed for endangering public safety and Geng Jinping for producing and selling toxic food, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

Their sentences were upheld in March by an appeal court in the northern city of Shijiazhuang. China requires death sentences to receive final approval from the supreme people's court in Beijing, after which most are carried out by lethal injection.

Xinhua said news of the execution had been issued by the Shijiazhuang municipal intermediate people's court, although a court clerk who answered the phone today said he was unable to confirm the sentences had been carried out.

The case was one of China's worst-ever food safety scandals, involving tainting of infant formula with the industrial chemical melamine, which can cause kidney stones and kidney failure.

Melamine, used in the manufacture of plastics and fertiliser, was added to watered-down milk to fool inspectors testing for protein, and to boost profits.

Zhang, a cattle farmer, and Geng were convicted of producing and selling a fake protein powder containing melamine, much of it to producers who sold tainted milk to the now-defunct Sanlu Group, at the time one of China's biggest dairies. Geng's brother, Geng Jinzhu, had his eight-year jail sentence upheld last week.

In all 21 people involved in the scandal were tried and sentenced in January, including Sanlu's general manager, Tian Wenhua, who was given a life prison sentence after pleading guilty to charges of producing and selling fake or substandard products.

Three other former Sanlu executives were given between five and 15 years in prison.

The harsh sentences accompany an increased government focus on recurring food safety problems and an eagerness by the communist leadership to move past the scandal.

However, no public investigation was ever made into accusations that news of the melamine tainting was suppressed before last year's Olympics in Beijing because the government did not want it overshadowing the event.