Tony Blair Blames Terror On Extreme Muslim Ideology

Tony Blair yesterday insisted “significant blows” had been struck in the war on terror but admitted: “It’s not over.”

The former Labour Prime ­Minister said that it was “deeply naive” to believe the West’s ­response to the 9/11 attacks had radicalised Muslim extremists. He said: “They believe in what they believe in because they ­believe their religion compels them to believe in it.”

Mr Blair warned on Radio 4 that the threat would only end when “we defeat the ideology”.

And he indicated that he would back an attack on Iran if it ­continues to try to make its own nuclear bombs.

Read Full Post »

Union Leader Warns Govt Of Civil Unrest Over ‘Attacks’ On Pay And Pensions

The leader of Britain’s biggest trade union today issued a stark warning to the Government that ‘continued attacks’ on workers’ pay, jobs and pensions will provoke unrest.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said it was little wonder that working people were standing up for their rights in the face of the “abuse” they were having to deal with.

He spoke ahead of this week’s TUC Congress, which opens in London tomorrow, when calls will be made for co-ordinated industrial action against the government’s public sector pension reforms.

Len McCluskey (left) appearing on The Andrew Marr Show. Mr McCluskey said: ‘All that this country has held dear for 65 years – education for all, our NHS, decent jobs and pensions in retirement, a future for our kids – is under attack’.

Civil servants and teachers held a one-day strike in June and further action is being planned for November, possibly involving a huge number of workers.

Mr McCluskey said: “All that this country has held dear for 65 years – education for all, our NHS, decent jobs and pensions in retirement, a future for our kids – is under attack.

“It is under attack by a government with no mandate and a feral ruling class that is being allowed to duck its duty to society.

“This abuse of the struggling many by the cushioned, untouchable few is causing division and stoking anger – little wonder that working people will be forced to stand up and defend what is rightfully theirs.

“Unite rejects the dogma of despair and fear peddled by this government. Let’s explode some of the myths surrounding the poison government is spreading on public sector pensions. These are not gold-plated CEOs of FTSE 100 companies.

“These are dinner ladies who if they are lucky will earn a pension of £4,000 – and this government is planning to slash this further still.

“I for one do not want my grandchildren to be asking ‘what did you do to stop this abuse and to stop my heritage being taken away?’ and for me to reply ‘nothing’.

“So, we rule nothing in or nothing out. From civil disobedience to industrial action, this is the moment we defend what is decent and fair.”

Mr McCluskey will speak in a debate on trade union rights tomorrow, with calls to resist government attacks on employment rights.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber will tell the congress that moves by banks to water down far-reaching proposals that will split their high street and investment arms should be resisted.

He will tell delegates in his opening address that recommendations by the Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, should be defended against attacks by the banks.

In a speech to the congress, he will will say: “The Vickers team have been asked how to make the banks safe, but the real question is how we make them useful.

“Tougher capital requirements and ring-fencing will be bitterly opposed by the banks, who will now lobby hard to water them down. They should be resisted.”

Public sector pensions will be debated by delegates on Wednesday.

Read Full Post »

Call For Justice After Iraq Abuse Inquiry

The crown prosecution service is under pressure to bring civil prosecutions against soldiers involved in the abuse of an innocent Iraqi civilian who died in British army custody, after an inquiry found his death was caused by “an appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence”.

Daoud Mousa, father of Baha Mousa, shows photographs of his son and family.

Fourteen soldiers mentioned in the report are still serving, but some were suspended from duty on Thursday. MoD officials expect more suspensions in the coming days.

Baha Mousa, a hotel worker, died in Basra in September 2003 after soldiers repeatedly deprived him of sleep, placed a hood over his head and subjected him to banned “stress positions”.

Sir William Gage, the chairman of the inquiry, called the behaviour “wholly unacceptable in any circumstances”.

Mr Mousa sustained 93 injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose over 36 hours of systematic abuse between September 14 and 15, 2003.

Sir William said: “The events described in the report represent a very serious and regrettable incident. Such an incident should not have happened and should never happen again.’’

The directors of both public and service prosecutions are now considering whether the soldiers involved should face trial. Lawyers and campaigners insist they should be tried in public courts.

Sapna Malik, from law firm Leigh Day, said: “In light of the cogent and serious findings by Sir William Gage, we now expect that the military and civilian prosecuting authorities of this country will act to ensure that justice is done.”

Phil Shiner, from Public Interest Lawyers, added that it was an “absolute imperative” that prosecutions were brought in a civilian court.

Liam Fox, the defence secretary, said: “There is no place in our Armed Forces for the mistreatment of detainees and there is no place for a perverted sense of loyalty that turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or erects a wall of silence to cover it up.”

He added that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (or IHAT), which started work in November 2010, was considering this and other reported cases of abuse.

“It is too early to comment on what the conclusions of the IHAT investigations might be, but cases will be referred to the director of service prosecutions, if and when there is sufficient evidence to justify this,” Mr Fox said.

Sir William issued a total of 73 recommendations to improve the way detainees are handled.

These included asking detainees “on entry and exit from a theatre-level detention facility” if they had any complaints about their treatment, and suggesting Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons visit battlefield holding centres.

The former Court of Appeal judge condemned the actions of Corporal Donald Payne, who pleaded guilty in September 2006 to inhumane treatment of prisoners, as well as senior officers, including the commanding officer Colonel Jorge Mendonca, Lieutenant Craig Rodgers and Major Michael Peebles.

He said Cpl Payne was a “violent bully” who inflicted a “dreadful catalogue of unjustified and brutal violence” on Mr Mousa and other detainees and encouraged junior soldiers to do the same.

Seven soldiers faced allegations relating to the mistreatment of the detainees at a court martial in 2006-07, but only one was found guilty.

Read Full Post »

How MI6 Deal Sent Family To Gaddafi’s Jail

Exclusive: Libyan Islamist reveals how wife and children were ‘rendered’ before Tony Blair visit.

Sami al-Saadi is considering whether to sue the British government after he and his family were ‘rendered’ in an operation between MI6 and Gaddafi’s intelligence services.

A Libyan Islamist has told how he and his family were imprisoned after being “rendered” in an operation MI6 hatched in co-operation with Muammar Gaddafi’s intelligence services. The rendition occurred shortly before Tony Blair paid his first visit to the dictator.

Sami al-Saadi, his wife and four children, the youngest a girl aged six, were flown from Hong Kong to Tripoli, where they were taken straight to prison. Saadi was interrogated under torture while his family were held in a nearby cell.

“They handcuffed me and my wife on the plane, my kids and wife were crying all the way,” he told the Guardian. “It was a very bad situation. My wife and children were held for two months, and psychologically punished. The Libyans told me that the British were very happy.”

Saadi says he is now considering whether to sue the British government, making him the second Libyan rendition victim to threaten legal proceedings in less than a week.

The evidence that the family were victims of a British-led rendition operation is contained in a secret CIA document found in the abandoned office of Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief, in Tripoli last week.

In London, meanwhile, an official inquiry into Britain’s role in torture and rendition since 9/11 says the government has provided information about the UK’s role in the affair, and Whitehall sources defended intelligence agencies’ actions by saying they were following “ministerially authorised government policy”.

It is the first time evidence has emerged that the British intelligence agencies ran their own rendition operation, as opposed to co-operating with those that were mounted by the CIA.

Saadi was held for more than six years, during which time he says he was regularly beaten and subjected to electric shocks. Shortly after his arrival in Tripoli, he says, Moussa Koussa visited in person to explain how Gaddafi’s new friends in the west were helping him track down the regime’s opponents around the world. “He told me: ‘You’ve been running from us, but since 9/11 I can pick up the phone and call MI6 or the CIA and they give us all the information we want on you. You’ve nowhere to hide.'”

Saadi, a leading member of a Libyan mujahideen group who was known by the nom de guerre Abu Munthir, was interrogated on one occasion by British intelligence officers, who he alleges did nothing to try to protect him after he told them he was being tortured.

The Foreign Office has declined to say whether it knew what became of Abu Munthir’s family as a result of the rendition operation, describing this information as an “intelligence matter”. A spokesman said: “Our position is that it is the government’s longstanding policy not to comment on intelligence matters.”

Saadi says he was tricked by the British authorities into travelling to Hong Kong. While in exile in China in March 2004 he approached British intelligence officers via an intermediary in the UK, he says, and was told that he would be permitted to return to London, where he had lived for three years after seeking asylum in 1993. First, however, he would have to be interviewed at the British consulate in Hong Kong, and would be met by British diplomats on his arrival.

Saadi flew to Hong Kong with his wife, two sons aged 12 and nine, and two daughters aged 14 and six. They were not met by any British officials but were detained by Chinese border guards over alleged passport irregularities, held for a week and then despatched to Tripoli.

Saadi says he always assumed the British were behind his rendition, “working behind the curtain”. Confirmation came when Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, discovered a cache of papers in Moussa Koussa’s abandoned office.

Among the documents was a fax that the CIA sent to Tripoli on 23 March 2004. Marked SECRET/US ONLY/EXCEPT LIBYA, it concerns the forthcoming rendition of Saadi and his family. The wording suggests the CIA took no part in the planning of the operation, but was eager to become involved.

It says: “Our service has become aware that last weekend LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] deputy Emir Abu Munthir and his spouse and children were being held in Hong Kong detention for immigration/passport violations. We are also aware that your service had been co-operating with the British to effect Abu Munthir’s removal to Tripoli, and that you had an aircraft available for this purpose in the Maldives.”

It goes on to explain that although Hong Kong had no wish to see a Libyan aircraft land on its territory, “to enable you to assume control of Abu Munthir and his family”, the operation would work if the Libyans were to charter an aircraft registered in a third country, and that the US would assist with the cost.

The operation coincided exactly with Tony Blair’s first visit to Libya. Two days after the fax was sent, Blair arrived to shake hands with Gaddafi, and said the two nations wanted to make “common cause” in counter-terrorism operations. It was also announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a £550m gas exploration deal. Three days later Saadi and his family were put aboard a private Egyptian-registered jet and flown to Tripoli.

Associates of Saadi cannot understand why his capture and interrogation would hold any great intelligence value for the British authorities, and are speculating that he may have been a “gift” from the British to the Gaddafi regime.

“On the plane I was told I was going to be electrocuted, hanged,” Saadi said. “When we got to Tripoli my wife and I were in handcuffs, and our legs were tied together using wire and we were hooded. My wife recalls that she thought we were going to be hanged.”

Saadi and his family were held initially at a jail in the Tajoura district, which he describes as “Mousa Koussa’s family jail”, and then at Abu Salim jail, a location where prisoners have been murdered and tortured for decades, according to human rights organisations. He says he spent the first 14 months in complete isolation in a cell measuring 6ft by 7ft.

“Whenever they felt I was withholding information they would beat me and subject me to electric shocks,” he said.

As well as being tortured, he was repeatedly told that his family would be harmed and that he would be killed.

The UK was involved in the rendition of another Libyan Islamist earlier the same month. Other papers found among the Tripoli cache show that an MI6 tip-off allowed the CIA to abduct Abdul Hakin Belhaj in Bangkok. Belhaj, who later became a leading figure in the rebel forces that toppled Gaddafi, says he was tortured first by the CIA and then flown to Libya where he suffered severe abuse for several years, being hung from walls and immersed in ice baths. Belhaj says he too was interrogated by MI6 officers, who indicated they knew he was being tortured, but did nothing to help him.

On Thursday Belhaj met with British government representatives, who declined to make any apology. He too is considering whether to bring a claim for damages in the UK courts.

A number of Whitehall sources have said MI6 was complying with “ministerially authorised government policy” when Saadi and his family and Belhaj were rendered to Libya. However, the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Downing Street are all declining to say which department’s ministers authorised the operations. A spokesman for Tony Blair said he knew nothing about the matter.

Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time, said he welcomed the fact that an inquiry headed by Sir Peter Gibson would be examining the matter but did not answer questions about whether he had authorised the operation.

The inquiry headed by Gibson, a retired judge, that has been established to examine Britain’s role in the mistreatment of terrorism suspects since 9/11, says that it was informed about the UK’s involvement in the removal of Saadi from Hong Kong before the discovery of the Libyan government documents last weekend. It is unclear how much detail has been passed over to the inquiry staff.

It may be difficult for former ministers and intelligence officers to tell Gibson that they could not have expected Belhaj and Saadi and his family to be mistreated after they were handed over to Gaddafi’s government. The use of torture had been well-documented by human rights groups, while the Foreign Office’s human rights report for 2004 (pdf) states: “The UK remains seriously concerned by the human rights situation in Libya, including restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, political prisoners, arbitrary detention and conditions in Libyan prisons.” It added that the British were very keen to see Libya sign international agreements against torture.

Read Full Post »

Ruth Davidson Promises No More Devolution If She Wins Scottish Tory Leadership

Ruth Davidson has promised to draw a “line in the sand” on the constitution by promising the Scottish Conservatives would oppose more powers for Holyrood if she is elected leader.

Speaking at the official launch of her campaign in Edinburgh, she said the range of powers included in the Coalition Government’s Scotland Bill should be the final word on devolution.

She also delivered a withering attack on leadership rival Murdo Fraser’s plans to start a new right-wing party to replace the Tories, saying there would be “existential crisis, no wringing of hands” under her leadership.

But the 32-year-old estimated that it would take a decade to turn around the Scottish Conservatives’ dismal election performances and make the party a political force.

Miss Davidson also brushed aside concerns about how she could lead the current Holyrood group of MSPs, the largest group of whom have backed Mr Fraser and his plan for a new party.

Sir Jamie McGrigor has become the latest MSP to back him. But the leadership contest will be decided by party members, many of whom remain fiercely loyal to the Tory brand and deeply suspicious about devolution threatening the Union.

Mr Fraser remains the bookies’ favourite to replace Annabel Goldie as leader but has not ruled out supporting the transfer of more taxation powers to Holyrood after the Scotland Bill has been enacted.

This was vigorously opposed by Miss Davidson, who said: “The Scotland Bill currently going through Westminster is the line in the sand.

“The time for arguing about the powers the people want is over. It’s time now to use the powers that we have.”

The Glasgow MSP also claimed to be the best candidate to thwart Alex Salmond’s separation plan during the forthcoming independence referendum campaign.

“I believe the United Kingdom is a force for good in the world. I will make that positive case for the Union and together we will win as we have right on our side,” Miss Davidson said.

“No halfway house, no second question, no march to fiscal autonomy. When the referendum is done and Scotland in the Union has won the day, let that be an end to it.”

The early skirmishes of the campaign have been dominated by Mr Fraser’s assertion that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party has no future in its current form and must be replaced.

The Daily Telegraph has revealed how a jittery Mr Fraser has sent messages to hundreds of sceptical members trying to convince them this would not mean disbanding their party.

In an appeal to rank-and-file members, Miss Davidson said: “I have no interest in change for its own sake. We could spend the next 12 months discussing the internal machinations of the party.

“We could tie ourselves in knots. Alex Salmond would love that. Real change for the Scottish Conservatives won’t come from a new name.”

She added: “Under my leadership, there will be no existential crisis, no wringing of hands. Instead I want people to call themselves Scottish, Conservative and Unionist.”

Jackson Carlaw, a West of Scotland MSP also opposed to Mr Fraser’s plan, is the third candidate standing for the leadership.

Read Full Post »

UKIP Appeal To Tory Supporters, While Greens Target Lib Dems

You can tell it’s autumn not just by the change in weather and threat of storms… but because the party conference season is under way.

Party conferences are under way with UKIP meeting in Eastbourne and the Green Party in Sheffield.

The first two have already started with the UK Independence Party (UKIP) meeting in Eastbourne and the Green Party, led by the Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas, in Sheffield.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage is using the conference to appeal to disaffected Tories.

Nigel Farage is appealing to people unhappy with Conservative policies.

He describes his party as having an “open door” and believes the bulk of new support for his party will come from those unhappy with Conservative policies.

‘Mass deception’

Never one to shy away from controversy, he’s used strong language to describe the three main parties at Westminster as “a group of college kids”.

But his main target has been the Conservatives who he said were engaged in a “mass deception”, claiming they promised one thing about Europe yet delivered another.

Elsewhere, despite the fact the Green’s only MP represents Brighton Pavilion and the Brighton Council is the only Green-run administration in the country, the party is meeting in Sheffield.

Given the party’s achievement at the local elections in May, this year’s conference is particularly significant for its leader Caroline Lucas.

On national issues she’s blamed “unrestrained capitalism” for the riots last month.

She told her party conference that underlying issues, such as lack of jobs and wage inequalities, must be tackled.

And she criticised David Cameron’s “repressive crackdown” on those responsible for the disorder.

Just as UKIP want to appeal to disaffected Tories, Caroline Lucas hopes to appeal to disgruntled Liberal Democrats.

Caroline Lucas became Green MP for Brighton Pavilion in 2010.

In her speech she mocked the Lib Dem leader and Sheffield MP, Nick Clegg, as “the minister for meeting angry people and being shouted at”.

The party recently celebrated its first 100 days in power at Brighton & Hove City Council.

However, not all its pledges have been a resounding success – the idea for a “meat-free Monday” had to be dropped after a council official proposed piloting it with bin men.

But some of the pledges the party has introduced have fared rather better.

They’ve introduced an extra 60p on the minimum wage for 340 council workers to meet their living wage pledge.

They’ve also attempted to tackle the council’s pay gap, with chief executive John Barradell taking a 5% pay cut.

They may have only been in power in Brighton for a few months but there is clearly still a lot of work to do – such as tackling Brighton’s housing shortages and the lack of school places.

“National support for the Green Party in opinion polls has not increased significantly”
Louise Stewart

Despite Caroline Lucas’ high profile as party leader and the election breakthroughs in Brighton, national support for the party in opinion polls has not increased significantly and remains in single digits.

So while the conference is a good time to take stock of the party’s achievements, it’s often a time when delegates – and the public – start looking at whether their leader is really delivering.

Over the next few weeks we’ll see how Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and David Cameron all fare.

With the Liberal Democrats conference next, in Liverpool, Nick Clegg will be hoping he does not, in Caroline Lucas’ words, end up “meeting angry people and being shouted at”.

Read Full Post »

The Liberal Democrats Aren’t Especially Liberal – Or Even Democratic

The junior Coalition partner’s policies have made a mockery of its historic name.

What is Sarah Teather’s party actually delivering for Britain?

If the Liberal Democrats didn’t exist, under what circumstances would you choose to create them? I’ll assume that it’s the “Liberal” bit of their historical accident of a name that matters (not many anti-democrats run for election these days). If we did feel the need for a Liberal Party, I guess it would be because neither the Labour nor Tory organisations were being sufficiently, well, liberal in their policy-making.

Ten years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown making illegal anything that moved, while repeatedly trying to give the state the power to lock us up without charge for longer and longer periods? Yes, I can see a need for some more liberalism; that there could be a useful role for a party to react viscerally against Labour’s criminalising tendencies. Ten years of Margaret Thatcher? I’m hardly one to criticise my political hero, but I can’t deny that prolonged exposure to her governing style might make a voter yearn for something a little less prescriptive; a little more laissez-faire in matters social. Regardless of your own political disposition, then, I don’t think it’s hard to make the case that political space could exist for a party which prioritised the autonomy of the individual over either stateist or corporatist collectivism.

Now imagine that you are a Liberal Democrat. Your organisation has been in the wilderness for 80 years, since the time of Lloyd George. The general election of 2010 gives you the chance to share government with the Conservatives; this is the first time in recent history that an administration will have a serious Liberal presence. How would you behave? Me, I would be bending over backwards to demonstrate that not only is a liberal instinct a useful one to bring to the art of government, but that it also makes sense to have that instinct embodied by my organisation. Anyone anyone can call themselves a “liberal”. The trick is to convince voters that such an instinct requires a party to carry it.

Instead, what has happened? Andrew Lansley’s Health Bill, which made a tentative step towards liberalisation of health provision in the UK, is first of all postponed, and then watered down, largely at the behest of the Lib Dems. Even after the Bill passed the Commons this week, Baroness (Shirley) Williams and the dis-elected ex-MP Evan Harris continued to mutter darkly and publicly about their inability to support it. Lib Dems ensured that the planned GP consortia – supposed to act for us, the patients – will include hospital doctors and nurses; a prioritisation of the producer over the patient. Unelected peer and dis-elected ex‑MP – I withdraw my opening remarks about the party’s name: they’re not even democratic, let alone liberal.

Also this week, Nick Clegg gave a speech about the Coalition’s flagship free schools. These schools are the last, best hope of those children failed by local education authorities. Academic excellence through freedom of choice: what could be more liberal than that? Instead, Mr Clegg chose to focus on the importance of preventing anyone running such a school from making a profit – profit is bad, apparently, because successful schools might use the money to expand – and went out of his way to support an even greater role for councils – the LEAs – in controlling access. In a straight choice, the Lib Dem leader prioritises the producer interest.

I could go on. Lib Dems also want to delay the election of local police commissioners. Anti-democratic again; and when was denying a voice to the people a “liberal” characteristic? And I’ve not mentioned the party’s support for the Human Rights Act, largely because it defies parody, let alone analysis. “Votes for prisoners”, say Lib Dems. It’s not quite the heady fight of the People’s Budget of 1909, is it?

Ah yes, say Lib Dem activists, but think of all the good we bring to the Coalition. When pressed, they trumpet the lack of recognition of marriage in the tax system. I’m not clear why it’s liberal to penalise the natural pair-bonding affinity of human mammals, but there you are. They also claim to have secured the increase in the personal allowance for the poorest taxpayers, as well as the retention – thus far – of the 50p top rate.

The 50p top rate is economically illiterate, and needn’t detain us. Symbolism does matter, though, and if keeping it there for a few months longer means that those such as Simon Hughes (“Champion of University Access”, no less) continue to vote with the Government, so be it. But did we need the Lib Dems to make the case for the increase in personal allowances? Tories have campaigned against the complex and inefficient recycling of income from the poor, to the government, and then back to the poor, for years. More importantly, the Right-wing view of tax (to reduce it wherever possible) is truly liberal, because it seeks to free people from state dependency. Lib Dems view tax as an instrument of social engineering; hence the posturing over 50p.

Eighty years in the wilderness, 80 years protecting the flame, and they can’t even mount a coherent case for electoral reform (“AV is a miserable little compromise” – Nick Clegg. But then: “Vote for AV” – Nick Clegg). Measured as the opportunity to show that British liberalism deserves the vehicle of its own party, coalition has been a disaster for the Lib Dems.

We have to face up to this political category error. Just because we can all agree that there’s a need for some liberalism in our politics, just because some unpopular politicians have given themselves that name, we’ve taken the Liberal Democrats at their own valuation. But Shirley Williams and Evan Harris are not liberals, and nor are the other former leaders and big Lib Dem beasts who haunt the media airwaves with a greater prominence than the paucity of their electoral support could ever justify.

Not that a political position has to be popular in order to be worth holding; and if a party wants to act as a pressure group for the producer interest in health and education, or as a supporter of judicial activism on Human Rights, or to call for ever-greater European integration (as Danny Alexander did this week), then good luck to it. But it shouldn’t mis-name itself.

Where the Lib Dems have been politically effective in the Coalition, they have been anything but liberal. And when they claim to be liberal, they are merely copying policy which the larger party would implement anyway. Neither tactic makes them a worthwhile coalition partner for a Conservative; worse, from the Lib Dem point of view, neither tactic has demonstrated that the 80 years without them were a political loss for Britain. If the Liberal Democrats didn’t already exist, to answer my opening question, I suspect that few would contemplate breathing life into the politically unattractive, social democratic clay from which they are fashioned. We already have a party to represent the sectional producer interest. It’s called “Labour”.

Read Full Post »

David Cameron: Eton College Should Run A State School

David Cameron wants his old school – Eton College – to set up and run an academy funded by the taxpayer.

The Prime Minister confirmed that he met representatives from the £31,000-a-year boarding school this week to discuss taking over a state secondary.

Eton joined several other leading private schools at a Downing Street reception on Thursday staged to drive forward the Coalition’s flagship education reforms.

It is the latest in a series of attempts being made by the Government to court the independent sector as part of an expansion of the academies programme.

Earlier this summer, Nick Gibb, the Schools Minister, also addressed a meeting of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference, which represents 250 leading fee-paying schools, over the issue.

The move is likely to infuriate teaching unions who are already opposed to academies which they see as the effective “privatisation” of state education.

But talking to the BBC, Mr Cameron insisted that the sponsorship of academies represented a “great way” for independent schools to fulfil their “charitable purpose”.

Asked if he wanted his former school to formally join the programme, he said: “Yes, I would like all private schools to engage in this agenda and if you look at most private schools many of them already run bursaries for children from less well – off backgrounds and partnering state schools.

“To me all private schools have always had a charitable foundation, a charitable purpose, and that’s a great way to deliver that.”

He added: “The truth is the problem has been not enough good school places in our country…so anyone who can play a role in that – private schools included – is welcome through my door to talk about how we drive up standards.”

Tony Little, the Eton headmaster, said that the Eton had close relations with local state schools and was examining “several possible routes” for greater involvement and “ruled nothing out”.

An expansion of academies is being seen as central to the Government’s attempts to drive up standards of state education.

Under reforms, schools are given almost complete freedom to run their own policies on admissions, the curriculum, teachers’ pay and the shape of the academic year.

Top state schools are automatically given the right to apply for academy status.

Ministers also want the worst schools to make the switch under the leadership of a third party sponsor – usually outstanding state schools, charities, education companies and entrepreneurs.

Some 28 independent schools are also helping to run academies, including Sevenoaks, Dulwich, Wellington, Marlborough, Malvern, Winchester, Uppingham and Oundle.

But ministers are keen to get more independent schools involved.

Mr Cameron joined Eton at 13 and left in 1984. Lord Waldegrave, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister is currently the provost of Eton and attended Thursday’s meeting.

Read Full Post »

Mikhail Khodorkovsky Urges David Cameron To Confront Kremlin On Human Rights

Russia’s most famous prisoner of conscience has spoken out from behind bars to urge David Cameron to confront the Kremlin on human rights issues when the Prime Minister visits Russia next week.

Mikhail Khodorkovsy, the former head of the Yukos oil company.

In written comments passed to The Daily Telegraph from his prison in northern Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky said Mr Cameron should use the fact that top Russian politicians bank, own property, and educate their children in the UK to pressure the Kremlin into becoming “a modern European state.”

“I would hope that the British Prime Minister will directly raise questions of corruption and the judicial system in Russia with President (Dmitry) Medvedev,” the 48-year-old oligarch-turned-political prisoner wrote.

“The UK could let Russia understand that a country with such widespread corruption, the only G8 country where there are political prisoners, cannot be a fully-fledged and all-round partner.”

His mother, Marina Khodorkovskaya, went even further. In an interview, she urged Mr Cameron to deny entry to Russian officials involved in her son’s case and to freeze their UK bank accounts.

Mr Cameron is due to make a flying visit to Moscow on Monday during which he is expected to meet Mr Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the prime minister.

He will be the first British leader to visit Russia since Tony Blair five years ago, and the first since the 2006 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian spy and Kremlin critic, in central London.

The Prime Minister is aware of Mr Khodorkovsky’s fate which has become emblematic of Russia’s heavily politicised and selective justice system.

Designated as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, the former oil tycoon was Russia’s richest man before he had a spectacular falling out with Mr Putin in 2003 over business and politics.

Arrested by masked men on an icy Siberian runway in his private jet that same year, he was later found guilty of fraud and given an eight year jail term after a trial that was widely viewed in the West as politically-motivated.

He spent much of that time in a grim Soviet-style labour camp 3,000 miles east of Moscow near China.

Yukos, his oil company, was swallowed up by the Kremlin while he languished behind bars, and in a second trial last year he was sentenced to a further six years in jail after being found guilty of the surreal charge of stealing oil from own company.

In his written comments from his jail in northern Russia, Mr Khodorkovsky said he wanted his own case to be a warning to British companies considering investing in Russia.

“It will be difficult for anyone to expect British companies to do serious business in Russia whilst entrepreneurs are factually subjected to a bureaucratic racket,” he wrote.

Although Russia and the UK do in fact enjoy strong business links, political relations have stalled over differences on key foreign policy, security, business and rights issues.

Companies in the West are keen to tap into Russia’s status as the world’s biggest energy exporter but Russia’s liberal opposition argues that Western politicians such as Mr Cameron need to keep reminding the Kremlin it must enact real democratic reforms if it wants large-scale investment.

Mr Khodorkovsky said he thought the UK could start by withholding the transfer of technology necessary for Russia’s modernisation until the Kremlin changed course politically. He claimed that the UK had real clout with Russia.

“There is no question that such leverage does exist,” he wrote. “The most influential people in Russia, those who in large measure determine the image and the fate of the country today, have vast business and personal interests in the UK. This applies also to a series of significant representatives of Vladimir Putin’s team.”

Speaking at a school outside Moscow that Mr Khodorkovsky originally set up for orphans, his mother Marina, 77, said she wanted Mr Cameron to raise her son’s case with the Kremlin.

But she said she was looking for more that just rhetoric. “Words need to be backed with action,” she said, urging the UK to impose visa and financial sanctions on Russian officials such as judges and prosecutors involved in her son’s case.

“It is realistic and it would have an effect,” she argued. “If the people in the second echelon of power beneath Putin understand that the higher-ups cannot protect them they will soon forget their loyalty to the system.”

Clear-eyed despite her advanced years, she said that she feared that her son would not be released for as long as Mr Putin wielded influence in Russia. The Russian prime minister bore her son a personal grudge for publicly cutting across his political and business interests, she insisted.

“My aim is to live long enough to see my son freed,” she said as tears formed in her eyes. “But I understand that the chances are getting less and less as I get older and older.”

Read Full Post »

David Cameron: Parents Of Truants Face Benefit Cuts

Parents of children who regularly truant face having their benefits cut, David Cameron has warned, as he opened the first wave of the Government’s free schools.

In a keynote speech on Friday, the Prime Minister said the government’s social policy review, set up in the wake of the recent riots, was considering the proposal.

Addressing the Norwich Free School, Norfolk, he outlined Coalition plans to ensure teaching was based on “excellence”.

Controversial reforms were needed to “bring back the values of a good education” because failure to do so would be “fatal to prosperity”.

Mr Cameron said more discipline and rigour were needed.

In his speech, Mr Cameron signalled a return to “elitism” in schools in an attempt to mend Britain’s “broken society” and secure the economic future.

He said discipline needed to be restored in schools, with teachers and heads being given the tools to do this but “restoring discipline is also about what parents do”.

“We need parents to have a real stake in the discipline of their children, to face real consequences if their children continually misbehave,” he said.

“That’s why I have asked our social policy review to look into whether we should cut the benefits of those parents whose children constantly play truant.

“Yes, this would be a tough measure – but we urgently need to restore order and respect in the classroom and I don’t want ideas like this to be off the table.”

In his speech, Mr Cameron also championed the opening of the first free schools, state-funded institutions run by parents, charities and faith groups, independent of local council control. Some 24 have opened this month.

The Prime Minister attacked the “prizes for all” culture in which competitiveness was frowned upon and winners are shunned.

The comments marked the latest in a series of attempts to focus on education in response to the riots that shocked London and other English cities last month.

They follow the announcement by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, of back-to-basics discipline in state schools.

He plans to give teachers more freedom to search pupils suspected of carrying banned items and to let them use reasonable force in removing the most disruptive children from the classroom.

Mr Cameron sought to move the debate on to standards, saying that a rigorous focus on the basics is needed to give young people “the character to live a good life, to be good citizens”.

The Prime Minister added: “For the future of our economy, and our society, we need a first-class education for every child. Of course, everyone’s agreed on that.

“The trouble is that for years we’ve been bogged down in a great debate about how we get there. Standards or structures? Learning by rote or by play? Elitism or all winning prizes?”

“Every year that passes without proper reform, is another year that tens of thousands of teenagers leave school without the qualifications they really need.”

He added: “The most important value we’re bringing back to the classroom is a commitment to rigour. Rigorous subjects, tested in a rigorous way.

“However well students perform in their exams, we cannot deny the reality of the past few years. The numbers of people taking core academic subjects – they went down.

“The voices from business concerned about the usefulness of some of our exams – they grew louder.

“We are determined to stop this slide – and already we’re making an impact.”

Mr Cameron made clear that he was in favour of elitism and not prizes for all.

He added: “These debates are over – because it’s clear what works. Discipline works. Rigour works. Freedom for schools works. Having high expectations works.

“Now we’ve got to get on with it – and we don’t have any time to lose.”

Free schools have provoked fury among teaching unions who claim they smack of elitism and represent an attempt to dismantle the state education system.

But Mr Cameron insisted free schools will “have the power to change lives”.

He also sought to link improvements in education to mending “our broken society.”

“We’ve got to be ambitious if we want to compete in the world,” he said.

“When China is going through an educational renaissance, when India is churning out science graduates, any complacency now would be fatal.

“And we’ve got to be ambitious, too, if we want to mend our broken society. Because education doesn’t just give people the tools to make a good living – it gives them the character to live a good life, to be good citizens.”

He added: “A free school is born of a real passion for education – a belief in its power to change lives.

“It’s a passion and a belief this coalition shares. We want to want to create an education system based on real excellence, with a complete intolerance of failure.”

The comments come days after Nick Clegg said that parents must take more responsibility. The Deputy Prime Minister insisted that teachers should be left to educate, and not be expected to act as “surrogate mothers and fathers”.

Read Full Post »