Daily News, David Saltonsall, 31/3/2008

When Sen. John McCain addressed the nation's burgeoning mortgage mess last week, he insisted it was time for a little "straight talk."

"I will not play election-year politics with the housing crisis," the GOP presidential hopeful insisted while unveiling his plan, which many have since described as friendlier to the mortgage industry than the Democrats' proposals.

What McCain did not say - which some believe smacks of politics - is that two of his top advisers were recently lobbyists for a notorious lender in the mortgage meltdown.

John Green, the senator's chief liaison to Congress, and Wayne Berman, his national finance co-chairman, billed more than $720,000 in lobbying fees from 2005 through last year to Ameriquest Mortgage through their lobbying firm, disclosure forms reviewed by the Daily News show.

Ameriquest, which since has been bought out, was forced to settle suits with 49 states for $325 million. More than 13,680 New York homeowners got taken for a ride by the company, records show.

"They would be defined as the most blatant and aggressive predatory lenders out of everybody," said Bruce Marks, head of the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.

Despite their past familiarity with the issue, neither Green or Berman had any input into McCain's plan for dealing with the lending crisis, aides to the Arizona senator said last week.

"Sen. McCain has never done anything that would violate the public trust and he has never done favors for special interests or lobbyists," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bonds.

While far from a bailout for the mortgage industry, McCain's plan focuses on less regulation for lenders - in sharp contrast with proposals by Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama - and suggests as a first step convening a big meeting of top mortgage lenders.

But the migration of Green and Berman to McCain's campaign comes as the Arizona senator faces criticism on other fronts for aligning himself with lobbyists, whom McCain often derides - but relies upon to staff his campaign.

They include McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, a former telecommunications lobbyist, as well as Thomas Loeffler, McCain's national finance co-chairman, who recently helped Europe's Airbus consortium land a deal for Air Force tankers.

The Herald, Joanna Blythman, 30/3/2008

IS IT just me, or do I detect more sniggering, restless foot-shuffling and unscripted voiceovers from the audience than is usual when the recruitment advert for the Royal Marine Commandos is screened at the cinema? Located on some South Pacific or Asian shore, the first character in the frame is our villain, a psychopathic-looking native with an oil-slicked and pigment-daubed body who is screaming in an incomprehensible, warlike tongue. Out from below a tropical bush creep our heroes, the Marines, the professionals employed by HM government to protect us all from miscellaneous nutters in foreign parts.

This advert is in a different league of ambition entirely from the plodding "Army - Be The Best" adverts that showed teenagers enduring borderline sado-masochistic survival exercises. At least they had an air of reality about them. This Marines advert is positively cinematic by comparison, if unreconstructed - a sort of Rambo versus idol-worshipping cannibals from Hollywood central casting circa the 1930s, directed by Ronald Reagan, and co-funded by Fox News. Unapologetic propaganda for the UK military project, it should come with a statutory warning, something like: "Joining the Royal Marine Commandos, or any other branch of HM Forces, could cause you to be killed, maimed or enlisted in some morally bankrupt war that you do not understand or don't agree with."

Still, the advert will doubtless appeal to the sort of young man who goes in for the Zoo magazine Man Of The Year competition currently advertised on the Royal Marines website under the banner "Are You Man Enough?". Win this competition and you net £3000, an iPhone, laptop, plasma screen TV, limited-edition Adidas trainers, digital camera and more. You also get to enjoy "not only the bragging rights of being the hardest man in Britain, but a once-in-a-lifetime experience of flying in a jet!". Zoo magazine apparently needed a "measurement of macho". Logically, it chose the Marines.

The Times, Micheal Portillo,  30/3/2008

The Commons has failed to react to changing times. Indeed, it has been moving backwards

The House of Commons is headed for catastrophe. When the details of members’ expense claims are published, as they are bound to be under freedom of information laws, the public will be appalled. They will see that MPs help themselves to allowances as thinly disguised bonuses.

The fact that most members will have broken no rule will simply add to voters’ outrage. In a few cases, no doubt, the revelations will end parliamentary careers - if the claims appear indefensible, as Derek Conway’s payments to his son were.

The disaster has been brewing for many years. When I entered the Commons, helpful old hands would take me aside to explain what I could claim, indeed what I should claim for the sake of solidarity. It was understood that MPs’ salaries were held artificially low by the pressure of public opinion and that the range of allowances existed to make up for the deficiency.

It was a different era. After many years in which governments had restrained pay throughout the economy, almost every employer frustrated incomes policy by devising payments and benefits that were not classified as salary. It was the heyday of the company car, lavish expense accounts and long boozy lunches.

Outside parliament the world has changed. Taxation of benefits has led employers once more to consolidate perks into salary. The pressures of competition and the bottom line have shortened the lunches and squeezed out the booze. Management accounting systems have enabled bosses to control expense accounts more tightly. As the Information Tribunal commented, when ordering that the claims of 14 MPs be published, the “laxity” of Commons rules is “very different” from practice in the private sector. Most significantly, the public today expects higher standards than before in public life and greater transparency.

The Commons has failed to react to changing times. Indeed, it has been moving backwards. MPs have pushed against the restrictions on what they could claim. The rules are set down in broad resolutions of the House, so there is a presumption that anything that is not specifically excluded must be permissible.

For example, about 20 years ago MPs won the argument that the second home allowance should cover mortgage interest and not just rent. It was regarded as a triumph at the time, but it is a victory that many may now regret. The public will find it hard to understand why a member with a seat in the home counties, for example, needs a second home at all, especially now that the House rarely sits late into the night. Still less will the public comprehend why the taxpayer has enabled the member to make a huge capital gain, perhaps on a house that is miles from the constituency.

Even if the Commons had better appreciated the pace of change taking place around it and the growing threat to its cosy ways from freedom of information petitions, it is difficult to see how it could have responded effectively. It lacks leadership and organisation. Members are regarded as being self-employed.

The House authorities – chiefly its civil servants – have tried to introduce systems, for example, to standardise payments to secretaries. However, there are and should be limits to how much MPs are standardised. They are not the employees of a government department but the servants of their electors.

Still, in the absence of internal leadership, the government has often imposed its will. It uses its muscle to restrain the Commons from voting itself egregious pay increases. Even so, no government has taken on the issue of MPs’ allowances. To do so might have been constitutionally outrageous. It would have met massive resistance from members and would probably have resulted in defeat. However, the lack of reform will now bring the entire parliamentary system into disrepute and the government, as well as the Commons, will be damaged.

It would be unfair to attack the Speaker for not preempting this scandal. It is not the Speaker’s role to initiate reform. However, Michael Martin, the present Speaker, is unfortunately entangled in the mess. His wife’s expense claims for taxi rides have been held up to the light. His press spokesman has resigned after being wrongly briefed and misleading the media. Martin has given the impression of being against transparency – or at least slow to move.

The Commons made an error in choosing a Labour Speaker in succession to Betty Boothroyd (also Labour) during a Labour government. A Speaker chosen from the opposition party is less likely to be suspected of being a government stooge.

Martin has never performed with fiery independence and has lacked the confidence and authority of his predecessor. The House cannot turn to him to lead it into a new era of transparency. He has the instincts of an old Labour fixer and this crisis demands quite different skills.

It is most unusual for the Speaker to be criticised in the media. That, too, is a sign of changing times. Following the unfavourable press comments on his expense claims, the Commons roared in approval when he next entered the chamber and the Speaker beamed back with pleasure. The outside world might interpret both reactions as signalling that the Commons is an insiders’ club contemptuous of public opinion.

Voters will be incensed too by the £1.7m refurbishment of the Speaker’s official home. But that is a different issue. It requires maintaining with the rest of the historic Palace of Westminster and all such work is necessarily expensive. It seems unlikely that Speaker Martin will remain in the post to enjoy it for long.

Last week’s decision by the House authorities (the Speaker and senior members) to appeal to the High Court against publishing the 14 specimen cases looks desperate. It was, in any case, another example of hugger-mugger policy-making.

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat MP who is one of the 14 MPs singled out by campaigners, complained that he had not been consulted about the appeal. It was announced outside the House by a spokeswoman who is not an MP. When David Winnick, the Labour member, asked in the House about the grounds for the appeal, the Speaker told him that the matter was now sub judice and the Commons could not discuss it.

Evidently the authorities want to keep MPs’ addresses secret. It is not a strong point. It is rather late to be flustered about MPs’ privacy and security. At a time when the IRA not infrequently tried to murder MPs, electoral law required that the addresses of all candidates (including incumbents) be displayed on posters throughout the constituency.

The authorities can hope only to buy some time with the appeal and the House is unlikely to make good use of it. Its various committees are making heavy weather of reform. Granted, they have decided that MPs should be required to produce receipts for claims above £25 rather than £250 as before. So the Commons is tiptoeing towards safety while a tidal wave races towards it.

It needs urgently to announce a replacement for the second homes scheme. The idea that it should be simply rolled up into an increase in pay of £23,000 for all members is a nonstarter. The media and public would be in uproar, the government would have to oppose it and it would reward those MPs who have no need for two homes.

For any solution to win public support, MPs must be seen to lose something. For example, they can no longer expect to pocket a capital gain if the mortgage is financed by the taxpayer. There must also be a stricter definition of who needs a second home. Many MPs who need occasionally to stay either in London or their constituency could receive a per diem allowance backed up by receipts.

In truth, the disaster cannot now be averted. Even if reforms were implemented tomorrow the freedom of information campaigners have won access to yesterday’s records and before long the claims of every MP will be laid bare.

Still, it would be better if the House could by then show that it had turned over a new leaf. In fact, as the maelstrom develops the Commons will still be floundering over what changes to make. Even as the careers of some are ignominiously ended, others will fight on to retain financial privileges that were devised in a bygone age.

SP International, 28/3/2008

The Cabinet must call for a halt to the excessive influence exercised by corporate business in the drafting of European legislation. In a series of parliamentary questions, SP Member of Parliament and European Affairs spokesman Harry van Bommel today called on the government to resist corporate influence at EU level.

This week research carried out by the pressure group ALTER-EU revealed that a total of 1,192 committees advises the European Commission during the drafting and passage of legislation and that corporate business interests are over-represented on every one of them. In 25% of cases such interests make up over half of the membership. Researchers encountered solid resistance from the European Commission to their enquiries and in some cases received no information on the make-up of certain committees.

The Independent , 303/2008

As the Prime Minister bows to church pressure on embryology legislation, Jane Merrick and Brian Brady investigate the long parliamentary reach of a pro-life group opposed to the Bill

An evangelical Christian charity leading opposition to new laws on embryo research is funding interns in MPs' offices, an investigation by The Independent on Sunday has discovered.

Christian Action, Research and Education (Care) faces inquiries into its lobbying activities by the Charity Commission and the House of Commons standards watchdog after accessing Parliament at the highest levels.

Twelve research assistants sponsored by Care are Commons pass-holders, allowing them unrestricted access to Westminster in the run-up to highly sensitive and potentially close votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill next month. At least two MPs face questions after they omitted to declare they have Care-sponsored staff.

Charities are allowed to carry out political campaigning, but Charity Commission rules state they "must not give support or funding to a political party, or to a candidate or politician".

Last week, after pressure from the Roman Catholic Church, Gordon Brown allowed a free vote on the most contentious parts of the Bill, including the creation of "admixed" human and animal embryos for scientific research, "saviour" siblings and changing the rules on the need for a father in cases of IVF treatment. An amendment calling for a reduction in the abortion time limit is also expected.

Many undecided MPs have said they will "vote with their postbag" on the key issues.

Care, which has no connection with other charities sharing similar names, has masterminded opposition to the Bill within the Palace of Westminster, writing to MPs and holding meetings. The extent to which the charity, which has links to the powerful Christian right in America, has created a presence inside Parliament raised fresh fears last night over political lobbying. Commons standards watchdogs have previously raised concern about access to Parliament enjoyed by lobby groups.

According to the MPs' register of interests, at least eight Care interns have been employed in the Commons since September, including in the offices of senior party managers whose roles will be influential at voting time. They include Conservative chairman Caroline Spelman, Tory assistant chief whip Alistair Burt and Liberal Democrat chief whip Paul Burstow.

Care interns also work for shadow justice minister David Burrowes, Lib Dem environment spokesman Steve Webb, Tory backbenchers Gary Streeter and Stephen Crabb and Labour backbencher Andy Reed. Care's annual report claims there are up to 12 interns at Westminster – potentially meaning another four MPs have not declared their staff.

There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of any of the MPs who employ Care research assistants. Six have registered interests under "sponsorship or financial or material support".

But Mr Burstow and Mr Crabb face questions because, while their members of staff have recorded that they are sponsored by Care, the two MPs – in breach of parliamentary rules – have failed to record this in the main register.

Mr Burstow admitted the oversight, but said he had not seen the researcher carrying out any lobbying on the Bill. "It is a complete boob on my part," he said. "I should have reported him and registered him properly with the registrar. I shall be doing so on Monday.

"I am aware that Care have sent publications [on the Bill] to all members of Parliament, including myself. In my experience of this, they have been at all times scrupulous in the way they have behaved in respect of lobbying me. Some of the votes I will cast during the free votes on some of the issues will not necessarily agree with Care."

As research assistants, Care's interns can go unaccompanied to nearly all areas of Parliament and are allowed free access to documents that are out of bounds to journalists. Their passes also allow them to interact with all MPs in Portcullis House, the main meeting area of Westminster.

When the IoS revealed details of Care's activities in Parliament to the Charity Commission, a spokesman said it would consider taking action on the matter: "We are aware of the internship arrangement that Care has in place, and are currently considering whether this programme raises any matters for the Commission to take forward."

Labour MP Kevin Barron, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, said: "The issue of lobbying and pass-holders has been around for a long time. I am not surprised that this is happening, but it does concern me."

Care receives donations of more than £2m a year, and spends nearly £70,000 on its intern programme. The charity, along with another pressure group, Passion for Life, has conducted a national campaign tour, Time to Draw the Line, which on Friday took in the Prime Minister's Kirkcaldy constituency.

Care's website carries a link to a polemical four-minute video by Passion for Life, which warns: "During 2008 the Government is pushing for a law which will have some devastating effects on the value of human life."

Care campaigned against the repeal of Section 28, which banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools, and helped defeat laws on assisted dying in the House of Lords last year. Its work has been condemned in the Lords as "propaganda". Some MPs, for example, want lower limits for abortion in the light of scientific developments, but favour extending embryo research.

The scientific community says the legislation is essential to help treat Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and motor neurone disease.

The Charity Commission has recently drawn up guidelines on political campaigning, based on the 2006 Charities Act, because of concerns that some groups are stretching the definition of charitable work. It states: "Trustees must take care to avoid an approach which is purely focused on political activity as this could call into question the propriety of their actions, or ultimately, their charitable status."

Care has run an internship programme for 10 years. The Charity Commission looked into its activities during the repeal of Section 28. At the time, Care's chairman, the Rev Lyndon Bowring, said the interns "explicitly" did not take part in lobbying.

No one at Care could be contacted for comment last night. But on its website and in its latest annual report, Care is open about the "public advocacy work" – lobbying – that interns carry out: "Personal contact is maintained by our public affairs department with members of the parliamentary institutions." Interns, it says, "will be engaged in the world of policy and advocacy, whether in Westminster, in Edinburgh, in Brussels, in the media, or in the Third sector."

The Oxford University geneticist Professor Richard Dawkins said last night: "If only these restless busybodies would keep their prejudices to themselves, nobody would object. But they can't resist inflicting their ignorant opinions on others."

The Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who has led support for the Bill, said: "Care pushes the boundaries of charitable status. It is a clever initiative [to place interns] because once they have parliamentary experience they have an advantage over others in the employment market to get powerful positions in other organisations. It is clear that patient and medical research charities will have to divert funds and resources into writing to MPs who are undecided [over] the Bill."

Mrs Spelman last night said her intern had "nothing to do with the HFE Bill". A spokesman for the MP said she had not expressed a view on how she would vote, adding: "The intern does constituency and casework."

Various religious figures have sought to influence MPs as the legislation makes its way through the House of Commons. But yesterday the most senior Catholic scientist in Britain attacked the church's position. Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, chief executive of the Medical Research Council, told The Times that there was nothing in the legislation that was incompatible with his Catholic faith.

Jewish leaders supported his view. Baroness Julia Neuberger, who was on the scrutiny committee for the Bill, told the Jewish Chronicle: "As Jews, we have a different view on when life begins to the Catholic view. We don't think of life beginning at the moment of conception."

****

A religious charity with deep political roots
By Jane Merrick

Care, a self-proclaimed moral guardian concerned with family and religious issues, has a highly organised network of members reaching into some of the most influential areas of British society.

The charity led the campaign to retain "Section 28", which banned schools from teaching about homosexuality, and last year helped defeat a Lords Bill on assisted suicide.

Besides Westminster, interns have been placed in the Scottish and European Parliaments, the BBC and Whitehall. The Treasury revealed last month that Care was among the organisations that had seconded employees to it since 1997. Claire Wilson-Thomas, who had been Care's public policy manager, was a policy analyst at the Treasury from 2001 to 2004.

Care's chairman of 20 years, the Rev Lyndon Bowring, is also a member of the Evangelical Alliance.

Its patron, the Rev John Stott, is an evangelical Christian described as "the most respected clergyman in the world today" by American preacher Billy Graham.

The charity runs Care Confidential, a pregnancy advice centre offering counselling for women who are considering abortion, and a sex education programme in secondary schools called Evaluate, which encourages children to abstain from sex.

Care says it "helps to bring Christian insight and experience to matters of public policy, education and practical caring initiatives".

It also fosters "the encouragement of community engagement resulting in action, whether caring initiatives or involvement in local or national politics".

Providing "evidence" against the HFE Bill, its website quotes Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you."

The charity has between 50,000 and 100,000 supporters and offers members a "Purify" CD of songs and scriptures that promises to cleanse individuals of their sins.

****

The Bill that has divided the cabinet

The battle against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has divided politicians along moral and political lines. What is it that really troubles them?

Q What does the Bill propose?

A To update existing legislation on assisted reproduction and the use of embryos in scientific research and therapy. Christian groups have welcomed the ban on couples selecting the sex of their baby – except for health reasons – and a proposed amendment to reduce the upper limit for abortions from 24 weeks to 20.

Q What are the objections?

A The Bill would make it easier for lesbian couples to have children using IVF, and remove the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the "need for a father" when taking account of the welfare of a child in administering treatment. It would allow the creation of so-called saviour siblings, where doctors would select not only an embryo for IVF that could create a new child, but also tissue that might be able to treat an existing sick sibling. The most contentious proposal is the plan to "tamper" with nature, by allowing "hybrid" embryos created from human and animal genetic material.

Q Why is it seen as necessary?

A Medical technology has progressed rapidly since the 1990 Human Embryology Act, and scientists claim the law must keep pace to allow further breakthroughs. The creation of hybrid embryos could address the shortage of human eggs available for research, helping find cures for multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease and Alzheimer's, among others.

Q Will it survive?

A The Bill's many opponents, include Roman Catholic church leaders. While Prime Minister Gordon Brown will allow his MPs a free vote on some aspects of the Bill, that might not be enough to satisfy the consciences of many, including three Catholics in the Cabinet.

Q When could it become law?

A The Bill has been debated by the Lords and is awaiting a Commons second reading. Even if it survives a rebellion, it is not expected to reach the Statute Book until next year.

Q Would it permit scientists to carry out any embryological research project?

A Although the watchdog Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has agreed in principle to the creation of human-animal hybrids, it has stressed that each application for a research licence must be considered closely on its own merits.

****

CARE connections

Stephen Crabb

Tory MP, Preseli. His entry on the register of interests doesn't mention Care. But register of research assistants lists Christina Lineen, Care intern, under his name.

Paul Burstow

Lib Dem Chief Whip, MP for Sutton & Cheam. Entry on the register does not mention Care, but register of assistants lists David Peacock from Care under the MP's name.

Steve Webb

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman and MP for Northavon. His diary secretary Jodie Martin is provided by Care. Member of Parliamentary Christian Fellowship.

Andy Reed

Labour MP, Loughborough. Intern John Powner from Care. Mr Reed went on Bible Society trip to Middle East; David Landrum, researcher for the society, also works for him.

Gary Streeter

Tory MP, Devon South West. Intern Andrew Griffiths provided by Care. Mr Streeter is a Christian, registers a Bible Society visit of last autumn to Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Alistair Burt

Conservative deputy chairman, the party's assistant chief whip and MP for North East Bedfordshire. His intern Paul Brennan is provided by Care.

David Burrowes

Shadow justice minister, MP for Enfield Southgate; intern Gemma Parry provided by Care. Mr Burrowes helped to scrutinise earlier draft of Embryology Bill.

Caroline Spelman

Conservative Party chair, MP for Meriden. Intern Sarah Bridgman provided by Care. Mrs Spelman is a trustee of the Conservative Christian Fellowship.

The Financial Times , David Turner, 28/3/2008

The schools secretary wants combined cadet forces, an evocative symbol of the old-fashioned world of private schools, to spread to the state sector. Ed Balls said: "We would like to find ways in which we could have more combined cadet forces in state schools [by] perhaps working with independent schools."

NEWSWEEK, Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck, 22/3/2008

German leaders talk up EU goals on climate and other issues, but their actions tell a different story. 

Germany has long painted itself as the good European. Since the birth of the European Union as a steel-and-coal alliance more than half a century ago, Berlin has fought as hard as anyone for a single European marketplace, eastward expansion and, most recently, for Europe to become a leader in the battle against climate change. Yet under Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany's rhetoric is failing to stand up to the reality of its policy. She portrays herself as a defender of European integration and the environment by fighting for a new Pan-European treaty and a tough environmental agenda. But German policymakers in Berlin and Brussels are taking a different tack altogether.

Why is this? In part it is because political leaders at least as far back as Helmut Kohl, chancellor between 1982 and 1998, know that talking a good game about Brussels is a politically savvy move and evidence of good will. But they also understand that Germany is a global powerhouse in its own right—the world's largest exporter of goods—with little need or desire for the kind of bureaucracy Brussels imposes on its enormous industrial and manufacturing sectors. German industry also enjoys a degree of closeness to the government that is extraordinary even by continental standards, and actively lobbies against many Brussels initiatives. Gordon Brown's cabinet in Britain is made up mainly of policy wonks and lawyers, with little corporate connection. French politicians defend their national champions—and sometimes end up working for them—but mainly because so many of them are still owned by the state. In Germany, conservatives and socialists alike have battled against transparency rules that would reveal where parliamentarians get their income, suggesting a deep link between the private and public sectors and a great big revolving door between the two.

For instance, former Economy minister Wolfgang Clement is now chairman of the energy company RWE. Another former Economy minister, Werner Müller, became chief executive of the major German power company RAG. Matthias Wissmann, a former Transport minister, is now president of Germany's car lobby, the German Association of the Automotive Industry. In perhaps the most striking recent case of the revolving door, the then Chancellor Gerhard Schröder signed a multibillion-euro pipeline deal with Russia just 10 days before Germany's 2005 elections. He lost, and almost immediately took a position as the head of the pipeline consortium's supervisory committee. Meantime, executives from Germany's enormous auto industry, with annual sales of €226 billion, openly acknowledge they have direct access to some of the highest officials in Berlin. Indeed many refer to cars as the glue that binds German socialists and conservatives into a virtually impenetrable force. "In Germany, unlike in other countries, the German government defends German private companies, rather than the common interest," says Claude Turmes, a member of the European Parliament from Luxembourg.

The result is a sharp divide between Berlin's rhetoric and policymaking, both in Berlin and in Brussels. This divide is most evident in political leaders' stance on the environment. Merkel has long made "green" a major part of her agenda, a smart move in a country that is home to one of Europe's most impassioned green movements. Few in Brussels or elsewhere doubt her personal sincerity in her battle against climate change. Last year, when Germany held the rotating leadership posts at both the G8 and the EU, she made climate and energy the centerpiece of her tenure. It is thanks to Merkel that Europe is now negotiating rules to slash auto emissions, cut EU greenhouse-gas emissions by at least a fifth by 2020 and boost renewable energy and biofuels. Germany is also extremely active in pushing for renewable energy sources, which now account for 14 percent of its energy mix.

Yet many question Merkel's willingness or ability to move her professed goals forward in a way that hurts German industry. Last year Brussels watered down a plan to force the auto industry to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, to the enormous benefit of companies that make relatively big and fuel-inefficient cars—like Germany's BMW and Porsche. Last December, as she talked about the value of cutting emissions, Merkel condemned even these new goals, arguing the European Commission was making "industrial policy at the expense of Germany and German carmakers." In March, she led the push for the European Commission to draw up a list of energy-guzzling industrial sectors that would be exempt from a new European carbon-trading system if there is no equivalent global deal. German industries' experience, says Regine Günther, head of the WWF-Germany's climate-change program, is that "with their power they can steer policy, and that they will continue to do so."

The difference between talk and action goes far beyond the environment. Merkel advocates for technological innovation, yet promised as she formed her government to protect the partially state-owned company Deutsche Telekom from an EU law that would have allowed rivals onto its broadband network, thereby increasing competition and lowering costs. Last June, Brussels hauled Germany to court on the ground that it was violating EU competition rules. The case is pending, but German broadband penetration remains lower than that of the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands and five other EU members. It is a similar story on energy security. EU nations are struggling to cope with high oil prices and member nations' dependence on imports from mercurial suppliers like Russia. Merkel has publicly urged business to look for alternative fuels, and has repeatedly reassured the EU she will not continue the close relationship with Russia fostered by her predecessor, Schröder. Yet Merkel was the first EU leader to head to Moscow to congratulate Dmitry Medvedev for his victory in the dubious March presidential election.

Alternet.org, 26/3/2008

On March 12, 1933, a week after his inauguration and in the midst of a monumental economic crisis, President Franklin Roosevelt took to the radio to address the nation. "My friends," he began in a calm, resonant voice, "I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking." For thirteen minutes Roosevelt patiently explained how banks work, what had gone wrong and what the government planned to do. Thirty times during his presidency FDR engaged the American public, on topics ranging from drought to the judiciary to war, offering his analysis and laying out his plans.

This was propaganda. FDR's talks were scripted by policy advisers and stylized by the playwright Robert Sherwood. Through these homey "fireside chats" the aristocratic Roosevelt recast himself as a plain-talking everyman. Yet listening to these speeches today the listener is struck by how informative they are. Technical details of financial policy and global trade are explained in refreshingly nontechnical language, and while style certainly matters, substance is not sacrificed. Through his radio addresses FDR modeled a relationship between President and citizen. He asked his listeners to think about and apply their own experience to the topic he was discussing and, in one instance, even encouraged them to spread out a map on their dining room table as he charted out battle lines for World War II. In marked contrast to the techniques practiced at the time by totalitarian regimes overseas, this form of mass persuasion did not encourage adulation of a leader but discussion -- even if only imaginary -- with him.

There was no official propaganda program during the New Deal, just a hodgepodge of media efforts carried out by an alphabet soup of agencies. FDR entertained the press in the White House, winning their loyalty by increasing access to his presidency. Murals created by the Works Progress Administration on the walls of post offices and other public buildings retold history as the accomplishment of everyday citizens. The Resettlement and later Farm Security Administrations re-envisioned the face of America by commissioning tens of thousands of photographs of poor farmers and workers.

But the best propaganda for the New Deal lay in the material projects themselves: the parks built, roads constructed and young people put to work by the Civilian Conservation Corps; the integrated system of power, agriculture and industry of the Tennessee Valley Authority; and the handsome, handcrafted Timberline Lodge, built atop Oregon's Mt. Hood by the WPA. These accomplishments were then publicized. In one imaginative effort, the Bonneville Power Administration even paid Woody Guthrie to visit the Columbia River Gorge and write songs in homage to the land, the river and the new federally funded dams.

What all these publicity efforts had in common was an assumption that form and content needn't be an either/or proposition, that aesthetic image and material reality might be complementary, and that publicity could be used to include, not distract, the American people. New Deal publicity spoke to the emotions but also fed the mind. As public relations historian Stuart Ewen argues, "Unspoken, but evident, was a determined and unaccustomed faith in ordinary people's ability to make sense of things." It was propaganda, but it was propaganda in tune with democracy.

The Guardian, Prem Sikka, 27,3,2008

The FSA report on Northern Rock appeases the corporate elites. But in doing so, it fails to address the underlying causes of the crisis

The Financial Services Authority(FSA) report on Northern Rock is hugely disappointing. The report is the result of an in-house investigation rather than the outcome of an independent inquiry. Though some regulatory deckchairs are to be reupholstered, it shows no awareness of systemic failures or the shortcomings of neoliberal ideologies that have left the economy teetering on the edge of a recession.

Northern Rock is not the first time that the financial regulators have failed. Equitable Life and Independent Insurance are still fresh in people's minds. The Bank of England, the FSA's regulatory predecessor, was not any better either, as evidenced by its role in the BCCI debacle. Though BCCI was closed in 1991, there has been no independent investigation to this day. The absence of a thorough investigation may have saved some political skins but no lessons seem to have been learnt.

The FSA report associates regulatory failures with a lack of resources and key personnel, but says nothing about the capture of the regulators by corporate interests. Regulators need to be solely dedicated to protect the interests of savers. That task requires them to keep a certain distance from the regulated and developing different values, vocabularies and agendas, saying "no" to corporate requests for light regulation, monitoring their business plans and testing financial products for its capacity to cause mass destruction. To ensure that the FSA does not continue to be a cheerleader for major corporations, we need more openness. All correspondence between the FSA and any financial institution must be publicly available. Yet there is little sign of such changes in the FSA report.

Successive governments talk about licensing gambling and casinos, but have done little to effectively regulate the biggest casino of all, the City of London. The FSA has permitted companies to use our savings to gamble on virtually everything from oil, gas, commodities, food, interest rate and exchange rate movements, often without adequate public accountability. This institutionalised gambling is promoted as "risk management", but has created new risks that inflict hardship on millions of people. The FSA has plans to bail out banks and speculators but has no proposals for managing the risks inflicted on normal people.

Successive governments have vacated the commanding heights and have failed to manage the economy. They rely on interest rates, a blunt tool, to manage the economy. Companies wanted cheap money and successive governments obliged. With a low cost of borrowing, companies found it easier to make profits. Cheap money discouraged savings and fuelled a borrowing binge. Supermarkets, stores and automobile manufacturers have all become financial businesses. Combined with speculative activities and cheap money, major companies doubled their profits. Yet the FSA asks no questions about the quality of corporate earnings. Governments continue to mistake growth in company profits as economic renaissance.

Banks have used offshore tax havens to avoid taxes. Northern Rock also used complex offshore structures to obfuscate its accountability. Banks have continued to publish opaque financial statements and auditors continue to provide duff reports. Yet the FSA report contains no proposals for eradicating the offshore games or reforming accounting, auditing and corporate governance structures.

Most bank and insurance company executives are rewarded on the basis of published profits. That provides plenty of temptations to massage the company accounts, keep liabilities off balance sheets and even show bad debts as good. By the time, the chickens come home to roost, the executives have moved on to newer pastures. The FSA offers no proposals to reform the executive reward system - for example, by linking it to broader performance benchmarks. Company directors should accept personal liability for publishing misleading financial statements.

The financial regulators are part of a regulatory regime that is increasingly disconnected from the average citizen. Corporations and a wealthy elite fund political parties and individual politicians to organise threatening issues off the political agenda. They also fund thinktanks and media to ensure that an ideological climate favourable to their interests is sustained. Through revolving doors, corporate executives become regulators and regulators looking for higher financial rewards and company jobs go easy on corporate misdemeanours. Institutionalised social squalor is the inevitable result.

Effective financial regulation is unlikely to be developed without a major change to the institutions of politics and ditching of the neoliberal light touch regulation ideology. How long can normal people continue to bail out banks and financial speculators?

The Guardian, Bibi van der Zee, 29/3/2008

Picking on a film that makes the police look silly just makes them sillier

The guys at Schmovies are not altogether surprised that the police are being so energetic about stopping their film On the Verge being shown. Last week Sussex police intervened to stop the film being screened at Brighton's Duke of York cinema because the film (like almost all small independent films) wasn't certified.

It can't just be coincidence that, according to people who have seen it, On the Verge makes the police look "very, very silly".

After three years of confrontations between Sussex Police and smashEDO, the anti-arms campaigners featured in the film, there is little affection left between them. Schmovies is the sister organisation to Schnews, an independent weekly freesheet that has always taken a fairly, let's say, sceptical attitude to the police: their "Crap Arrest of the Week" column, which every week highlights a different fatuous arrest of an activist, probably doesn't make them the policeman's favourite read.

The Schnewsers are pretty chilled out about the whole thing - slightly impressed, even, that the police managed to come up with the licensing quibble - "we expected some kind of objection, but we hadn't thought of licensing; it's a good one".

But it's a worry for other independent filmmakers, and for the small cafes and social centres that screen the films. Will they have to get everything certified now? That will cost someone - possibly the filmmaker, possibly the taxpayer - money.

If the police were genuinely worried about uncertified films being shown, then that would be one thing. They could launch a national information campaign to warn us about the dangers of seeing a film without knowing if it's PG or 18. Just picking on one particular film - which happens to show them in a bad light - makes it all look incredibly suspect and stupid. Which was, presumably, what they were trying to avoid in the first place...?

Reuters, Paul Taylor, 25/3/2008

For an institution that sees itself as the businessman's friend, the European Commission has taken a beating lately.

The main European telecoms lobby has compared it with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, a German energy executive has called it a greater threat to energy security than Russian monopoly Gazprom, and a top Austrian telecoms boss has said it is easier to do business in authoritarian Belarus than with Brussels.

Why the sudden outcry against an organization that prides itself on removing barriers to cross-border business, reining in state meddling in the economy and promoting free trade?

Critics in some industries say it is because the European Union's executive arm is trying to make itself more popular with crowd-pleasing initiatives that bash business.

Supporters of the Commission say it is because Brussels is tackling cozy business interests that obstruct competition and exploit dominant market positions for their own greater profit.

There is a grain of truth in both explanations.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has made no secret of pursuing an agenda of delivering lower prices and greater rights to consumers to show the benefits of the EU after voters rejected a proposed European constitution in 2005.

Brussels has used opinion polling to identify targets such as cross-border fees for mobile phone calls and text messages, as well as credit card charges, obstacles to changing bank accounts, and windfall profits of giant energy companies.

"OUTRAGEOUS"

EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has levied record fines on companies that fix prices and rig markets in everything from elevators and glass to zippers and beer.

The former Dutch business executive often accompanies hefty fines with stinging comments accusing firms involved in cartels of "outrageous" behavior and "ripping off" consumers.

Fresh from her antitrust victory over U.S. software giant Microsoft, she is trying to break up Europe's energy giants to promote greater competition. Kroes argues that separating power supply from ownership of gas pipelines and electricity grids will spur investment and force down prices.

That prompted Wulf Bernotat, CEO of Germany's E.ON, the world's biggest utility, to brand the Commission a greater threat to energy security than Gazprom, before he backed down and agreed to sell E.ON's power grid to end an EU antitrust investigation.

EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding became the bete noire of Europe's telecoms firms when she used regulation, in alliance with the European Parliament, to force them to slash the cost of international mobile phone calls.

She argued holidaymakers and business travelers were being overcharged for dialing home and receiving calls while abroad.

Cheaper mobile roaming tariffs sliced hundreds of millions of dollars off phone giants' annual profits.

BBC News, Hannah Goff, 25/3/2008

Teachers have voted to oppose military recruitment activities in schools if they employ "misleading propaganda".

Young people must be given a true picture of Army life, not a "marketised version", the National Union of Teachers conference heard.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) denies actively recruiting in schools but says it does visit to raise awareness when invited in by head teachers.

Some teachers complain the Army uses sophisticated methods of recruitment.

Paul McGarr, a teacher from east London, said only when recruiting materials gave a true picture of war would he welcome them into his school.

'Shoot and possibly torture'

These would have to say: "Join the Army and we will send you to carry out the imperialist occupation of other people's countries," Mr McGarr said.

"Join the Army and we will send you to bomb, shoot and possibly torture fellow human beings in other countries.

"Join the Army and we will send you probably poorly equipped into situations where people will try to shoot or kill you because you are occupying other people's countries.

"Join the Army, and if you survive and come home, possibly injured or mentally damaged, you and your family will be shabbily treated."

Delegate from Lambeth, south London, Chris Kelly, said he was offered free teaching materials, which he only later discovered were from the MoD.

"We must also ask ourselves why the MoD are in there influencing the way our students view the Army in the 21st Century.

"They find it difficult to recruit into the armed forces and are trying to encouraging them to join up," he said.

Decision

Executive member Martin Reed said young people should have the means to make an informed choice when deciding whether or not to sign up for an Army career.

He gave the example of school careers service Connexions which warned on its website that young people should not make this decision lightly.

It warned that war could be dangerous and that there were humanitarian casualties, he said.

Another teacher, Stefan Simms, from Ealing, west London, said those that were recruited would "come back knowing the horrors of war, maybe having committed the horrors of war."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "We do not recruit in schools.

"The single-service schools teams visit about 1,000 schools a year between them only at the invitation of the school - with the aim of raising the general awareness of their armed forces in society, not to recruit."

But some teachers argue these visits have a wider purpose.

'Patronising'

The NUT will now convene a summit of teachers, educationalists and others to consider the issue of military recruitment in schools.

Teachers who opposed recruitment activities based on "misleading propaganda" would be supported.

An ex-soldier, Terry, told BBC Radio Five Live that the union's attitude was patronising to 16-year-olds.

"Now 16-year-olds are not kids - they know, they know their mind," he said.

"If they are not sure what they want to do and they are just tinkering with the idea of just going in the Army - nowadays they can go in the Army, they go on a six-week camp and they find out what it's like.

"If its not for them, they have the choice to leave."

International Herald Tribune, 24/3/2008

Britain plans to force pharmaceutical companies to share more information with regulators about clinical trials after an investigation recently concluded that GlaxoSmithKline PLC deliberately withheld information about an antidepressant.

The four-year probe by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, completed earlier this month, said the British company should have revealed more quickly that Seroxat sometimes increased the suicide risk in teenagers — by more than six times.

But without stronger legislation in place, the MHRA admitted there is no chance of prosecuting the company for what the agency perceives as an ethical lapse.

"I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did," MHRA chief executive Kent Woods said in a statement.

GlaxoSmithKline rejected the suggestion that it withheld information.

Honor Mahony, EUObsever, 25/3/2008

An alliance of environment groups, trade unions and academics has accused the European Commission of relying too heavily on business and industry lobbyists when drawing up EU legislation.

The transparency group Alter-EU, made up of 160 organisations, said the commission - which of the EU institutions has the sole power to initiate European laws - has over-filled its advisory expert groups with industry lobbyists.

San Francisco Chronicle, Nayer Khazeni, 23/3/2008

The CDC reports that antidepressant use by American adults tripled from 1988 to 2000, but two recent studies in peer-reviewed journals show that for the majority of these patients, the most commonly prescribed antidepressants work no better than sugar pills.

Is this information new? Yes and no. The investigators of these studies had to legally invoke the Freedom of Information Act to obtain and analyze unpublished trials on SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants, which include Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil). They discovered the existence of a "file drawer effect" - trials with positive results are published while others are filed away - an issue that may confuse the true results of a great deal of medication research.

The January 2008 New England Journal of Medicine investigators found that 37 of 38 studies of antidepressants with positive results were published, whereas only 14 of 36 studies with negative or questionable results were. Even among those 14, many did not emphasize that suicidal thoughts and hopelessness persisted, highlighting, for example, improvements in sleep and energy, instead. The reversal of such "vegetative" symptoms (lethargy, insomnia and poor appetite) of depression in the presence of a continuing depressed mood is thought to play a role in the risk of completing suicide, and the FDA now requires all antidepressants to carry the most serious "black box" drug warning regarding possibly increased suicide risk.

The February 2008 Public Library of Science investigators, studying a different group of SSRIs, statistically analyzed the combined results of published and unpublished trials. Their findings added to several other studies showing that in all but the most seriously depressed patients, those who get better with antidepressants may also improve with placebos (sugar pills). This "placebo effect" is not unique to mental health treatment: From responses to placebo pills for the common cold to placebo operations for knee osteoarthritis, such improvements demonstrate the remarkable ability we have to heal our own minds and bodies without using pills.

If you're wondering about studies showing decreases in serotonin and other neurotransmitter levels in depressed or anxious people, be careful not to confuse those for evidence of a genetic basis for depression or anxiety or the need for a chemical solution. Serotonin levels can decrease in someone with no genetic predisposition to depression when he's upset about not having made partner at his firm, and can increase with just a few minutes of brisk walking. In fact, a wealth of data now verifies that depression and anxiety symptoms and biochemical markers improve with measures like exercise, meditation or talk therapies.

Before considering any therapy, be sure you and your physician have had enough time together to determine if you meet criteria for medical depression or anxiety (these disorders are closely linked, and antidepressant medications are used to treat both). Sadness or nervousness are not reason enough to begin a course of SSRIs or any therapy with multiple drug interactions and potentially serious side effects - those are normal human emotions, and in some cases, our bodies' protective warning signals to make a change in our lives.

The Independent, 21/3/2008

The information watchdog has reminded a Ministry of Justice agency of its Freedom of Information obligations. But will this have any effect? asks David Hewett

Scotland On Sunday, Marc Horne, 23/3/2008

The positive films will be accompanied by blogs and direct interventions by military staff in internet chatrooms.

The controversial tactic is revealed in the MoD's 'Online Engagement Strategy', released through Freedom of Information legislation.

Military chiefs admit the image-builiding strategy leaves them open to accusations they are peddling "propaganda", and fear their online presence "may not stand up to scrutiny".

But they conclude the risks are outweighed by the prospect of being able to "bypass the mainstream media" and communicate directly with their young target audience.

The military's reputation among the young has already been boosted in recent weeks by blanket coverage of Prince Harry serving in Afghanistan.

The report, which was drawn up last year, states: "The MoD and the armed forces will harness new and emerging technologies, new unofficial online channels and new unofficial online content in order to communicate and disseminate defence and Service messages and build defence and Service reputation."

It adds: "Success will be critically dependent on our ability to monitor online discussion of Service and defence issues. This will require new resources and sharing of information across organisational boundaries. Everyone in communication will have a role in monitoring the internet discussion of defence subjects.

"There will be occasions where we wish to initiate a discussion, for example to break a significant announcement or promote a new information campaign or initiative."

The report names websites such as YouTube, MySpace, Bebo and Facebook – which are hugely popular with youngsters – and claims they represent a "Brave New World" of opportunities.

"Changes in personal technology have made people more likely to record their lives and the events they witness. Today's teenagers spend more time writing to their friends than earlier generations. People of all ages are more likely to be carrying a camera. Although often crude, this material can have an immediacy and credibility unmatched by either Government communications or the mainstream media."

The document says: "Where appropriate, media and communications staff can positively encourage Service and MoD civilian personnel to generate and submit their own unofficial material for use in official efforts."

It also suggests MoD staff make contributions to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, and create "official presences in virtual communities such as multiplayer games".

It lists a number of potential risks and disadvantages of making greater use of the internet and reveals fears that they would be held liable for obscenity and defamation on their sites and risk having their material "spoofed, impersonated or lampooned".

It adds: "Some of our existing responses to press reporting may not stand up to scrutiny from the expert internal audience.

"We should also be wary of allowing undue influence by an audience which may include unknown or undesirable elements, such as non-UK nationals.

"The level of interest in online projects is very difficult to predict – it could be zero or it could be overwhelming. Either would be embarrassing. By exploiting new channels we stand open to accusations of engaging in propaganda."

The document also said: "Unlike newspaper columnists, many bloggers are not hidebound by traditional editorial prejudices and could be receptive to our approaches."

Servicemen and women will be warned about posting material that is obscene or offensive or would damage security.

Professor Elaine Fernely, an expert in internet technology and communication trends at Salford University, said the MoD's move was a savvy one.

"The age profile of the average soldier – or potential soldier – is very young," she said.

"(Young people] are more inclined to believe news that they read or watch online or is passed on to them by their peers. Obviously there are risks, but they obviously believe this is the best way to get their message delivered directly to young people."

But Nationalist MSP Jamie Hepburn said: "This strategy clearly reflects the fact that the military are struggling to recruit by the traditional methods. Their recruitment and image problems stem from the folly of invading Iraq and causing huge unrest in the Middle East. That is something that the MoD cannot get away from online or anywhere else."

On YouTube

The Ministry of Defence may be keen to harness the internet to enhance the reputation of Britain's forces.

But the message does not seem to have got through to a number of serving personnel.

One film on video-sharing website YouTube is a spoof diary of a day in the life of a Scottish squaddie in Iraq. It shows a grinning soldier pretending to gun down one of his colleagues, who is dressed as an Islamic militant with a scarf wrapped round his face and mock grenades strapped to his chest. The film, apparently shot at a UK military base in Basra with the Saltire flying in the background, shows the same soldier on the toilet and slumped on a bed strewn with pornographic magazines.

Another, called 'Basrah Boogie', shows two Scottish soldiers dressed as Arabs, doing Egyptian-style sand dances and mocking the Middle Eastern music playing loudly in the background.