This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/feb/01/davidcameron-edmiliband

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Politics live blog: PMQs, Fred Goodwin reaction and Nick Clegg on Lords reform Politics live blog: PMQs, Fred Goodwin reaction and Nick Clegg on Lords reform
(40 minutes later)
11.32am: Lord Goldsmith, the former Labour attorney general, suggests that it would be best for the government to clarify the application of Parliament Act as part of Lords reform.
Clegg says that he takes the view "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Some peers pick up on this because it is the argument used to justify the Lords remaining as it is. Clegg means that he thinks there is no need to codify this issue.
He says that he finds it "ironic" that people who normally support evolutionary constituional change are demanding new legislation on this point.
11.29am: Norton asks if Clegg thinks there should be a referendum on Lords reform.
Clegg says he does not support this.
The government is not seeking to abolish the Lords, he says.
11.29am: Clegg says he accepts that Lords reform does not "exercise" people very much. But that does not mean it is not important, he says.
11.24am: Lord Norton of Louth, a Conservative peer and a political scientist, says the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act did envisage the powers of the Lords changing after the Lords became elected.
11.20am: Clegg says that he does not think that there is an automatic link between composition and function in relation to the Lords.
11.18am: Pannick asks if the government is planning to change the powers of the Lords.
Clegg says that the fact that the Lords becomes elected should not necessarily lead to the Lords taking on new powers. The composition of the Lords has already changed considerably in recent years, he says. It has become more partisan.
11.15am: Lord Pannick, a crossbencher, asks if the Parliament Act will remain in place after Lords reform starts.
Clegg says that that is the government's assumption.
11.11am: Hart asks if the Lords is too big. (Currently, 787 peers are eligible to attend.)
Clegg says this is not a new problem. Just before the Life Peerages Act there were about 800 members. But the number of active peers has not changed dramatically, he says.
He also insists that he is in favour of making the Lords smaller.
Hart says there have been rumours about the government planning to appoint another 60 peers to help get its legislation through.
Clegg says that sounds like "an absurdly large number".
But, interestingly, he does not rule out the idea that some new peers may be appointed soon.
Hart says there have been calls for the government to stop appointing new peers because the Lords is over-crowded.
Clegg says he does not see the need for this.
11.06am: They are now turning to Lords reform.
Lord Hart of Chilton, a Labour peer, asks about the timetable for Lords reform.
Clegg says the government wants the first tranche of elections to the Lords to take place in 2015. Working backwards, that means the legislation needs to go through parliament soon. The joint committee is going to report soon. After it does, the government will produce a definitive bill.
Hart asks if the bill will be a flagship bill if it is in the Queen's Speech.
Clegg says the economy will remain the government's priority.
Hart asks if a yes vote in a Scottish referendum would affect the Lords reform programme.
Clegg says a yes vote would affect all kinds of things.
11.04am: Clegg says the Scotland bill involves a "huge" transfer of power to the Scottish parliament. People are forgetting how significant it is. "And I don't think it will be the last step," he says. Devolution is a "living, breathing thing".
11.00am: Clegg say he is surprised the SNP have not done more "homework" about what independence would actually mean.
A referendum should be simple, clear and decisive, Clegg says.
Powell suggests Clegg wants to call the SNP's bluff.
Clegg says that is not the point. He accepts the SNP have a right to have a referendum.
He says he does not want referendums to become lists of options, "confected for political convenience".
The government could have decided to put various options on the AV referendum ballot paper. But it chose to put just one option to the voters.
10.57am: Lord Powell of Bayswater (Charles Powell, Margaret Thatcher's former foreign affairs adviser) asks if Clegg would be willing to see a second question (on "devo max") on the ballot paper.
Clegg says that because devolution is evolving all the time, he does not see the point.
Also, there is no point having a vote on that unless Scotland has first decided whether or not it wants to stay in the UK.
10.52am: Lord Crickhowell, a Conservative and a former Welsh secretary, says Scottish independence would affect all parts of the UK.10.52am: Lord Crickhowell, a Conservative and a former Welsh secretary, says Scottish independence would affect all parts of the UK.
Clegg says devolution and independence are qualitatively different. One is a divorce; the other is a negotiation.Clegg says devolution and independence are qualitatively different. One is a divorce; the other is a negotiation.
Britain is not a "neat federal state", he says.Britain is not a "neat federal state", he says.
10.50am: Renton asks if Scottish independence would work.10.50am: Renton asks if Scottish independence would work.
Clegg says it should not just be a choice between the status quo and independence. Devolution is "a process", he says. He believes in home rule, he says. The Lib Dems have set up a commission to look into this.Clegg says it should not just be a choice between the status quo and independence. Devolution is "a process", he says. He believes in home rule, he says. The Lib Dems have set up a commission to look into this.
I believe there should be greater steps, fiscal and otherwise, towards autonomy in Scotland.I believe there should be greater steps, fiscal and otherwise, towards autonomy in Scotland.
Clegg says the debate should not be framed in "rigid, polarised" terms.Clegg says the debate should not be framed in "rigid, polarised" terms.
10.46am: Lord Renton of Mount Harry, a Conservative, asks Clegg how the government will handle the Scottish independence referendum issue.10.46am: Lord Renton of Mount Harry, a Conservative, asks Clegg how the government will handle the Scottish independence referendum issue.
Clegg says there are two consultations underway. The UK government has launched a consultation on its paper about the need to give the Scottish parliament the legal means to hold a referendum. And the Scottish government has published its own consultation paper.Clegg says there are two consultations underway. The UK government has launched a consultation on its paper about the need to give the Scottish parliament the legal means to hold a referendum. And the Scottish government has published its own consultation paper.
There is "some overlap", he says.There is "some overlap", he says.
The UK government thinks there should be just one question, he says.The UK government thinks there should be just one question, he says.
Clegg also says he thinks that it would be best to have the referendum as soon as possible.Clegg also says he thinks that it would be best to have the referendum as soon as possible.
10.45am: They are turning to devolution now. Perhaps it might get interesting ....10.45am: They are turning to devolution now. Perhaps it might get interesting ....
10.45am: Clegg says he is not persuaded that changing the timing of the AV referendum would have affected the nature of the debate.10.45am: Clegg says he is not persuaded that changing the timing of the AV referendum would have affected the nature of the debate.
10.41am: Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the Lib Dem peer, is now asking about the AV referendum. Would it have been better to postpone it?10.41am: Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the Lib Dem peer, is now asking about the AV referendum. Would it have been better to postpone it?
Clegg says the AV referendum was an example of the executive engaging with the public. There is no greater form of engagement than putting something to a referendum. He says he does not know whether there would have been more interest if the referendum had been held at another time.Clegg says the AV referendum was an example of the executive engaging with the public. There is no greater form of engagement than putting something to a referendum. He says he does not know whether there would have been more interest if the referendum had been held at another time.
But the government did give the public a chance to make up its mind, he says.But the government did give the public a chance to make up its mind, he says.
Rodgers asks the question again.Rodgers asks the question again.
Clegg says it was a very simple question. If the referendum had been held in 2014, would people have been more interested. "I doubt it very much," he says.Clegg says it was a very simple question. If the referendum had been held in 2014, would people have been more interested. "I doubt it very much," he says.
10.30am: Lord Goldsmith asks about the recommendation in the committee's report on the process of constitutional change saying that when ministers introduce a bill, they should publish a written statement setting out the constitutional impact of the bill. (See paragraphs 125 and 126 of the report.)10.30am: Lord Goldsmith asks about the recommendation in the committee's report on the process of constitutional change saying that when ministers introduce a bill, they should publish a written statement setting out the constitutional impact of the bill. (See paragraphs 125 and 126 of the report.)
Clegg says the government has gone further than this. The government is being open about its legislation, and subjecting itself up to scrutiny.Clegg says the government has gone further than this. The government is being open about its legislation, and subjecting itself up to scrutiny.
10.25am: Lady Jay says Clegg's tone is more "constructive" than she expected from Clegg formal response to the committee's report.10.25am: Lady Jay says Clegg's tone is more "constructive" than she expected from Clegg formal response to the committee's report.
(Having promised earlier that this could be lively, I feel an apology may be in order soon. So far, it's been desperately dull. But I still live in hope ...)(Having promised earlier that this could be lively, I feel an apology may be in order soon. So far, it's been desperately dull. But I still live in hope ...)
10.19am: Nick Clegg is giving evidence now.10.19am: Nick Clegg is giving evidence now.
He is talking about the committee's report on constitutional change.He is talking about the committee's report on constitutional change.
It is difficult to come up with a watertight definition of the constitution, he says.It is difficult to come up with a watertight definition of the constitution, he says.
10.13am: This is what Nick Clegg had to say about the House of Lords in his "Open Society" speech at the end of last year.10.13am: This is what Nick Clegg had to say about the House of Lords in his "Open Society" speech at the end of last year.

Lloyd George described the House of Lords as being "a body of five hundred men chosen at random from amongst the unemployed". To be honest, it might be better if it was. Of course among our peers there are those with valuable experience and expertise.
Lloyd George described the House of Lords as being "a body of five hundred men chosen at random from amongst the unemployed". To be honest, it might be better if it was. Of course among our peers there are those with valuable experience and expertise.
But a veneer of expertise can surely no longer serve as an alibi for a chamber which legislates on behalf of the people – but is not held to account by the people. The Lords as currently constituted is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy.But a veneer of expertise can surely no longer serve as an alibi for a chamber which legislates on behalf of the people – but is not held to account by the people. The Lords as currently constituted is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy.
Now he's about to give evidence to the Lords constitution committee, on Lords reform and other matters. I'll be covering it in detail.Now he's about to give evidence to the Lords constitution committee, on Lords reform and other matters. I'll be covering it in detail.
10.00am: If David Cameron thought that the decision to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood would receive a postive write-up in the press, he was wrong. The papers are surprisingly critical. I've been looking at all the editorials. The Guardian and the Daily Express have not written leaders on the subject, but all the other national papers have and, of those, all the "broadsheet" papers are critical - sometimes very critical. The Daily Mail, which campaigned for Goodwin to lose his knighthood, is pleased, obviously. But the Sun, which would would expect to welcome the move, sounds relatively neutral, and the Daily Mirror is ambivalent too.10.00am: If David Cameron thought that the decision to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood would receive a postive write-up in the press, he was wrong. The papers are surprisingly critical. I've been looking at all the editorials. The Guardian and the Daily Express have not written leaders on the subject, but all the other national papers have and, of those, all the "broadsheet" papers are critical - sometimes very critical. The Daily Mail, which campaigned for Goodwin to lose his knighthood, is pleased, obviously. But the Sun, which would would expect to welcome the move, sounds relatively neutral, and the Daily Mirror is ambivalent too.
Here's a summary.Here's a summary.
Papers which are criticalPapers which are critical
The Times (paywall)The Times (paywall)
There is a strong case for a proper legal investigation into the activity of the financial services industry leading to the crash. A proper public inquiry into what happened is long overdue.There is a strong case for a proper legal investigation into the activity of the financial services industry leading to the crash. A proper public inquiry into what happened is long overdue.
Such an investigation might easily lead to prosecutions and convictions. Those found guilty can then be dealt with in the usual way. In a country ruled by laws, that is how things happen. People then know both how to behave and also the consequences of their behaviour. They know where they stand. They do not fear arbitrary justice. This is the essence of liberty.Such an investigation might easily lead to prosecutions and convictions. Those found guilty can then be dealt with in the usual way. In a country ruled by laws, that is how things happen. People then know both how to behave and also the consequences of their behaviour. They know where they stand. They do not fear arbitrary justice. This is the essence of liberty.
What has happened to Mr Goodwin stands in contrast to that. It is the selection of an individual for public humiliation, and the changing of the rules just for him in order to make sure he is properly humiliated. Due process is replaced by the rule of the mob. A committee meeting is quickly convened and comes up with an answer that is politically convenient for everybody and appeases the public mood. And all this is much more disturbing than allowing an arrogant businessman to retain a knighthood that he did not deserve in the first place.What has happened to Mr Goodwin stands in contrast to that. It is the selection of an individual for public humiliation, and the changing of the rules just for him in order to make sure he is properly humiliated. Due process is replaced by the rule of the mob. A committee meeting is quickly convened and comes up with an answer that is politically convenient for everybody and appeases the public mood. And all this is much more disturbing than allowing an arrogant businessman to retain a knighthood that he did not deserve in the first place.
Having an honours system may seem unecessary. A dishonours system seems sinister.Having an honours system may seem unecessary. A dishonours system seems sinister.
The IndependentThe Independent
More than anything else, the absurd treatment of Mr Goodwin – added to the furore over Stephen Hester's bonus – damages nothing as much as it damages Britain. It sends out the profoundly off-putting signal that Britain is anti-business and anti-wealth, a culture of harboured grudges, public vindictiveness and mob rule. At a time when the economy is more exposed than ever to the chill winds of global competition, when growth rates are stagnant at best, if not heading back into recession, it is the worst possible image to convey. Stripping Mr Goodwin of his knighthood is crass, childish, and wholly counter-productive.More than anything else, the absurd treatment of Mr Goodwin – added to the furore over Stephen Hester's bonus – damages nothing as much as it damages Britain. It sends out the profoundly off-putting signal that Britain is anti-business and anti-wealth, a culture of harboured grudges, public vindictiveness and mob rule. At a time when the economy is more exposed than ever to the chill winds of global competition, when growth rates are stagnant at best, if not heading back into recession, it is the worst possible image to convey. Stripping Mr Goodwin of his knighthood is crass, childish, and wholly counter-productive.
The Daily TelegraphThe Daily Telegraph
Why – as we asked last week – is the Honours Forfeiture Committee, a shadowy and allegedly independent body, not now looking into the peerages of Lord Archer (jailed for perjury), or Lords Hanningfield and Taylor (both jailed for expenses fraud)? It has surely exceeded its remit, which is to act only when an individual "has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence… or has been censured/struck off etc by the relevant regulatory authority or professional body for actions or failures to act which are directly relevant to the granting of the honour". In America, if executives are suspected of committing an offence, they are tried and dealt with severely. Here, in the absence of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we choose ritual humiliation instead.Why – as we asked last week – is the Honours Forfeiture Committee, a shadowy and allegedly independent body, not now looking into the peerages of Lord Archer (jailed for perjury), or Lords Hanningfield and Taylor (both jailed for expenses fraud)? It has surely exceeded its remit, which is to act only when an individual "has been found guilty by the courts of a criminal offence… or has been censured/struck off etc by the relevant regulatory authority or professional body for actions or failures to act which are directly relevant to the granting of the honour". In America, if executives are suspected of committing an offence, they are tried and dealt with severely. Here, in the absence of any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, we choose ritual humiliation instead.
It has been a disastrous few days for this country's reputation as an attractive place for financiers and businessmen. First, Stephen Hester, the new boss of RBS, was forced to relinquish his bonus; now Mr Goodwin has been dragged to the stocks. David Cameron and the other leading politicians who have encouraged this populist bloodlust should be ashamed of themselves. Now that the precedent has been set, the mob will want more, because it always does. So who will be next?It has been a disastrous few days for this country's reputation as an attractive place for financiers and businessmen. First, Stephen Hester, the new boss of RBS, was forced to relinquish his bonus; now Mr Goodwin has been dragged to the stocks. David Cameron and the other leading politicians who have encouraged this populist bloodlust should be ashamed of themselves. Now that the precedent has been set, the mob will want more, because it always does. So who will be next?
The Financial Times (subscription)The Financial Times (subscription)
True, there is more than a whiff of rough justice and political calculation here. Mr Goodwin can point to the fact that the Financial Services Authority did not take any action against him, in spite of a lengthy investigation. Others who have committed serious offences have not lost their honours. Lord Archer, the popular novelist who served a jail term for perjury, remains in the House of Lords.True, there is more than a whiff of rough justice and political calculation here. Mr Goodwin can point to the fact that the Financial Services Authority did not take any action against him, in spite of a lengthy investigation. Others who have committed serious offences have not lost their honours. Lord Archer, the popular novelist who served a jail term for perjury, remains in the House of Lords.
But Mr Goodwin has contributed to his own misfortune by his unrepentant demeanour since the collapse of RBS. Having disdained public opinion, he cannot complain about becoming a target for public opprobrium and for a prime minister eager to deflect attention to still-outsized bankers' bonuses.But Mr Goodwin has contributed to his own misfortune by his unrepentant demeanour since the collapse of RBS. Having disdained public opinion, he cannot complain about becoming a target for public opprobrium and for a prime minister eager to deflect attention to still-outsized bankers' bonuses.
The quondam Sir Fred was hardly the only titled banker to mess up before the crash. His humbling is a reminder that there has never been a proper accounting for the crisis, and very few prosecutions, unlike in the US. Much better if the courts and regulators rather than the honours forfeiture committee were leading the charge against pre-crash failings.The quondam Sir Fred was hardly the only titled banker to mess up before the crash. His humbling is a reminder that there has never been a proper accounting for the crisis, and very few prosecutions, unlike in the US. Much better if the courts and regulators rather than the honours forfeiture committee were leading the charge against pre-crash failings.
Papers which are supportivePapers which are supportive
Daily MailDaily Mail
When the Mail first reported MPs' demands that Fred Goodwin should be stripped of his knighthood, we warned that such decisions should be reserved strictly for the most exceptional cases.When the Mail first reported MPs' demands that Fred Goodwin should be stripped of his knighthood, we warned that such decisions should be reserved strictly for the most exceptional cases.
Otherwise, we argued, the honours system could all too easily be abused as a means of settling old political scores, with governments cancelling the garlands bestowed by their predecessors.Otherwise, we argued, the honours system could all too easily be abused as a means of settling old political scores, with governments cancelling the garlands bestowed by their predecessors.
We believed, however, that the case for making an example of the then Sir Fred was indeed exceptional and compelling ...We believed, however, that the case for making an example of the then Sir Fred was indeed exceptional and compelling ...
Bankers themselves are looking forward to stuffing their pockets with another round of massive bonuses.Bankers themselves are looking forward to stuffing their pockets with another round of massive bonuses.
Mr Goodwin's fate should teach them that today they have a clear choice. It lies between the dishonour of selfish greed – and their duty to help this nation out of the crisis they caused.Mr Goodwin's fate should teach them that today they have a clear choice. It lies between the dishonour of selfish greed – and their duty to help this nation out of the crisis they caused.
Papers which are ambivalent Papers which are ambivalent
The Daily MirrorThe Daily Mirror

David Cameron did what he always does when he's in trouble... spin.
David Cameron did what he always does when he's in trouble... spin.
The timing of Fred Goodwin's lost ­knighthood is decidedly suspicious, reeking of a ­diversionary tactic by a rattled PM.The timing of Fred Goodwin's lost ­knighthood is decidedly suspicious, reeking of a ­diversionary tactic by a rattled PM.
Experience and circumstantial evidence lead us to wonder if the man who broke the bank was last night made plain Mr Goodwin to deflect public attention from Mr Cameron's ham-fisted handling of the bonus row.Experience and circumstantial evidence lead us to wonder if the man who broke the bank was last night made plain Mr Goodwin to deflect public attention from Mr Cameron's ham-fisted handling of the bonus row.
That said, Goodwin deserved to lose his knighthood. And the stripping of honours should not end with the shamed former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland.That said, Goodwin deserved to lose his knighthood. And the stripping of honours should not end with the shamed former head of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The SunThe Sun

So the poster boy for reckless, greedy gamblers is finally stripped of the knighthood Labour gave him.
So the poster boy for reckless, greedy gamblers is finally stripped of the knighthood Labour gave him.
Fred The Shred's arrogance and incompetence cost taxpayers £45billion and helped plunge us into recession.Fred The Shred's arrogance and incompetence cost taxpayers £45billion and helped plunge us into recession.
His much-lauded "services to banking" proved to be services to bankruptcy.His much-lauded "services to banking" proved to be services to bankruptcy.
Sir Fred may now be just plain Fred.Sir Fred may now be just plain Fred.
But with a £6,500-a-week pension to fall back on, he's still laughing all the way to the bonk, sorry, bank.But with a £6,500-a-week pension to fall back on, he's still laughing all the way to the bonk, sorry, bank.
9.47am: The Institute of Directors has warned that the Goodwin decision could fuel "anti-business hysteria". The BBC has the full story.9.47am: The Institute of Directors has warned that the Goodwin decision could fuel "anti-business hysteria". The BBC has the full story.
9.41am: Jim Pickard was not impressed by what Michael Fallon (left), the Conservative deputy chairman (and a member of the Commons Treasury committee) had to say about the Goodwin decision this morning. (See 9.35am.) Here's the key quote from Fallon. I've taken it from PoliticsHome.9.41am: Jim Pickard was not impressed by what Michael Fallon (left), the Conservative deputy chairman (and a member of the Commons Treasury committee) had to say about the Goodwin decision this morning. (See 9.35am.) Here's the key quote from Fallon. I've taken it from PoliticsHome.
This decision hasn't been done on a whim. It is three and a half years after the collapse and follows a detailed response by the [Financial Services Authority]. It came out before Christmas. Our own reviewer said the report amounted to censure. Ministers don't control the timings of the forfeiture committee. This is an entirely independent committee of civil servants. There are no politicians on the committee. They are there to monitor the integrity of the system and make sure those given honours continue to deserve them, which in this case [Fred Goodwin] didn't. They are also making clear this was an exceptional case, because of the scale and severity of what he did as chief executive of RBS.This decision hasn't been done on a whim. It is three and a half years after the collapse and follows a detailed response by the [Financial Services Authority]. It came out before Christmas. Our own reviewer said the report amounted to censure. Ministers don't control the timings of the forfeiture committee. This is an entirely independent committee of civil servants. There are no politicians on the committee. They are there to monitor the integrity of the system and make sure those given honours continue to deserve them, which in this case [Fred Goodwin] didn't. They are also making clear this was an exceptional case, because of the scale and severity of what he did as chief executive of RBS.
9.35am: Here's some Twitter comment on the Goodwin decision.9.35am: Here's some Twitter comment on the Goodwin decision.
From the Guardian's Patrick WintourFrom the Guardian's Patrick Wintour
Kerslake head of civil service needs to explain himself in public. At moment he looks like a stooge for populism.Kerslake head of civil service needs to explain himself in public. At moment he looks like a stooge for populism.
From the FT's Jim PickardFrom the FT's Jim Pickard
Michael fallon tells today that the forfeiture committee was independent of political pressure. Sure. Of course. #todayMichael fallon tells today that the forfeiture committee was independent of political pressure. Sure. Of course. #today
From the Independent on Sunday's John RentoulFrom the Independent on Sunday's John Rentoul
I tried to explain to a normal person why Fred Goodwin had lost his knighthood. Failed. Shows why it is a bad idea.I tried to explain to a normal person why Fred Goodwin had lost his knighthood. Failed. Shows why it is a bad idea.
9.24am: On the Today programme Sir Jackie Stewart (left), a friend of Goodwin's, popped up to defend the former RBS boss. Stewart said that he had not spoken to Goodwin since the decision was announced yesterday - Goodwin's mobile is switched off, apparently - but he said that RBS had made £11bn a year for Britain in the good days. This is what he said when he was asked how Goodwin would be feeling about the loss of his K. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
9.24am: On the Today programme Sir Jackie Stewart (left), a friend of Goodwin's, popped up to defend the former RBS boss. Stewart said that he had not spoken to Goodwin since the decision was announced yesterday - Goodwin's mobile is switched off, apparently - but he said that RBS had made £11bn a year for Britain in the good days. This is what he said when he was asked how Goodwin would be feeling about the loss of his K. I've taken the quote from PoliticsHome.
I should think he is very, very disappointed first of all. I should think very sad that he has lost this, because when you receive a knighthood it if from Her Majesty and is for what you have done. There are different opinions on that, but is a dangerous precedent, because if this is the case who else is up for having a knighthood or any other honour of that kind removed, just because something happened elsewhere at a different time.I should think he is very, very disappointed first of all. I should think very sad that he has lost this, because when you receive a knighthood it if from Her Majesty and is for what you have done. There are different opinions on that, but is a dangerous precedent, because if this is the case who else is up for having a knighthood or any other honour of that kind removed, just because something happened elsewhere at a different time.
9.11am: Digby Jones (left), the former CBI director general, was on the Today programme this morning talking about the Goodwin decision. He detected "a whiff of the lynch mob on the village green". I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.9.11am: Digby Jones (left), the former CBI director general, was on the Today programme this morning talking about the Goodwin decision. He detected "a whiff of the lynch mob on the village green". I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
The problem is how we got there, because there's a whiff of the lynch mob on the village green about this. Why just him? There are a fair few knights on the board. Where does this stop? This probably throws up the need for some serious guidelines about when it will happen, when it won't. It's very clear [that people lose honours if convicted of a criminal offence.] I sincerely hope it's very clear about the Mugabes and the Ceausescus, but Fred Goodwin has had nothing examined in any court, nor found guilty.The problem is how we got there, because there's a whiff of the lynch mob on the village green about this. Why just him? There are a fair few knights on the board. Where does this stop? This probably throws up the need for some serious guidelines about when it will happen, when it won't. It's very clear [that people lose honours if convicted of a criminal offence.] I sincerely hope it's very clear about the Mugabes and the Ceausescus, but Fred Goodwin has had nothing examined in any court, nor found guilty.
Jones also said that this decision, and the row about Stephen Hester's bonus, could be sending out the wrong signals about Britain's attitude to entrepreneurs.Jones also said that this decision, and the row about Stephen Hester's bonus, could be sending out the wrong signals about Britain's attitude to entrepreneurs.

What we need to do is make sure that there's a kid in Bangalore today who's thinking he will come to Britain, make his fortune, create jobs, pay tax, and he thinks, 'hey - don't go there' - not because of the money, but because of the lynch mob mentality if someone fails.
What we need to do is make sure that there's a kid in Bangalore today who's thinking he will come to Britain, make his fortune, create jobs, pay tax, and he thinks, 'hey - don't go there' - not because of the money, but because of the lynch mob mentality if someone fails.
9.03am: Alistair Darling has set out his views on the decision to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood in an article in the Times (paywall). Here's an extract.9.03am: Alistair Darling has set out his views on the decision to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood in an article in the Times (paywall). Here's an extract.

There is something tawdry about the government directing its fire at Fred Goodwin alone; if it's right to annul his knighthood what about the honours of others who were involved in RBS and HBOS? If policy is not based on principle but is about individuals, the government will carry on being blown in the wind. That makes for bad government.
There is something tawdry about the government directing its fire at Fred Goodwin alone; if it's right to annul his knighthood what about the honours of others who were involved in RBS and HBOS? If policy is not based on principle but is about individuals, the government will carry on being blown in the wind. That makes for bad government.
8.55am: Was it a good idea to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood? In the papers and on the airwaves there is quite a backlash against the move today. Sometimes populist gestures turn out to be not that popular, although we won't know what the public think until we see some polling. But we know what Alistair Darling, the Labour former chancellor, thinks. This is what he told the Today programme.8.55am: Was it a good idea to strip Fred Goodwin of his knighthood? In the papers and on the airwaves there is quite a backlash against the move today. Sometimes populist gestures turn out to be not that popular, although we won't know what the public think until we see some polling. But we know what Alistair Darling, the Labour former chancellor, thinks. This is what he told the Today programme.

I really think that in a country like ours, where we pride ourselves on the rule of law and there being a due process and where others look to us, to get ourselves into this situation ... [Goodwin] wasn't the only one that caused problems, and we have a problem here. The government is going after the question of bonuses in one bank in relation to one man. You have to have a principle so people know if they are doing right or wrong ... I am not here to defend Sir Fred. I, of all people, know how difficult the problems were. I just think we are getting into awful trouble here if we go after people on a whim, and we don't have a clear set of principles against which we can judge people.
I really think that in a country like ours, where we pride ourselves on the rule of law and there being a due process and where others look to us, to get ourselves into this situation ... [Goodwin] wasn't the only one that caused problems, and we have a problem here. The government is going after the question of bonuses in one bank in relation to one man. You have to have a principle so people know if they are doing right or wrong ... I am not here to defend Sir Fred. I, of all people, know how difficult the problems were. I just think we are getting into awful trouble here if we go after people on a whim, and we don't have a clear set of principles against which we can judge people.
I'll post more reaction to the Goodwin decision shortly.I'll post more reaction to the Goodwin decision shortly.
We've also got PMQs, and Nick Clegg giving evidence to the Lords constitituion committee. Given what Clegg had to say about the Lords in his recent "Open Society" speech, it could get quite lively.We've also got PMQs, and Nick Clegg giving evidence to the Lords constitituion committee. Given what Clegg had to say about the Lords in his recent "Open Society" speech, it could get quite lively.
Here's the full agenda for the day.Here's the full agenda for the day.
10am: The Institute for Fiscal Studies publishes its green budget.10am: The Institute for Fiscal Studies publishes its green budget.
10am: Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, gives evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. The other witnesses will be Advertising Standards Authority chief executive Guy Parker, Ofcom chairman Colette Bowe and Press Standards Board of Finance chairman Lord Black of Brentwood.10am: Ed Richards, the Ofcom chief executive, gives evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. The other witnesses will be Advertising Standards Authority chief executive Guy Parker, Ofcom chairman Colette Bowe and Press Standards Board of Finance chairman Lord Black of Brentwood.
10.15am: Nick Clegg gives evidence to the Lords constitution committee about Lords reform, devolution and the funding of political parties.10.15am: Nick Clegg gives evidence to the Lords constitution committee about Lords reform, devolution and the funding of political parties.
12pm: David Cameron and Ed Miliband clash at PMQs.12pm: David Cameron and Ed Miliband clash at PMQs.
12.30pm: MPs start debating the welfare bill. As Patrick Wintour reports, the government will seek to overturn the seven defeats it suffered when the bill was in the Lords.12.30pm: MPs start debating the welfare bill. As Patrick Wintour reports, the government will seek to overturn the seven defeats it suffered when the bill was in the Lords.
2.15pm: Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, gives evidence on the green economy to the Commons environmental audit committee.2.15pm: Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, gives evidence on the green economy to the Commons environmental audit committee.
As usual, I'll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon.As usual, I'll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I'll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm and another in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.And if you're a hardcore fan, you can follow @gdnpoliticslive. It's an automated feed that tweets the start of every new post that I put on the blog.