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/apr/04/david-cameron-big-society-live

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

Version 10 Version 11
David Cameron delivers big society speech: Politics live blog David Cameron delivers big society speech: Politics live blog
(about 1 hour later)
3.30pm: Here's an afternoon summary. 9.00am: We have not heard much about the big society recently, but David Cameron is going to put that right today with a speech in London. He's launching Big Society Capital, the government's new big society bank, the one that is going to fund social enterprise initiatives using money from dormant bank accounts. As Nicholas Watt reports, it's going to have £600m available. Cameron will say the money will help society expand.
• Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, has told the Leveson inquiry that he encountered "a degree of pushback" from the police when he suggested a further investigation into the phone hacking affair in 2009. There are more details on our Leveson live blog. For years, the City has been associated with providing capital to help businesses to expand. Today, this is about supplying capital to help society expand. Just as finance from the City has been essential to help businesses grow and take on the world, so finance from the City is going to be essential to helping tackle our deepest social problems.
• Vince Cable, the business secretary, has played down the prospect of regional public sector pay being used to depress salaries in poor areas. He spoke out on a visit to Wales. Big Society Capital is going to encourage charities and social enterprises to prove their business models - and then replicate them. Once they've proved that success in one area they'll be able - just as a business can - to seek investment for expansion into the wider region and into the country.
There's a lot of unnecessary fears about this. There is no question whatsoever of average low pay across Wales in the public sector being imposed from central government. All that's happened so far is that the Treasury is putting in evidence between the difference between public and private-sector pay in different parts of the country. There is no commitment to do this and we are just looking at evidence. I think that scaring people in the public sector, that they will have their pay depressed, is completely wrong. This is a self-sustaining, independent market that's going to help build the Big Society.

/>
/>• Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, has called for a mini summit on complaints from airlines that there are not enough border staff to deal with passengers arriving in the UK. Theresa May, the home secretary, should convene the summit, he said. "A huge amount of time and effort has gone into preparing for the Olympic, and the eyes of the entire world will be on London in particular, but the rest of the United Kingdom as well, so it is absolutely essential that we get this right and [the airlines'] warnings have to be taken seriously. 		The speech is at 10.40am. I'll be covering it in detail.
• Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, has said that England's schools are increasingly divided along class lines, making it harder than ever for the poorest children to succeed. With luck Cameron will take questions, because it would be good to hear what he has to say about the other big issue of the day - the government's plan to allow intelligence evidence to be heard in secret in courts. As the Guardian reports, Nick Clegg has told his colleagues that he cannot accept the plans in their present form and the proposals have also been strongly criticised by parliament's joint committee on human rights. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, was defending his plans on the Today programme earlier. He claimed that the Americans were now restricting the intelligence they share with the British because they are worried about it being disclosed in court. And he claimed that he felt much the same way as Clegg did on this issue.
That's it for today. Thanks for the comments.
/>I usually agree with Nick Clegg and most of the liberals on these things. I thought the last government was far too authoritarian.
3.12pm: Here's an afternoon reading list. I'll post more from the interview shortly.
• Labour Uncut says the agenda for the Unite conference in June suggests that Len McCluskey is starting to apply the thumbscrews to Ed Miliband. Otherwise, it's quiet. But, 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.
Three resolutions call for a 10% cut in funding to the Labour party with these monies being diverted to union campaigns or the Unite National Dispute Fund. It's the clearest possible shot across the bows. Money matters, particularly to a party spending more than it raises, and if Labour is not going to advance Unite's agenda then the funding will slow – 10% to start with, more if there is continued recalcitrance. If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
• David Goodhart at Prospect says the Bradford West result could change British politics. 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.
The Bradford West upset is probably most accurately described as the result of a minor civil war within the Pakistani elite in the town which then led to the younger generation revolting against its elders. And a successful by-election campaign that loudly highlights the plight of the Palestinians is not likely to tell us much about, or have much impact on, national politics.
It does, however, show how "soft" support is for all the main parties, especially in depressed places like Bradford, and also how Ed Miliband has failed to create much buzz around his leadership (it is hard to imagine this happening under a young Tony Blair in 1996). It may also help to revive the Respect party, a sort of Islamic version of the Socialist Workers Party, which after its great successes at the height of the Iraq war had dwindled to one council seat in Birmingham and two in Tower Hamlets.
But there is another big reason why this apparently sui generis result will reverberate nationally—it may mark the beginning of the end of Labour's ethnic minority bloc vote politics.
It is one of the open secrets of Labour politics that in large parts of the Midlands and the North it has acquiesced to the "wholesale" vote gathering system offered by some minority leaders. And it is easy to see why an impoverished party with few activists and an old white working class base that seldom votes finds it hard to resist this deal. After all, in return for political attention from a MP or councillor, Labour gains the hundreds or even thousands of votes that some minority community leaders can still offer.
The system has largely disappeared, if it ever existed, for successful and well-integrated minorities. But it is still very much alive for Kashmiris, who are the best organised voter group in many Labour seats in the old industrial areas and have the extra advantage of a hierarchical clan system which has been able to guarantee a sizeable bloc vote.
• Lewis Baston at Progressonline previews the local elections.
In some places Labour victory is almost inevitable. In Harlow, for instance, the Conservatives have a majority of one, a legacy from their extraordinary performance in 2008 when they won every single ward contested in the town that year. Even a historically poor Labour showing in 2012, as long as it is even slightly better than 2008, will be enough to win control. The task is harder than this in several other councils, but Labour should win control in Thurrock, Plymouth, Southampton, Exeter, Reading and perhaps Norwich, creating some satisfying red splodges on the map of southern and eastern England. The Southampton election is particularly interesting because it is currently run by a particularly rightwing pro-cuts Tory council.
Labour gained a swath of councils in the metropolitan areas of the Midlands and the north in 2010 and 2011, but a few more low-hanging fruit should fall from the tree in Birmingham, Bradford, Wirral and perhaps Walsall. It would be very disappointing if Labour did not win the newly established Salford mayoralty. The hard tests that would indicate Labour has advanced significantly since 2011 are Swindon, Dudley and Cardiff. Swindon and Dudley are straight two-party fights with the Conservatives in areas with marginal and volatile parliamentary seats where the Tory vote held up reasonably well in 2011. Cardiff is more of a contest with the Liberal Democrats, who should put up more resistance there than one can expect in the northern cities where they are likely to be massacred for a second year.
2.50pm: And Gareth Thomas, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, has written a post for LabourList saying Big Society Capital won't compensate for the revenue charities are losing as a result of government spending cuts. Here's an extract.
In a secret report for the Cabinet Office leaked last month an analysis of bids to the Transition fund found that charities and community organisations are set to have lost at least £1billion and possibly as much as £5.5billion this year; as a direct result of government cuts.
Two thirds of the charities most desperate for help to keep services going were in the 25 most deprived areas while charities helping the unemployed back into work were facing an average 50% cut in their funding. Indeed community and voluntary groups in the 20 poorest areas of England lost 40 times as much funding as those in the richest 20 districts.
2.41pm: The BBC's Mark Easton has posted a blog about Big Society Capital. Here's an extract.
One consequence of this new approach to delivering services for the public good may be something our current government regards as a public bad: bureaucracy.
Someone is going to need to check that social enterprises are doing what they say they are doing, that the benefits are what was claimed, that the contracts are in the best interests of all, that the different parts of the Whitehall machine are paying their fair share.
The launch of Big Society Capital today may well be seen as the start of a creative new way of funding projects that genuinely deliver social good.
But many questions remain unanswered.
One thing is for sure: if Big Society Capital does fulfil its promise, it will do no harm to the reputation of politicians and of bankers.
1.59pm: Boris Johnson is calling for a Barnett-style formula for London. He has made the proposal in his economy manifesto, which he has published today.

London has continued to make a net contribution to the UK even during the economic downturn. It is time to review the funding arrangements for London to ensure that London gets a fair share, recognising its significant contribution to the UK's economy and tax base.
So I will establish an independent London Funding Commission to examine the existing system, and to put forward revised funding arrangements for the capital.
I want to make sure that London's funding sources are put on a secure long term footing, giving the mayor and the people of London increased certainty. It will examine whether it is time we should keep more of the taxes Londoners pay in London. This will effectively propose a Barnett-style formula for London.
1.30pm: Here's a lunchtime summary.
• David Cameron has sought to mollify civil libertarians - and Liberal Democrats, in particular - by telling them that the government will listen to their concerns about two controversial measures. "There's still time to deal with everybody's concerns," he said when asked about the fact that Lib Dem members of the coalition have expressed particular worries about the government's plans to extend internet surveillance and to allow intelligence evidence to be heard in court in secret. But Cameron did not indicate any willingness to back down on the substance of either measures. As prime minister, he had to keep the country safe, he said.

It is the job of the prime minister to make sure that we do everything that is necessary to keep our country safe, particularly to keep our country safe from serious and organised crime and also from terrorist threats that we have faced in this country, that we still face in this country.
As I see it, there are some significant gaps in our defences, gaps because of the moving on of technology - people making telephone calls through the internet, rather than through fixed line - but also gaps in our defences because it isn't currently possible to use intelligence information in a court of law without sometimes endangering national security. I want us - and the Government wants us - to plug those gaps but let's be clear, we will do it in a way that properly respects civil liberties.
Earlier Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, defended his plans to allow secret court hearings. He said the rules needed to be changed because, under the current system, the Americans were withholding intelligence from the British. (See 9.35am.)
• Cameron has said that the creation of Big Society Capital, the big society bank, will supply charities with capital "to help society expand". But Jon Trickett, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said that while the launch of Big Society Capital was welcome, the initiative was "too little, too late". He explained: "The voluntary and community sector stands to lose an estimated £1.2bn per year for the rest of this parliament. The prime minister's announcement will not reverse the damage his government has already inflicted on one of the most valuable sectors in our society."
• Cameron has hinted that the government will amend its plans to impose a cap on the tax relief available for charity donations. In the budget George Osborne announced plans that will cut tax relief for anyone giving more than £200,000 to a charity. Cameron said he wanted to ensure this did not have a harmful impact on charities.
On tax relief for donations, we want to see philanthropy grow in all levels of society. To have a cap on tax reliefs is a good thing. We will work on this issue over the coming months to make sure we don't disadvantage those organisations that rely on large donations.
• Ed Miliband has said that voters are yearning for old-fashioned values like solidarity. He made the comment in a speech in Southampton.
Seeing the port here reminds me of my Dad's service in the Royal Navy. He used to talk to me about what that service was like. About how welcoming people were to him, a refugee, who had arrived in Britain barely three years earlier. He talked above all about the camaraderie, the sense of solidarity. Think about that word: solidarity. It sounds old fashioned but I think it speaks to our time, to what people are yearning for. Not 'us versus them' but a sense that we must all look out for each other.
• Clegg has criticised the Tories for adopting a "blunderbuss" approach to legislation. "Over the last couple of years there are some things we have proceeded with in sort a blunderbuss fashion, legislatively," he told the Guardian in an interview. "But there are other areas which I am directly responsive for – on individual voter registration – where we have been very careful to publish stuff, scrutinise, react and amend."
• David Perry, the barrister dealing with the original News of the World phone hacking prosecution, has told the Leveson inquiry that the police told him there was no evidence suggesting that journalists other than Clive Goodman, the royal correspondent, were involved.
My recollection of this is that I asked whether there was any evidence implicating any other individual employed by News International in the criminality that we were looking at in this particular case. I was concerned to discover whether this went further than just the particular individuals with which we were concerned, and I think I was conscious in my own mind that the question had to be whether it was journalists to the extent of the editor. We were informed there was no such evidence. I cannot recall which officer gave that reply.
• A teaching union leader has said that too many children are being treated like spoilt "little Buddhas". Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, made the comment at the ATL's conference.
Far too many children are waited on hand and foot. They don't make their beds or do the Hoovering ... It doesn't do them any favours if you make them little Buddhas. It certainly doesn't help them in school because they end up not understanding their responsibilities to other children.


• Unite and seven haulage firms have started talks intended to resolve the dispute that has led to tanker drivers' threatening strike action.

• The UK government has said that its consultation on the Scottish independence referendum showed "overwhelming support" for having just one question on the ballot paper.
• The Office of Fair Trading has called for a Competition Commission investigation into the private healthcare market. "The OFT continues to hold the view that the private healthcare market could work better for patients, and that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are features of the market that prevent, restrict or distort competition," it said.

• Cameron will make his first significant speech as prime minister on the environment next month, the Guardian has learnt.
• Cameron has issued a statement to mark Passover.
I want to send my very best wishes to Jewish communities in Britain and across the world as the festival of Passover begins.
Passover marks the Children of Israel's release from slavery and the liberation of a people from tyranny. The horrific attack last month at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish School in Toulouse has shown that sadly the search for freedom from fear is not yet over. I join with you in hoping that the coming year will bring about security and a lasting peace for Israel and the wider region. This government remains firmly committed to supporting you in that goal.
I wish you and your family a very happy and peaceful Pesach.
12.19pm: In the Foreign Office consular work, helping Britons who are in trouble abroad, has always been rather unfashionable. The high-flyers concentrate on policy work, and diplomacy. Helping tourists who have lost their passports has generally been seen as rather a drudge.
But today William Hague (pictured), the foreign secretary, has sought to change that by giving a speech saying how important consular work is. In it, he says he is the first foreign secretary to give a speech on the subject.
In the front of each and every British passport is a message which reads: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and Requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary".
That is an expression of the responsibility we have to stand up for the rights of British nationals wherever they are in the world. When people travel our moral obligation to them does not stop at the Cliffs of Dover. At home, the first duty of the Government is the safety and security of British nationals. Abroad, it is the first duty of the Foreign Office, and consular work is one aspect of how we keep Britons safe.
Hague says Britain's consular services are some of the best in the world and that he wants to improve them by various means, including by the opening of a new crisis centre this summer.
In the speech Hague explains what consular services the Foreign Office does provide. But he also lists some of the things it won't do for Britons travelling abroad.
It is not our job, for example, to book you restaurants while you are on holiday. This is obvious, you may think. But nonetheless it came as a surprise to the caller in Spain who was having difficulty finding somewhere to have Christmas lunch ...
Equally, I have to say that we are not the people to turn to if you can't find your false teeth, if your sat nav is broken and you need directions, if you are unhappy with your plastic surgery, if your jam won't set, if you are looking for a dog-minder while you are on holiday, if your livestock need checking on, if you would like advice about the weather, or if you want someone to throw a coin into the Trevi fountain for you because you forgot while you were on holiday and you want your marriage to succeed. And our commitment to good relations with our neighbours does not, I am afraid, extend to translating 'I love you' into Hungarian, as we were asked to do by one love-struck British tourist. There are easier ways to find a translation.
12.04pm: My colleague Nicholas Watt has interviewed Nick Clegg and he has just posted it on our website. You can read it in full here. Here are some of the best lines.
• Clegg said the Lib Dems would be more "forceful and remorseless" in explaining their achievements in government.
• He said he would be encouraging civil libertarians to challenge the government's plans to extend internet surveillance once they are published.
• He accused the Tories of adopting a "blunderbuss" approach to legislation.
Over the last couple of years there are some things we have proceeded with in sort a blunderbuss fashion, legislatively. But there are other areas which I am directly responsive for – on individual voter registration – where we have been very careful to publish stuff, scrutinise, react and amend.
11.26am: We've had several messianic speeches from David Cameron over the last few years about the big society and this was a perfectly respectable addition to the collection. The full text is not on the Number 10 website yet, but there is a news release there.
However, the media will probably be more interested in what Cameron had to say about the coalition divisions on civil liberties. Cameron was asked specifically if he agreed with the concerns raised by Nick Clegg in his letter to colleagues (see 9.35am) about the government's plan to allow secret court hearings. He did not talk about the specifics of this proposal, or the plan to extend police surveillance of the internet. Instead we got a blast of mood music.
At face value, this was conciliatory. "There's still time to deal with everybody's concerns," he said. But he said nothing to suggest that the government is backing down in any substantive way on either measures.
Here's his answer in full to the question about whether he "agreed with Nick" on this one.

On the issue of how we have a court system that can both protect people's liberties and protect our national security, and on the issue of how we handle data both to protect people's security but again to make sure we can pursue terrorists and stop terrorist acts taking place, these are difficult issues. They are sensitive issues. They require government to have deep, long conversations and work through some very tough issues.
That is why we published, on the court processes, a green paper, a huge engagement with the legal profession, a huge engagement with people who care about civil liberties. We are not at the end of that process yet. There will be a Queen's Speech later on this year. In that Queen's Speech, these are issues that we need to deal with. But there's still time to deal with everybody's concerns.
But we need to stand back and look at the big picture. The big picture is this. Government, prime ministers, have a responsibility for national security. We should take every step that is necessary to keep our country safe. We should not put our civil liberties at risk by doing so. But where there are gaps that need to be plugged, we need to plug those gaps. We should do that with consultation, with understanding, with respect to our long traditions for liberty in this country. But, nevertheless, those gaps have to be dealt with. That's my responsibility. And it's one that I intend to fulfill.
11.15am: More questions.
Q: What can the voluntary sector do to make Big Society Capital really work?
Cameron says charities should promote the new model. The voluntary sector has, in the past, been under-capitalised. They will "love this when they see it". But there needs to be a culture change, he says.
He turns to the health reforms. The government wants to open up its services. If you want social enterprises to play a larger role in the NHS, you have to change the structure of the NHS. Commentators sometime do not understand how the big society and health reforms are connected. But they are.
Q: Do you agree with Clegg about his concerns about the government's plans for secret courts?
Cameron says these are difficult issues. Ministers will have to have long conversations. There is still time to deal with everyone's concerns, he says.
The important thing is to stand back and look at the big issues. National security should be protected, but civil liberties should be protected too.
Q: Will you amend your plans for a cap on charity donations?
Cameron says the government will work with the voluntary sector on how this cap is implemented.

Q: Do you agree with Ed Davey that it would be a mistake to rule out joining the euro? (See 10.37am.)
Cameron says the government's positon is clear. It is not joining the euro. Personally, he thinks Britain should never join the euro.
11.09am: Cameron is taking questions.
Q: What is your benchmark for success? How much should Big Society Capital lend?
Cameron says he has got the idea up and running within two years, which is reasonably fast. It is imporant to follow the results. How many social enterprises investment? How do they grow? How many jobs are created?
They should not be too risk-averse, he says. Some social enterprises will succeed. But some investments won't work. That is a good thing, because it shows that some risks are being taken.
Q: Are you watering your plans for secret courts? Is Nick Clegg punching above his weight?
Cameron says it is his job as prime minister to keep the country safe, particularly from serious and organised crime.
There are some "significant gaps in our defences", he says. Some gaps are caused by technology. And some are caused by the fact that intelligence evidence cannot be heard in court. He wants to plug those gaps. He thinks you can achieve security with respect for liberty. But that involves taking difficult decisions. Those steps have to be taken "in a responsible, calm and reasonable manner".
11.09am: Cameron is winding up now.
For too long politicians have talked about the choice between economic growth and social growth. But both are important, he says.
11.05am: Cameron says critics also argue that businesses do not want to get involved in social enterprise.
But that is not true, he says. Businesses are investing in a better future. Social impact jobs will make this easier for them.
Cameron says he wants to mesh the "risk-taking verve of business" with the entrepreneurial talent of social enterprise.
Social impact jobs will allow firms to make a good return from social initiatives that save money in the long run. He cites the Peterborough Prison Bonds as an example.
11.03am: Cameron says 40% of charity income came from the state in 2010. That is not sustainable, he says.
That's he wants other providers to fund charities. Government funding may be going down. But other funding for charities is going up, he says.
Cameron also says he wants to see more philanthropic giving.
He defends the plan to cap tax relief on charity donations. This happens in the US, he says. But the government will consult on how this is implemented.
10.58am: Cameron says change is difficult.
Big Society Capital will provide specific answers to the questions people raise about his big society vision.
First, people wonder whether the voluntary sector really has the capacity to take over services. People suggest that it should just fill in the gaps, and that the state-controlled monoliths should continue to run services like health and education.
But that's not true, he says. He cites Greenwich Leisiure, Macmillan Cancer Support and the Big Issue as three examples of social enterprises that deliver services on a large scale.
Big Society Capital will help many more social enterprises deliver services on this scale.
Second, people says that the charitable sector is a patchwork. It cannot provide services on a national basis.
But Big Society Capital will allow charities to prove that their business models work, and that they are fit for expansion, he says.
10.56am: Cameron says people are often sceptical about whether politicians will deliver what they promise.
He has been reading party manifestos for longer than is healthy, he says. Politicians have often talked about promoting the voluntary sector. But today this government is going to make it happen.
Big Society Capital will get the City involved in social problems, he says.
The best ideas "come from the ground up". When you give society and charities power, "good things happen", he says.
10.55am: David Cameron is speaking now.
10.41am: David Cameron is about to deliver his big society speech. He is launching Big Society Capital, the big society bank.
The Cabinet Office says this will "make it easier for charities, social enterprises and community groups to access affordable finance" and that this will in turn "help them innovate, expand their services and develop better solutions to social problems". Here's an extract from the press release they have sent out.
The unveiling of Big Society Capital is an important milestone in the Government's drive to grow the economy and build a bigger, stronger society. This is about applying business principles to tackle social problems on a sustainable basis – the institution's innovative funding structure carries no cost to the taxpayer and represents a new partnership between banks, government and the social sector.
Big Society Capital will be capitalised with a total of £600 million. An estimated £400 million of this will come from unclaimed cash left dormant in bank accounts for over 15 years and £200 million will come from the UK's four largest high street banks Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and RBS.
Big Society Capital will grow the social investment market which blends financial return with positive social impact. It will do this through the development of socially orientated investment organisations that support charities and social enterprises that have the ability to repay an investment through the income they generate. This will help those charities and social enterprises to grow and use their expertise to do more good in communities, whether it is supporting troubled families, providing job and training opportunities for young people or working with the homeless.
Cameron will be starting his speech very soon.
10.37am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.
As for the rest of the papers, here are some stories and articles that are particularly interesting.
• Andrew Grice in the Independent says Nick Clegg's plan to secure an agreement on the reform of party funding involves reallocating the state funding that already goes to parties.
Political parties would be compensated with public money if they accept a cap on individual donations under a plan to be discussed in cross-party talks.
Nick Clegg wants to reallocate some of the estimated £75m of taxpayers' money already handed to parties over a five-year parliament in order to take "big money" donations out of politics and end the perception they buy influence. The subsidy for "free" party political broadcasts could also be axed, which could see them scaled back or even ended ...
Mr Clegg argues that there is no need for another inquiry into funding because there is already an outline deal on the table – last November's report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly. It proposed a £10,000-a-year cap on donations – much lower than the £50,000 annual ceiling favoured by the Conservatives – and that union members would have to "opt in" to paying affiliation fees to Labour rather than "opt out" as at present.
The Liberal Democrat leader believes a ceiling on donations could be coupled with a cut in the £19m spending limit for each party in the 12 months before a general election.
Mr Clegg will reject one proposal in the Kelly report – giving parties £23m a year of extra state funding to compensate them for income lost through the cap. He wants the parties to rule out taking any more taxpayers' money before the 2015 election, believing this would fail to win public support in an "age of austerity". But he believes most voters are unaware that the parties already receive millions in state funding and would be open to it being reallocated in order to "clean up" politics.
• Tim Ross in the Daily Telegraph says Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, has said it would be "reckless" to rule out to joining the euro.
The Coalition will be remembered as more pro-European than Tony Blair's government, a Liberal Democrat Cabinet minister has declared.
In a direct challenge to Tory eurosceptics, Ed Davey said it would be "reckless" and "unwise" to rule out joining the euro.
The Energy and Climate Change Secretary dismissed David Cameron's veto of a new European Union treaty as nothing more than a "blip" in Britain's relationship with Brussels.
• Daniel Finkelstein in the Times (paywall) says the Conservatives' problems are not fundamentally to do with communication.
What, then, are the underlying problems? Two might be considered fundamental. The first is that the Conservatives are considered the party of the well-off. This has nothing to do with David Cameron's social class or education. The six leaders of the Conservative Party who preceded Mr Cameron, going back more than 45 years all went to state schools. Yet each faced this same political problem.
The class distinction between Harriet Harman (St Paul's School for Girls) and George Osborne (St Paul's School for Boys) is lost on most voters. But they do worry about whether the Tories are really for them, especially if they live in the North.
Which is what makes the second problem so serious. As there is no money and no growth, the Tories are being forced to do what the modernisers least wanted to do — to choose between measures that might make Britain competitive and ones that seem economically fair. Hence the 50p tax rate decision.
• The Daily Mail in an editorial praises Nick Clegg for his opposition to Kenneth Clarke's plans for secret courts.

In a hugely welcome intervention, Nick Clegg has warned his party will not support the plans as they stand, insisting the new powers must not apply to inquests and that judges, not ministers, should have the last word.
Perhaps the liberal in the Lib Dem leader is not quite dead after all. With his reawakened love of liberty, may we now hope he will block state snooping on the internet – and fight for Gary McKinnon?
The Daily Mail has been campaigning against the secret courts plan and, by a happy coincidence, the news about Clegg's letter to colleagues expressing reservations about the plans appears on the front page of the paper in a story billed as an exclusive. (See 9.35am.)
9.35am: Nick Clegg's decision to intervene in the government's secret courts plan is dominating the headlines today. The Daily Mail splashes on the story, which it describes as its exclusive. It says the proposal is "close to ruin".9.35am: Nick Clegg's decision to intervene in the government's secret courts plan is dominating the headlines today. The Daily Mail splashes on the story, which it describes as its exclusive. It says the proposal is "close to ruin".

Plans for a huge extension of 'secret justice' are close to ruin after Nick Clegg warned the Prime Minister he cannot support them as they stand.
Plans for a huge extension of 'secret justice' are close to ruin after Nick Clegg warned the Prime Minister he cannot support them as they stand.
The Guardian and the Times are also saying that Kenneth Clarke, justice secretary, is going to back down over his plans, which are set out in his justice and security green paper last year.The Guardian and the Times are also saying that Kenneth Clarke, justice secretary, is going to back down over his plans, which are set out in his justice and security green paper last year.
You can read the Ministry of Justice news release about the plans here. Here's a full summary of the proposals, and here's the green paper (pdf).You can read the Ministry of Justice news release about the plans here. Here's a full summary of the proposals, and here's the green paper (pdf).
Clarke has now given at least three interviews about the controversy, on the Today programme, on Sky and on BBC News. He's probably Westminster's leading expert at deploying the "it's all a fuss about nothing" defence and today he put on a masterclass as he tried to downplay the significance of the row. Here are the key points from his interviews. I've taken some of the quotes from PoliticsHome.Clarke has now given at least three interviews about the controversy, on the Today programme, on Sky and on BBC News. He's probably Westminster's leading expert at deploying the "it's all a fuss about nothing" defence and today he put on a masterclass as he tried to downplay the significance of the row. Here are the key points from his interviews. I've taken some of the quotes from PoliticsHome.
• Clarke insisted that his plans were intended to increase the amount of evidence given in court because at the moment intelligence evidence is just not heard at all.• Clarke insisted that his plans were intended to increase the amount of evidence given in court because at the moment intelligence evidence is just not heard at all.
At the moment this evidence is never given. The problem, which I don't think the [joint committee on human rights] addresses, is you can't have your British intelligence officers giving evidence in open court, saying my source is X, this is the technology we use, we know this.At the moment this evidence is never given. The problem, which I don't think the [joint committee on human rights] addresses, is you can't have your British intelligence officers giving evidence in open court, saying my source is X, this is the technology we use, we know this.
This meant there was "total silence", he said. His proposals would lead to an improvement because they would lead to intelligence evidence actually being heard by the judge, even if it was being heard in secret. Clarke said this would make the security services "more accountable to the courts". It would also give them the ability defend themselves. As a result judges and coroners would be "better informed" when they made their judgments. "I think that's an improvement myself," he said.This meant there was "total silence", he said. His proposals would lead to an improvement because they would lead to intelligence evidence actually being heard by the judge, even if it was being heard in secret. Clarke said this would make the security services "more accountable to the courts". It would also give them the ability defend themselves. As a result judges and coroners would be "better informed" when they made their judgments. "I think that's an improvement myself," he said.
• He claimed that the Americans were withholding intelligence from the British because they were worried about their intelligence being disclosed in open court under Britain's current rules.• He claimed that the Americans were withholding intelligence from the British because they were worried about their intelligence being disclosed in open court under Britain's current rules.
The Americans have got nervous that we are going to start revealing some of the [intelligence] information [given to the British] and they have started cutting back, I'm assured, on what they disclose ... I'm not told exactly, but I'm told that in fact the Americans have been extremely cautious since the Binyam Mohamed case and it's getting in the way of cooperation.The Americans have got nervous that we are going to start revealing some of the [intelligence] information [given to the British] and they have started cutting back, I'm assured, on what they disclose ... I'm not told exactly, but I'm told that in fact the Americans have been extremely cautious since the Binyam Mohamed case and it's getting in the way of cooperation.


• He played down suggestions that he was going to water down his plans. Critics were saying this because they were misrepresenting what he was proposing in the first place, he said.

• He played down suggestions that he was going to water down his plans. Critics were saying this because they were misrepresenting what he was proposing in the first place, he said.
I have been consulting for months. There was no fuss when we started ... The House of Commons seemed to quite welcome [the green paper] ...I have been consulting for months. There was no fuss when we started ... The House of Commons seemed to quite welcome [the green paper] ...
It is true that the joint committee said my proposals were rather vague. That is because we were consulting. If you put, as people did after the first three months, suddenly put the hardest possible interpretation on the green paper, then suddenly I'm introducing a Stasi-type regime here. But that is putting a particular interpretation. It's not where I come from. It's not where we are going to be. I think the government will be able to reassure its critics.It is true that the joint committee said my proposals were rather vague. That is because we were consulting. If you put, as people did after the first three months, suddenly put the hardest possible interpretation on the green paper, then suddenly I'm introducing a Stasi-type regime here. But that is putting a particular interpretation. It's not where I come from. It's not where we are going to be. I think the government will be able to reassure its critics.
• He said that he held "identical" views to Nick Clegg on civil liberties.• He said that he held "identical" views to Nick Clegg on civil liberties.
I usually agree with Nick Clegg and most of the liberals on these things. I thought the last government was far too authoritarian ...I usually agree with Nick Clegg and most of the liberals on these things. I thought the last government was far too authoritarian ...
I would be very, very surprised if I cannot reach agreement with Nick Clegg because Nick Clegg and I hold really identical views in principle on human rights, civil liberties, the rule of law and so on.I would be very, very surprised if I cannot reach agreement with Nick Clegg because Nick Clegg and I hold really identical views in principle on human rights, civil liberties, the rule of law and so on.
Later he said he and Clegg were just as libertarian as David Davis.Later he said he and Clegg were just as libertarian as David Davis.
• He seemed to criticise Clegg for leaking his objections to the green paper to the papers. It has been reported that Clegg has set out his objections in a letter to colleagues. Clarke said he would have got letter through normal process, "but I seem to have got it via the Times today".• He seemed to criticise Clegg for leaking his objections to the green paper to the papers. It has been reported that Clegg has set out his objections in a letter to colleagues. Clarke said he would have got letter through normal process, "but I seem to have got it via the Times today".
• He accepted that politicians should not be able to take the final decision about ruling that certain evidence must be given in secret.• He accepted that politicians should not be able to take the final decision about ruling that certain evidence must be given in secret.

You can't have just a secretary of state saying 'I declare' this has got to be closed proceedings as I'd be frightfully embarrassed if it went out. If that's what people fear, fine. In the green paper, what we put forward is that the judge should be able to check that decision with a process similar to that of judicial review. We've been consulting on that ... A judge has got to confirm that judgment, and we've got to agree the test the judge applies.
You can't have just a secretary of state saying 'I declare' this has got to be closed proceedings as I'd be frightfully embarrassed if it went out. If that's what people fear, fine. In the green paper, what we put forward is that the judge should be able to check that decision with a process similar to that of judicial review. We've been consulting on that ... A judge has got to confirm that judgment, and we've got to agree the test the judge applies.


• He signalled that he was going to reject Clegg's call for inquests to be exempt from the new secret hearing provisions (or "closed material procedures", as they are called in the jargon).

• He signalled that he was going to reject Clegg's call for inquests to be exempt from the new secret hearing provisions (or "closed material procedures", as they are called in the jargon).
I'm not quite sure national security is less important in inquests than in other things, but that's my view. The government's got to decide this - Nick will be part of the collective decision.I'm not quite sure national security is less important in inquests than in other things, but that's my view. The government's got to decide this - Nick will be part of the collective decision.
Clarke also said that he did not not see why a coroner could not hear evidence in a closed proceeding that another judge could hear in a closed procedings.Clarke also said that he did not not see why a coroner could not hear evidence in a closed proceeding that another judge could hear in a closed procedings.
• He said he was fully committed to open justice. Asked if whether he thought national security was more important than open justice, he said both were equally important.• He said he was fully committed to open justice. Asked if whether he thought national security was more important than open justice, he said both were equally important.

Benjamin Franklin once said that anybody who gives up an ounce of basic liberty for the purpose of more safety does not deserve either liberty or safety. I agree with that.
Benjamin Franklin once said that anybody who gives up an ounce of basic liberty for the purpose of more safety does not deserve either liberty or safety. I agree with that.
• He confirmed that he was opposed to secret evidence being used in criminal proceedings.• He confirmed that he was opposed to secret evidence being used in criminal proceedings.
This isn't criminal proceedings. You should not prosecute anyone on secret evidence. I quite agree.This isn't criminal proceedings. You should not prosecute anyone on secret evidence. I quite agree.
9.00am: We have not heard much about the big society recently, but David Cameron is going to put that right today with a speech in London. He's launching Big Society Capital, the government's new big society bank, the one that is going to fund social enterprise initiatives using money from dormant bank accounts. As Nicholas Watt reports, it's going to have £600m available. Cameron will say the money will help society expand. 10.37am: You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's paper, are here.
For years, the City has been associated with providing capital to help businesses to expand. Today, this is about supplying capital to help society expand. Just as finance from the City has been essential to help businesses grow and take on the world, so finance from the City is going to be essential to helping tackle our deepest social problems. As for the rest of the papers, here are some stories and articles that are particularly interesting.
Big Society Capital is going to encourage charities and social enterprises to prove their business models - and then replicate them. Once they've proved that success in one area they'll be able - just as a business can - to seek investment for expansion into the wider region and into the country. • Andrew Grice in the Independent says Nick Clegg's plan to secure an agreement on the reform of party funding involves reallocating the state funding that already goes to parties.
This is a self-sustaining, independent market that's going to help build the Big Society. Political parties would be compensated with public money if they accept a cap on individual donations under a plan to be discussed in cross-party talks.
The speech is at 10.40am. I'll be covering it in detail. Nick Clegg wants to reallocate some of the estimated £75m of taxpayers' money already handed to parties over a five-year parliament in order to take "big money" donations out of politics and end the perception they buy influence. The subsidy for "free" party political broadcasts could also be axed, which could see them scaled back or even ended ...
With luck Cameron will take questions, because it would be good to hear what he has to say about the other big issue of the day - the government's plan to allow intelligence evidence to be heard in secret in courts. As the Guardian reports, Nick Clegg has told his colleagues that he cannot accept the plans in their present form and the proposals have also been strongly criticised by parliament's joint committee on human rights. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, was defending his plans on the Today programme earlier. He claimed that the Americans were now restricting the intelligence they share with the British because they are worried about it being disclosed in court. And he claimed that he felt much the same way as Clegg did on this issue. Mr Clegg argues that there is no need for another inquiry into funding because there is already an outline deal on the table – last November's report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly. It proposed a £10,000-a-year cap on donations – much lower than the £50,000 annual ceiling favoured by the Conservatives – and that union members would have to "opt in" to paying affiliation fees to Labour rather than "opt out" as at present.

/>I usually agree with Nick Clegg and most of the liberals on these things. I thought the last government was far too authoritarian. 		The Liberal Democrat leader believes a ceiling on donations could be coupled with a cut in the £19m spending limit for each party in the 12 months before a general election.
I'll post more from the interview shortly. Mr Clegg will reject one proposal in the Kelly report – giving parties £23m a year of extra state funding to compensate them for income lost through the cap. He wants the parties to rule out taking any more taxpayers' money before the 2015 election, believing this would fail to win public support in an "age of austerity". But he believes most voters are unaware that the parties already receive millions in state funding and would be open to it being reallocated in order to "clean up" politics.
Otherwise, it's quiet. But, 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. • Tim Ross in the Daily Telegraph says Ed Davey, the Lib Dem energy secretary, has said it would be "reckless" to rule out to joining the euro.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow. The Coalition will be remembered as more pro-European than Tony Blair's government, a Liberal Democrat Cabinet minister has declared.
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. In a direct challenge to Tory eurosceptics, Ed Davey said it would be "reckless" and "unwise" to rule out joining the euro.
The Energy and Climate Change Secretary dismissed David Cameron's veto of a new European Union treaty as nothing more than a "blip" in Britain's relationship with Brussels.
• Daniel Finkelstein in the Times (paywall) says the Conservatives' problems are not fundamentally to do with communication.
What, then, are the underlying problems? Two might be considered fundamental. The first is that the Conservatives are considered the party of the well-off. This has nothing to do with David Cameron's social class or education. The six leaders of the Conservative Party who preceded Mr Cameron, going back more than 45 years all went to state schools. Yet each faced this same political problem.
The class distinction between Harriet Harman (St Paul's School for Girls) and George Osborne (St Paul's School for Boys) is lost on most voters. But they do worry about whether the Tories are really for them, especially if they live in the North.
Which is what makes the second problem so serious. As there is no money and no growth, the Tories are being forced to do what the modernisers least wanted to do — to choose between measures that might make Britain competitive and ones that seem economically fair. Hence the 50p tax rate decision.
• The Daily Mail in an editorial praises Nick Clegg for his opposition to Kenneth Clarke's plans for secret courts.

In a hugely welcome intervention, Nick Clegg has warned his party will not support the plans as they stand, insisting the new powers must not apply to inquests and that judges, not ministers, should have the last word.
Perhaps the liberal in the Lib Dem leader is not quite dead after all. With his reawakened love of liberty, may we now hope he will block state snooping on the internet – and fight for Gary McKinnon?
The Daily Mail has been campaigning against the secret courts plan and, by a happy coincidence, the news about Clegg's letter to colleagues expressing reservations about the plans appears on the front page of the paper in a story billed as an exclusive. (See 9.35am.)
10.41am: David Cameron is about to deliver his big society speech. He is launching Big Society Capital, the big society bank.
The Cabinet Office says this will "make it easier for charities, social enterprises and community groups to access affordable finance" and that this will in turn "help them innovate, expand their services and develop better solutions to social problems". Here's an extract from the press release they have sent out.
The unveiling of Big Society Capital is an important milestone in the Government's drive to grow the economy and build a bigger, stronger society. This is about applying business principles to tackle social problems on a sustainable basis – the institution's innovative funding structure carries no cost to the taxpayer and represents a new partnership between banks, government and the social sector.
Big Society Capital will be capitalised with a total of £600 million. An estimated £400 million of this will come from unclaimed cash left dormant in bank accounts for over 15 years and £200 million will come from the UK's four largest high street banks Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and RBS.
Big Society Capital will grow the social investment market which blends financial return with positive social impact. It will do this through the development of socially orientated investment organisations that support charities and social enterprises that have the ability to repay an investment through the income they generate. This will help those charities and social enterprises to grow and use their expertise to do more good in communities, whether it is supporting troubled families, providing job and training opportunities for young people or working with the homeless.
Cameron will be starting his speech very soon.
10.55am: David Cameron is speaking now.
10.56am: Cameron says people are often sceptical about whether politicians will deliver what they promise.
He has been reading party manifestos for longer than is healthy, he says. Politicians have often talked about promoting the voluntary sector. But today this government is going to make it happen.
Big Society Capital will get the City involved in social problems, he says.
The best ideas "come from the ground up". When you give society and charities power, "good things happen", he says.
10.58am: Cameron says change is difficult.
Big Society Capital will provide specific answers to the questions people raise about his big society vision.
First, people wonder whether the voluntary sector really has the capacity to take over services. People suggest that it should just fill in the gaps, and that the state-controlled monoliths should continue to run services like health and education.
But that's not true, he says. He cites Greenwich Leisiure, Macmillan Cancer Support and the Big Issue as three examples of social enterprises that deliver services on a large scale.
Big Society Capital will help many more social enterprises deliver services on this scale.
Second, people says that the charitable sector is a patchwork. It cannot provide services on a national basis.
But Big Society Capital will allow charities to prove that their business models work, and that they are fit for expansion, he says.
11.03am: Cameron says 40% of charity income came from the state in 2010. That is not sustainable, he says.
That's he wants other providers to fund charities. Government funding may be going down. But other funding for charities is going up, he says.
Cameron also says he wants to see more philanthropic giving.
He defends the plan to cap tax relief on charity donations. This happens in the US, he says. But the government will consult on how this is implemented.
11.05am: Cameron says critics also argue that businesses do not want to get involved in social enterprise.
But that is not true, he says. Businesses are investing in a better future. Social impact jobs will make this easier for them.
Cameron says he wants to mesh the "risk-taking verve of business" with the entrepreneurial talent of social enterprise.
Social impact jobs will allow firms to make a good return from social initiatives that save money in the long run. He cites the Peterborough Prison Bonds as an example.
11.09am: Cameron is winding up now.
For too long politicians have talked about the choice between economic growth and social growth. But both are important, he says.
11.09am: Cameron is taking questions.
Q: What is your benchmark for success? How much should Big Society Capital lend?
Cameron says he has got the idea up and running within two years, which is reasonably fast. It is imporant to follow the results. How many social enterprises investment? How do they grow? How many jobs are created?
They should not be too risk-averse, he says. Some social enterprises will succeed. But some investments won't work. That is a good thing, because it shows that some risks are being taken.
Q: Are you watering your plans for secret courts? Is Nick Clegg punching above his weight?
Cameron says it is his job as prime minister to keep the country safe, particularly from serious and organised crime.
There are some "significant gaps in our defences", he says. Some gaps are caused by technology. And some are caused by the fact that intelligence evidence cannot be heard in court. He wants to plug those gaps. He thinks you can achieve security with respect for liberty. But that involves taking difficult decisions. Those steps have to be taken "in a responsible, calm and reasonable manner".
11.15am: More questions.
Q: What can the voluntary sector do to make Big Society Capital really work?
Cameron says charities should promote the new model. The voluntary sector has, in the past, been under-capitalised. They will "love this when they see it". But there needs to be a culture change, he says.
He turns to the health reforms. The government wants to open up its services. If you want social enterprises to play a larger role in the NHS, you have to change the structure of the NHS. Commentators sometime do not understand how the big society and health reforms are connected. But they are.
Q: Do you agree with Clegg about his concerns about the government's plans for secret courts?
Cameron says these are difficult issues. Ministers will have to have long conversations. There is still time to deal with everyone's concerns, he says.
The important thing is to stand back and look at the big issues. National security should be protected, but civil liberties should be protected too.
Q: Will you amend your plans for a cap on charity donations?
Cameron says the government will work with the voluntary sector on how this cap is implemented.

Q: Do you agree with Ed Davey that it would be a mistake to rule out joining the euro? (See 10.37am.)
Cameron says the government's positon is clear. It is not joining the euro. Personally, he thinks Britain should never join the euro.
11.26am: We've had several messianic speeches from David Cameron over the last few years about the big society and this was a perfectly respectable addition to the collection. The full text is not on the Number 10 website yet, but there is a news release there.
However, the media will probably be more interested in what Cameron had to say about the coalition divisions on civil liberties. Cameron was asked specifically if he agreed with the concerns raised by Nick Clegg in his letter to colleagues (see 9.35am) about the government's plan to allow secret court hearings. He did not talk about the specifics of this proposal, or the plan to extend police surveillance of the internet. Instead we got a blast of mood music.
At face value, this was conciliatory. "There's still time to deal with everybody's concerns," he said. But he said nothing to suggest that the government is backing down in any substantive way on either measures.
Here's his answer in full to the question about whether he "agreed with Nick" on this one.

On the issue of how we have a court system that can both protect people's liberties and protect our national security, and on the issue of how we handle data both to protect people's security but again to make sure we can pursue terrorists and stop terrorist acts taking place, these are difficult issues. They are sensitive issues. They require government to have deep, long conversations and work through some very tough issues.
That is why we published, on the court processes, a green paper, a huge engagement with the legal profession, a huge engagement with people who care about civil liberties. We are not at the end of that process yet. There will be a Queen's Speech later on this year. In that Queen's Speech, these are issues that we need to deal with. But there's still time to deal with everybody's concerns.
But we need to stand back and look at the big picture. The big picture is this. Government, prime ministers, have a responsibility for national security. We should take every step that is necessary to keep our country safe. We should not put our civil liberties at risk by doing so. But where there are gaps that need to be plugged, we need to plug those gaps. We should do that with consultation, with understanding, with respect to our long traditions for liberty in this country. But, nevertheless, those gaps have to be dealt with. That's my responsibility. And it's one that I intend to fulfill.
12.04pm: My colleague Nicholas Watt has interviewed Nick Clegg and he has just posted it on our website. You can read it in full here. Here are some of the best lines.
• Clegg said the Lib Dems would be more "forceful and remorseless" in explaining their achievements in government.
• He said he would be encouraging civil libertarians to challenge the government's plans to extend internet surveillance once they are published.
• He accused the Tories of adopting a "blunderbuss" approach to legislation.
Over the last couple of years there are some things we have proceeded with in sort a blunderbuss fashion, legislatively. But there are other areas which I am directly responsive for – on individual voter registration – where we have been very careful to publish stuff, scrutinise, react and amend.
12.19pm: In the Foreign Office consular work, helping Britons who are in trouble abroad, has always been rather unfashionable. The high-flyers concentrate on policy work, and diplomacy. Helping tourists who have lost their passports has generally been seen as rather a drudge.
But today William Hague (pictured), the foreign secretary, has sought to change that by giving a speech saying how important consular work is. In it, he says he is the first foreign secretary to give a speech on the subject.
In the front of each and every British passport is a message which reads: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and Requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary".
That is an expression of the responsibility we have to stand up for the rights of British nationals wherever they are in the world. When people travel our moral obligation to them does not stop at the Cliffs of Dover. At home, the first duty of the Government is the safety and security of British nationals. Abroad, it is the first duty of the Foreign Office, and consular work is one aspect of how we keep Britons safe.
Hague says Britain's consular services are some of the best in the world and that he wants to improve them by various means, including by the opening of a new crisis centre this summer.
In the speech Hague explains what consular services the Foreign Office does provide. But he also lists some of the things it won't do for Britons travelling abroad.
It is not our job, for example, to book you restaurants while you are on holiday. This is obvious, you may think. But nonetheless it came as a surprise to the caller in Spain who was having difficulty finding somewhere to have Christmas lunch ...
Equally, I have to say that we are not the people to turn to if you can't find your false teeth, if your sat nav is broken and you need directions, if you are unhappy with your plastic surgery, if your jam won't set, if you are looking for a dog-minder while you are on holiday, if your livestock need checking on, if you would like advice about the weather, or if you want someone to throw a coin into the Trevi fountain for you because you forgot while you were on holiday and you want your marriage to succeed. And our commitment to good relations with our neighbours does not, I am afraid, extend to translating 'I love you' into Hungarian, as we were asked to do by one love-struck British tourist. There are easier ways to find a translation.
1.30pm: Here's a lunchtime summary.
• David Cameron has sought to mollify civil libertarians - and Liberal Democrats, in particular - by telling them that the government will listen to their concerns about two controversial measures. "There's still time to deal with everybody's concerns," he said when asked about the fact that Lib Dem members of the coalition have expressed particular worries about the government's plans to extend internet surveillance and to allow intelligence evidence to be heard in court in secret. But Cameron did not indicate any willingness to back down on the substance of either measures. As prime minister, he had to keep the country safe, he said.

It is the job of the prime minister to make sure that we do everything that is necessary to keep our country safe, particularly to keep our country safe from serious and organised crime and also from terrorist threats that we have faced in this country, that we still face in this country.
As I see it, there are some significant gaps in our defences, gaps because of the moving on of technology - people making telephone calls through the internet, rather than through fixed line - but also gaps in our defences because it isn't currently possible to use intelligence information in a court of law without sometimes endangering national security. I want us - and the Government wants us - to plug those gaps but let's be clear, we will do it in a way that properly respects civil liberties.
Earlier Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, defended his plans to allow secret court hearings. He said the rules needed to be changed because, under the current system, the Americans were withholding intelligence from the British. (See 9.35am.)
• Cameron has said that the creation of Big Society Capital, the big society bank, will supply charities with capital "to help society expand". But Jon Trickett, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said that while the launch of Big Society Capital was welcome, the initiative was "too little, too late". He explained: "The voluntary and community sector stands to lose an estimated £1.2bn per year for the rest of this parliament. The prime minister's announcement will not reverse the damage his government has already inflicted on one of the most valuable sectors in our society."
• Cameron has hinted that the government will amend its plans to impose a cap on the tax relief available for charity donations. In the budget George Osborne announced plans that will cut tax relief for anyone giving more than £200,000 to a charity. Cameron said he wanted to ensure this did not have a harmful impact on charities.
On tax relief for donations, we want to see philanthropy grow in all levels of society. To have a cap on tax reliefs is a good thing. We will work on this issue over the coming months to make sure we don't disadvantage those organisations that rely on large donations.
• Ed Miliband has said that voters are yearning for old-fashioned values like solidarity. He made the comment in a speech in Southampton.
Seeing the port here reminds me of my Dad's service in the Royal Navy. He used to talk to me about what that service was like. About how welcoming people were to him, a refugee, who had arrived in Britain barely three years earlier. He talked above all about the camaraderie, the sense of solidarity. Think about that word: solidarity. It sounds old fashioned but I think it speaks to our time, to what people are yearning for. Not 'us versus them' but a sense that we must all look out for each other.
• Clegg has criticised the Tories for adopting a "blunderbuss" approach to legislation. "Over the last couple of years there are some things we have proceeded with in sort a blunderbuss fashion, legislatively," he told the Guardian in an interview. "But there are other areas which I am directly responsive for – on individual voter registration – where we have been very careful to publish stuff, scrutinise, react and amend."
• David Perry, the barrister dealing with the original News of the World phone hacking prosecution, has told the Leveson inquiry that the police told him there was no evidence suggesting that journalists other than Clive Goodman, the royal correspondent, were involved.
My recollection of this is that I asked whether there was any evidence implicating any other individual employed by News International in the criminality that we were looking at in this particular case. I was concerned to discover whether this went further than just the particular individuals with which we were concerned, and I think I was conscious in my own mind that the question had to be whether it was journalists to the extent of the editor. We were informed there was no such evidence. I cannot recall which officer gave that reply.
• A teaching union leader has said that too many children are being treated like spoilt "little Buddhas". Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, made the comment at the ATL's conference.
Far too many children are waited on hand and foot. They don't make their beds or do the Hoovering ... It doesn't do them any favours if you make them little Buddhas. It certainly doesn't help them in school because they end up not understanding their responsibilities to other children.


• Unite and seven haulage firms have started talks intended to resolve the dispute that has led to tanker drivers' threatening strike action.

• The UK government has said that its consultation on the Scottish independence referendum showed "overwhelming support" for having just one question on the ballot paper.
• The Office of Fair Trading has called for a Competition Commission investigation into the private healthcare market. "The OFT continues to hold the view that the private healthcare market could work better for patients, and that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there are features of the market that prevent, restrict or distort competition," it said.

• Cameron will make his first significant speech as prime minister on the environment next month, the Guardian has learnt.
• Cameron has issued a statement to mark Passover.
I want to send my very best wishes to Jewish communities in Britain and across the world as the festival of Passover begins.
Passover marks the Children of Israel's release from slavery and the liberation of a people from tyranny. The horrific attack last month at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish School in Toulouse has shown that sadly the search for freedom from fear is not yet over. I join with you in hoping that the coming year will bring about security and a lasting peace for Israel and the wider region. This government remains firmly committed to supporting you in that goal.
I wish you and your family a very happy and peaceful Pesach.
1.59pm: Boris Johnson is calling for a Barnett-style formula for London. He has made the proposal in his economy manifesto, which he has published today.

London has continued to make a net contribution to the UK even during the economic downturn. It is time to review the funding arrangements for London to ensure that London gets a fair share, recognising its significant contribution to the UK's economy and tax base.
So I will establish an independent London Funding Commission to examine the existing system, and to put forward revised funding arrangements for the capital.
I want to make sure that London's funding sources are put on a secure long term footing, giving the mayor and the people of London increased certainty. It will examine whether it is time we should keep more of the taxes Londoners pay in London. This will effectively propose a Barnett-style formula for London.
2.41pm: The BBC's Mark Easton has posted a blog about Big Society Capital. Here's an extract.
One consequence of this new approach to delivering services for the public good may be something our current government regards as a public bad: bureaucracy.
Someone is going to need to check that social enterprises are doing what they say they are doing, that the benefits are what was claimed, that the contracts are in the best interests of all, that the different parts of the Whitehall machine are paying their fair share.
The launch of Big Society Capital today may well be seen as the start of a creative new way of funding projects that genuinely deliver social good.
But many questions remain unanswered.
One thing is for sure: if Big Society Capital does fulfil its promise, it will do no harm to the reputation of politicians and of bankers.
2.50pm: And Gareth Thomas, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, has written a post for LabourList saying Big Society Capital won't compensate for the revenue charities are losing as a result of government spending cuts. Here's an extract.
In a secret report for the Cabinet Office leaked last month an analysis of bids to the Transition fund found that charities and community organisations are set to have lost at least £1billion and possibly as much as £5.5billion this year; as a direct result of government cuts.
Two thirds of the charities most desperate for help to keep services going were in the 25 most deprived areas while charities helping the unemployed back into work were facing an average 50% cut in their funding. Indeed community and voluntary groups in the 20 poorest areas of England lost 40 times as much funding as those in the richest 20 districts.
3.12pm: Here's an afternoon reading list.
• Labour Uncut says the agenda for the Unite conference in June suggests that Len McCluskey is starting to apply the thumbscrews to Ed Miliband.
Three resolutions call for a 10% cut in funding to the Labour party with these monies being diverted to union campaigns or the Unite National Dispute Fund. It's the clearest possible shot across the bows. Money matters, particularly to a party spending more than it raises, and if Labour is not going to advance Unite's agenda then the funding will slow – 10% to start with, more if there is continued recalcitrance.
• David Goodhart at Prospect says the Bradford West result could change British politics.
The Bradford West upset is probably most accurately described as the result of a minor civil war within the Pakistani elite in the town which then led to the younger generation revolting against its elders. And a successful by-election campaign that loudly highlights the plight of the Palestinians is not likely to tell us much about, or have much impact on, national politics.
It does, however, show how "soft" support is for all the main parties, especially in depressed places like Bradford, and also how Ed Miliband has failed to create much buzz around his leadership (it is hard to imagine this happening under a young Tony Blair in 1996). It may also help to revive the Respect party, a sort of Islamic version of the Socialist Workers Party, which after its great successes at the height of the Iraq war had dwindled to one council seat in Birmingham and two in Tower Hamlets.
But there is another big reason why this apparently sui generis result will reverberate nationally—it may mark the beginning of the end of Labour's ethnic minority bloc vote politics.
It is one of the open secrets of Labour politics that in large parts of the Midlands and the North it has acquiesced to the "wholesale" vote gathering system offered by some minority leaders. And it is easy to see why an impoverished party with few activists and an old white working class base that seldom votes finds it hard to resist this deal. After all, in return for political attention from a MP or councillor, Labour gains the hundreds or even thousands of votes that some minority community leaders can still offer.
The system has largely disappeared, if it ever existed, for successful and well-integrated minorities. But it is still very much alive for Kashmiris, who are the best organised voter group in many Labour seats in the old industrial areas and have the extra advantage of a hierarchical clan system which has been able to guarantee a sizeable bloc vote.
• Lewis Baston at Progressonline previews the local elections.
In some places Labour victory is almost inevitable. In Harlow, for instance, the Conservatives have a majority of one, a legacy from their extraordinary performance in 2008 when they won every single ward contested in the town that year. Even a historically poor Labour showing in 2012, as long as it is even slightly better than 2008, will be enough to win control. The task is harder than this in several other councils, but Labour should win control in Thurrock, Plymouth, Southampton, Exeter, Reading and perhaps Norwich, creating some satisfying red splodges on the map of southern and eastern England. The Southampton election is particularly interesting because it is currently run by a particularly rightwing pro-cuts Tory council.
Labour gained a swath of councils in the metropolitan areas of the Midlands and the north in 2010 and 2011, but a few more low-hanging fruit should fall from the tree in Birmingham, Bradford, Wirral and perhaps Walsall. It would be very disappointing if Labour did not win the newly established Salford mayoralty. The hard tests that would indicate Labour has advanced significantly since 2011 are Swindon, Dudley and Cardiff. Swindon and Dudley are straight two-party fights with the Conservatives in areas with marginal and volatile parliamentary seats where the Tory vote held up reasonably well in 2011. Cardiff is more of a contest with the Liberal Democrats, who should put up more resistance there than one can expect in the northern cities where they are likely to be massacred for a second year.
3.30pm: Here's an afternoon summary.
• Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, has told the Leveson inquiry that he encountered "a degree of pushback" from the police when he suggested a further investigation into the phone hacking affair in 2009. There are more details on our Leveson live blog.
• Vince Cable, the business secretary, has played down the prospect of regional public sector pay being used to depress salaries in poor areas. He spoke out on a visit to Wales.
There's a lot of unnecessary fears about this. There is no question whatsoever of average low pay across Wales in the public sector being imposed from central government. All that's happened so far is that the Treasury is putting in evidence between the difference between public and private-sector pay in different parts of the country. There is no commitment to do this and we are just looking at evidence. I think that scaring people in the public sector, that they will have their pay depressed, is completely wrong.


• Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, has called for a mini summit on complaints from airlines that there are not enough border staff to deal with passengers arriving in the UK. Theresa May, the home secretary, should convene the summit, he said. "A huge amount of time and effort has gone into preparing for the Olympic, and the eyes of the entire world will be on London in particular, but the rest of the United Kingdom as well, so it is absolutely essential that we get this right and [the airlines'] warnings have to be taken seriously.
• Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, has said that England's schools are increasingly divided along class lines, making it harder than ever for the poorest children to succeed.
That's it for today. Thanks for the comments.