• Through the introduction of civil partnerships, Labour has for the first time given legal recognition to same-sex partners. Gay couples now have the same inheritance, pension and next-of-kin rights as married couples.
• More than doubled Britain’s overseas aid budget.  UK aid helps lift an estimated three million people out of poverty every year.
• Cancelled up to 100% of debt for the world’s poorest countries.
• Britain now has more offshore wind capacity than any other country in the world.  Wind last year provided enough electricity to power 2 million homes.
• Launched the £1.5 billion Housing Pledge to speed up the delivery of new affordable housing and embarked on the biggest programme of council house building for twenty years.

• The UK is now smoke-free, with no smoking in most enclosed public places
• The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions are now 21% below 1990 levels, beating our Kyoto target
• Over £20 billion invested in bringing social housing to decent standards
• Rough sleeping has dropped by two-thirds and homelessness is at its lowest level since the early 1980s
• Free off-peak travel on buses anywhere in England for over-60s and disabled people

Liam Fox’s office has been in touch with journalists complaining about Gordon Brown’s visit to British troops.  In an interesting insight into the Tory mindset the troops are described as “political props”.

It is the most cynical of political games to suggest that it is wrong for the Prime Minister to visit now.  Even Liam Fox must know that there will be a General Election in the next few months – for all anyone knows it could be called this month.  Once the Election is announced it will, of course, be difficult for politicians to visit without their motives being misinterpreted.  But what the Tories seem to be arguing is that any visit at any time by the Prime Minister uses the troops as “political props”.

But just imagine the Tories’ complaints if the Prime Minister didn’t visit.

The Prime Minister is right to have gone to Afghanistan to visit British troops – something he has done regularly since he took office.

And it is Liam Fox and Cameron’s Conservatives who are playing politics.

Cynical is hardly an adequate description of their games.

Scott Charney, the Microsoft Vice President in charge of Trustworthy Computing, is speaking today at the RSA Conference in San Francisco.  He is re-stating both Microsoft’s commitment to “End-to-End Trust” but also the need for business, government and the public to work together to ensure that those using the internet are safe and secure.

The message is an important one: responsibility for internet security has to be shared.  The House of Lords Committee on Personal Internet Security, on which I sat, reported nearly three years ago and used a road transport analogy to make the point: safe road use requires responsible behaviour by drivers and pedestrians, but cars need to have safety features embodied in them, roads themselves need to be well-maintained and properly lit, there need to be laws regulating safe behaviour on the roads (speed limits etc) and those laws need to be properly enforced.

If anything the message has become even more important since our Committee reported.  More and more commercial and personal interactions take place on line.  Social networking sites are booming and an increasing proportion of commerce is conducted via the internet.

The threats to security have also become more pronounced.  The threats are no longer from isolated individuals, but from organised crime and it is also becoming abundantly apparent that some nation states are operating in the same way to infiltrate commercial and government networks for their own purposes.

And the technology itself is developing.  Cloud computing is becoming the norm and this presents its own challenges.  Certainly, this has raised the issue of security for many people (although it is not automatically a given that the security of data held in a cloud is necessarily worse than if it is held on your own servers, particularly if it turns out that they are inadequately protected).

So how do we move forward?

Partnership is certainly essential.  Governments have to work together in setting an international framework for collaboration and for law enforcement.  And at a national level they must also work with IT service providers and with business in general.

But above all, the individual user must be at the heart of all this.  Sensible security arrangements that make sense to the individual have to be devised.  It needs to be acknowledged that most individual users of the internet, whether they are trying to do their weekly shopping or organise their social lives, are rushed and busy.  Moreover, they are not technological experts.  They have inadequate levels of knowledge, so an error message or system alert that makes sense to an IT professional will probably be gibberish to most of us.

And critical to all of this is the need for robust identity management.

Surely, it is not too much to ask that people can feel confident that their personal details are secure, that they can communicate with others secure in the knowledge that the person or organisation with which they are communicating is who it says it is, and that when they are asked to identify themselves they need reveal no more about themselves than is necessary for the transaction concerned.

If today’s discussions at the RSA Conference take us further towards those objectives, we will be making real progress and we can all feel more hopeful that a trusted and secure internet environment is being built.

My local MP, Lynne Featherstone, who is the LibDems spokesperson for Youth (she describes her age as 58) and Equality, has been put on the spot by the distinguished obstetrician and gynaecologist, Nick Morris.  He has asked her to intervene in the row over Jenny Tonge and to call on Nick Clegg to withdraw the Liberal Democrat Whip from the noble baroness.

New readers start here: Baroness Jenny Tonge, who was Liberal Democrat spokesperson on health in the House of Lords made a public call for the Government of Israel to investigate allegations that Israeli Defence Force medical teams providing humanitarian assistance in Haiti had “harvested” organs from the injured.  This bizarre repetition of the historic blood libel against the Jews provoked widespread condemnation.

Initially, Liberal Democrat Leader, Nick Clegg, stood by her.  But then, as the row went on, showing the consistency and principle for which he is well-known, he sacked her as a Lords’ spokesperson.  However, he did not remove the Liberal Democrat Whip from her, despite her having been sacked before as a LibDem front-bencher for expressing her empathy with Palestinian suicide bombers.

So what stance will the Party’s spokesperson on Equality (who also is an MP with a sizeable Jewish population in her marginal constituency) take on the issue?

Nick Morris starts his letter by pointing out:

“I have voted Lib Dem all my life.” (I suppose somebody has to.)

And goes on:

“My late father Professor Norman Morris was one of the original signatories of the SDP in 1981, but after Baroness Tonge’s most recent outburst I will not be able to vote for your party while Jenny Tonge holds the whip.

The reasons for this are both personal and professional.  My brother David, who is a physician in Montreal was seconded to the IDF hospital in Haiti, along with Canadian Nationals and Columbian Health care workers.  He wrote to me about the great pride he felt in working alongside the Israelis.

He too is a Liberal but lives in Canada – a country where outrageous comments such as those made by the Baroness would be taken much more seriously.  She has slurred not only Israel but also all the health care professionals who went for humanitarian reasons from Canada and Columbia.”

His brother’s account is here.

Nick Morris calls for the Liberal Democrats to remove the Whip from Baroness Jenny Tonge and he urges Lynne Featherstone to take the issue to Nick Clegg for action.

I hope he is not holding his breath waiting for a positive response …..

I always thought of William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, as one of the Tory Shadow Cabinet’s better performers.  However, his performance this morning on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme in an interview with John Humphrys was dire and I will clearly have to relegate him to the also-ran status of most of his colleagues.

He was being interviewed about the assassination in Dubai of a leading Hamas commander.  However, he started by asserting that his default position was that any statement made by by a Minister was a lie – rather a repudiation of his Leader’s promise that Cameron Conservatives would not stoop to old-style “Punch and Judy” politics.  This sort of comment debases the political process and undermines democracy itself.

His key message seemed to be that the Foreign Office should be seeking an assurance from the Israeli ambassador that no Mossad agent would ever in the future pretend to be a British citizen.  At first sight that seems to be fine – except, of course, that to date there doesn’t seem to be anything more than newspaper supposition that Mossad were involved in this case: so any ambassador is likely to respond that the question is hypothetical.  Incidentally, I wonder what the response would be from any British ambassador called into another country’s foreign office and asked to give a categorical assurance that no agent of MI6 would ever in the future pretend to be a national of that country.  So perhaps William Hague needs to get real if he seriously expects to be taken seriously as a prospective future Foreign Secretary.

He resorted to saying that he condemned extra-judicial killings.  Again, absolutely right.  However, John Humphrys then asked him about the US use of drone aircraft pursuing Al Qaeda personnel in Pakistan and killing civilians.  Hague repeatedly refused to answer.  He left the clear impression that he was condemning Israel for killing the Hamas leader – condemning a country with which the UK has strong links on the basis of newspaper supposition – but that he was condoning the actions of the US.

Hardly consistent, hardly convincing, but definitely Conservative.

There is to be a new Joint Committee to consider the National Security Strategy.

The first National Security Strategy was published in March 2008 and looks beyond the traditional areas of foreign, defence and security policies to include transnational crime, pandemics and flooding.

The Strategy was updated in June 2009 with further updates to be produced every year.  It has always been the intention that there would be a Joint Parliamentary Committee with members drawn from both Houses to help monitor the implementation and development of the Strategy.

The Committee is to consist of twelve Commons members, including the Chairmen of the Departmental Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence, Home Affairs, International Development, Business and Enterprise, Energy and Climate Change, and Justice, and also the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and ten Lords members (and I have been asked to be one of these).

Lord Paul Myners, who is rapidly becoming Labour Peers’ favourite Ministerial performer at Lords’ Question Time, was at it again this afternoon.  When Lord Bilimoria, whom he squelched on a previous occasion, put it to him that:

“It is reported that the Shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, agrees with President Obama’s proposals for reform. Do the Government also agree with President Obama’s reforms and do they intend to implement them?”

The magisterial response was:

“I always welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, from the Cross Benches. I hesitate to correct him but last Thursday evening Mr George Osborne welcomed President Obama’s statement and by Friday morning he had decided that he no longer welcomed it. We must tune in regularly to our wirelesses to ensure that we are up to date with the Tory thinking on this and so many other matters.”

He then went on to point out:

“There are aspects of the Obama proposals which clearly make a considerable degree of sense for the American situation with large investment banks. There are also concepts around the levy which are commendable and on which we and other G7 countries are working to ensure that in the future the banking system is more resilient and, if there is failure, that failure is borne by the shareholders, the subordinated creditors and the management of the banks. However, the Obama proposal is not necessary in this country; we have already taken the appropriate actions.”

The remaining exchanges were as follows:

“Lord Clinton-Davis: What discussions have taken place between the Obama Administration and the Government to ensure that there is an international response to the banking crisis?

Lord Myners: Banking resilience, regulation and capitalisation are high on the agenda for the G20. We are in regular contact with G20 countries. I met officials from the Obama Administration on Monday to talk about this and other matters.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: Does the noble Lord agree that some of the banks have their priorities totally wrong? They give management top priority, deal last with the customer and God help the shareholder in between.

Lord Myners: The noble Lord says something very perceptive and correct. Last week I suggested in the House that banks which follow policies on bonuses that were perceived to be reckless would risk alienating their customers, who would choose to move their business. I urge UK banks, in particular, to be able to evidence that they have exercised real restraint and that bonuses reward smart decisions made by good people, with the overall prosperity of the franchise in mind, rather than rewarding reckless gambling or entirely fortuitous external circumstances.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the Minister confident that those banks in which the Government have a very large shareholding have entirely complied in their own decisions with what he has said to us?

Lord Myners: The decisions about bonuses at Lloyds Banking Group and RBS have not been made but we have already been very clear that UK Financial Investments on behalf of the taxpayer will take a very active interest in this area. I am much encouraged by the comments of Mr Stephen Hester, who I think is doing a very good job at Royal Bank of Scotland, that he will not recommend or seek any bonus payments beyond those which he believes are absolutely necessary to protect the bank, and in so doing protect the value of the taxpayer’s investment in his bank.

Lord Newby: The Minister has just said that the Government have already taken appropriate action in respect of the banks but yesterday, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, the Governor of the Bank of England said:

“We cannot allow ourselves to be kept hostage to institutions that are so big”,

and he appeared to support the Obama proposals. Why do the Government think the governor is wrong?

Lord Myners: The governor said many things yesterday with which we are in complete agreement and he is supporting the moves we are taking to improve the strengths of the banking system. There is no evidence that size in itself was the source of individual bank failures. Large banks failed, but so did small banks. We need to ensure that the totality of the banking system is strong and that will be addressed by higher capital, requirements for much higher levels of liquidity and the concept of living wills, which will require banks to put in place arrangements that will allow the failing part of a bank to be isolated and separated from the remainder of the bank without imposing consequential claim on the taxpayer. The taxpayer should never, ever again be expected to bail out the folly and mischief of bad decisions made by bankers.”

On Friday, I reported that the Conservative Party’s local government representatives on the European Union Committee of the Regions had refused to follow the official Cameron line and pull out of the European Peoples Party grouping.

Over the last few days, however, the position has changed and they are now going to try and form a European Conservatives and Reformist Group on the CoR.

When asked whether he was being bullied by the national Conservative Party, Councillor Gordon Keymer, Leader of the UK delegation, as well as the Tory group on the delegation, to the Committee of the Regions, refused to comment, saying “It’s an internal matter”.

Thumb-screws all round?  Or was it the threat of knee-capping?

And what did Roger Evans, Leader of the Conservatives on the London Assembly and one-time novellist, have to say about the matter?

I have always taken the view that there will be scepticism and cynicism in any Host City about hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games until just a week or two before the Games start and then it will vanish and everyone will suddenly be a convert.  I confidently expect that to be the process in London as we get closer to 2012, unless Mayor Boris Johnson fails to invest properly over the next two years and himself builds cynicism rather than enthusiasm.

I am therefore very pleased to have had the opportunity to be in Vancouver for a few days with only three weeks to go before the City hosts the 2010 Winter Olympics, so that I can see whether my theory is borne out.

On balance, I think it is.  There is no doubt that local enthusiam is building: young people are excited and it is mainly locals that are currently swamping the Official Merchandise outlets (where they are finding that they can only buy using cash or a VISA cards – as VISA is an official sponsor, Mastercard and American Express are forbidden).

Businesses are preparing for the rush of visitors and are expecting a serious boost to the provincial economy.  Meanwhile, the Cultural Olympiad is in full swing – with an impressive emphasis on events with a link to Canada’s First Nations (the indigenous Indian communities prior to colonial invasion).

So has cynicism disappeared?  Not entirely.  One cause is the weather: it is simply too warm.  One of the Olympic ski runs has had to be closed because of warm weather and heavy rain.  And the cynics tell me that this was entirely predictable.  This is an El Nino year when warmer ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific bring a milder winter to Western Canada.  (An El Nino year is usually preceded the previous year with a colder-than-normal winter and this is what happened in 2009 when Vancouver was totally snow-bound in January.)  These meteorological events are on a five-year cycle (or so I was told) and it should have been obvious to all concerned when Vancouver was bidding for 2010 that a mild winter would be on the cards – now in 2014 (the winter before the next El Nino year) would have been an ideal Games to bid for ….

And there are moans at the Mayor (so this is probably another reason why Boris Johnson won’t stand again in May 2012) for the proposed road closures and the extra costs falling on the City.

And there is still a legacy from the February 2003 plebiscite called in Vancouver on whether to support the Bid.  This was before the final decision by the International Olympic Committee was taken on the location of the 2010 Games, but after Vancouver was named as a candidate city and had signed legal agreements committing it to host the games if selected.  Fortunately, citizens of the City voted heavily in favour of proceeding with the Bid, but the manouevre was seen as deeply cynical: only citizens of Vancouver itself (and not those from the rest of Greater Vancouver) could vote; it could easily have had a negative impact on the IOC vote (which would have meant all the bid costs would have been in vain); and above all it would have been impossible to pull out if the plebiscite vote had gone the other way.  Apparently, the Mayor “was just playing politics” – now where have we heard that before?