Alistair Darling has already warned us not to expect much from the 2010 Budget. Speaking to the BBC on 11th March he said the budget would be “sensible” and “reflect the times in which we live”. This will come as no surprise to anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the budget arithmetic as set out in last December’s Pre-Budget Report.

HM Treasury expect the fiscal deficit (public sector net borrowing) to total £178 billion (12.6% of GDP) in 2009/10 and £176 billion (12% of GDP) in 2010/11. Deficits of this size can be justified by the size and nature of the shock that hit the economy in 2008 and 2009 and by the relatively low level of government debt when the shock hit. But they cannot be sustained for long.

If the government keeps borrowing at this pace, debt will eventually reach levels that could affect economic performance, which is why there is broad agreement that the deficit must be reduced over the medium-term. There is, however, less agreement about what should be done in the short-term.

David Cameron and George Osborne continue to insist that it is necessary to “make a start in 2010”, though their message has become rather blurred in recent weeks. At the start of the year, they appeared to be calling for substantial cuts in public spending in 2010. More recently, they have suggested any additional cuts should not be “swingeing”.

They seem oblivious to the fact that the Government has already “made a start” and taken a number of decisions that will reduce the deficit over the next year. The standard rate of VAT was increased from 15 per cent back to 17.5 per cent in January. This will add about £10 billion to government revenues.

From April 2010, there will be an additional rate of income tax of 50 per cent – applied to all incomes over £150,000 – and the income tax personal allowance will be restricted for those with incomes over £100,000. Capital expenditure will also fall, according to the 2009 Pre-Budget Report, from £69 billion to £60 billion, reflecting the Government’s decision to bring some spending forward to 2009 to support the economy during the recession.

Indeed, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Green Budget, the fiscal tightening already planned for 2010/11 is £23 billion or 1.6% of GDP – more than is planned for any of the following four years. So, there would seem to be no scope to ease fiscal policy and increase the deficit in 2010 and it is too risky to tighten policy by more than currently planned and cut the deficit.

The Chancellor could, of course, increase taxes to fund some new spending announcements – but this is hardly likely just six weeks before an election. Or he could cut spending more than planned and cut some taxes – but this would be hard to justify given the size of the deficit.

The Chancellor does, though, have an ace (or rather two aces) up his sleeve. Unemployment has increased by less than expected at the time of last year’s budget, so spending on out-of-work benefits is running below its projected level and banks have not been deterred from paying bonuses by the tax on bonus payments introduced in last December’s Pre-Budget Report, so revenues from this source have exceeded expectations.

He could simply bank this money and cut his deficit forecasts accordingly. Alternatively, he could use some of it to moderate the scale of fiscal tightening in 2010/11 – arguing that this would help underpin the economic recovery. If he chose to do so, moderating the sharp drop in capital spending planned for the next fiscal year would be the best way to proceed.

If the Chancellor thinks the financial markets need more reassuring about the medium-term outlook for the deficit, he might also give us a few more details of his plans to bring the deficit down from 2011 onwards – but it would be naïve to expect much. Any tax increase or spending cut will hit someone financially – even the much-touted “efficiency savings” will lead to people losing their jobs – and so could cost votes. Similarly, while the opposition parties will no doubt criticise the budget, they will be reluctant to tell us all the details of what they would do instead.

In a properly functioning democracy, all the main political parties would set out their plans on this crucial issue and allow the electorate to choose between them on polling day. Sadly, that is not going to happen in the UK in coming weeks.

Thirteen were given severence packages of more than £300,000 and three received payoffs of more than £500,000, totalling £9.5 million.

Both Labour and the Conservatives united to condemn the largesse, local government secretary John Denham calling for a way to be found “to change the rules so taxpayers’ money can be clawed back where the system has been exploited” and his shadow Bob Neil saying:

“Such payments are an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money and an affront to families facing soaring council tax bills. There should be no rewards for failure, either in the public or private sector.“

In Scotland, meanwhile, Scottish Water has announced that its chief executive, Richard Ackroyd, is to donate  a quarter of his performance related bonus to the charity WaterAid; last year Mr Ackroyd, who earns a basic salary of £263,000, received a bonus worth £101,000 or 38 per cent of his basic salary.

In a statement, the boss of one of Scotland’s largest publicly owned businesses said:

“I have looked carefully at all the circumstances and at how people are being affected by the consequences of the downturn in the economy. My priority as chief executive is to ensure that Scottish Water continues to deliver increasing value for money for our customers and that objective is even more vital in the current circumstances.

“While all Scottish Water staff must be properly rewarded for delivering outstanding performance Scottish Water will divert 25 per cent of any incentive payment due to me for our performance in 2009/10 to go to charity. The value of this will depend on the levels of performance achieved by Scottish Water at the end of the financial year. This will be assessed by the board of Scottish Water and paid in June 2010.”

In response, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said:

“This is a welcome step by Mr Ackroyd. The finance secretary has made clear his desire that chief executives of public bodies should give up some or all of their bonus voluntarily. That request has already produced positive responses.”

In January, Left Foot Forward reported that half of all quango bosses in Scotland – including Mr Ackroyd - had failed to commit to a call by the finance secretary, John Swinney, to forgo their bonuses for the next year.

At the time, Labour’s finance spokesman David Whitton had said:

“Any chief executive who has taken a bonus in these particularly difficult times will have to answer in the court of public opinion.”

My Ackroyd’s moves seem likely to be a gesture towards the court of opinion referred to by Mr Whitton. However, he has made clear that he remains firmly committed to the principle of bonuses, telling the Herald:

“Our board is committed to the principle of performance-related pay. We think the system we operate in Scottish Water is an exemplar of how to do PRP successfully. There is no PRP unless all of the targets set for us by ministers and regulators are exceeded.”

The announcement by Scottish Water comes after the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) announced last week that chief executives across Scotland’s local authorities would forgo a planned 2.5 per cent pay rise in April. COSLA’s spokeman for human resources management, Cllr Michael Cook, said:

“The testing times both now and which lie ahead are such that leadership counts and Chief Executives have shown genuine leadership which we trust will set an example to others. It mirrors the decision of Council Leaders to agree to their pay being frozen in the coming year. It is significant that the political and executive leadership of councils have recognised the unprecedented challenges which lie ahead.” 

Last week, Gordon Brown announced all civil servants earning more than £58,200 will face a pay freeze over the next three years, saving an estimated £3 billion.

“Contrary to headlines in the popular press, teachers and schools have never been better”

The audience also believed that Labour were the best party to run schools in the future.

Liberal Democrat education spokesman David Laws, who last month hailed the “astonishing, dramatic, unbelievable” improvement in schools under Labour, said that the claims in the Tory manifesto that standards in schools were falling were incorrect, and education secretary Ed Balls cited improved GCSE grades and the biggest building regeneration programme of schools since the Victorian era amongst other Labour achievements.

Shadow education secretary Michael Gove also praised the government, in particular its Teach First scheme, a system that had created the best ever generation of teachers, but asked why Britain’s schools were still falling behind those of other countries. He argued that we should not be comparing the achievements today with past standards, but rather with the “best and the rest” of schools abroad.

Having been presented with failings of the Swedish system in recent weeks, Mr Gove tried to steer the debate towards America and its Knowledge Is Power KIPP charter schools, which he argued helped combat social deprivation and gave teachers a greater degree of autonomy.

Mr Laws, meanwhile, proposed an education freedom act, that would devolve power to schools and colleges, stripping away the DCFS’s power to micro-manage education. The Lib Dems want to abolish league tables and teaching to tests, and say school standards should be judged through a system of “intelligent accountability” with an independent standards authority. There were no further details on how this body would operate.

Mr Balls admitted that league tables failed to show how schools were improving standards, and touted his report card scheme, information for parents on how well the school is helping those pupils who fall behind to catch up and stretching the most able. When challenged to find an alternative, Mr Gove came up with “a points system” that would measure how much the school had “stretched” its students. However, the details of these ideas remained vague.

There was cross-party agreement that schools in inner-London had seen massive improvement in the last ten years, but Laws emphasised that this success needed to be felt elsewhere in the country. He said that the biggest gap was not between the rich and poor students, but between the poor students attending schools that were thriving, and the poor students attending schools where standards were falling.

However, it was the Tories’ policies, rather than Labour’s education record, that received the most vociferous attack from both Laws and the audience. Mr Laws said the Tory plans were “dotty” and “gimmicks to announce at party conference“, while Mr Balls expressed exasperation at Mr Gove’s “silly debating games” in reference to his evasive, Oxford Union-style techniques.

Mr Gove’s prohibition on teaching for graduates with third class degrees or lower – dubbed “The Carol Vorderman Problem” by David Laws – again came under fire, as did his plans to allow free schools to ditch the National Curriculum. Mr Laws said it was “bizarre” to allow “a tiny minority” of schools freedom while the majority of schools in the maintained system would be subject to an even stricter curriculum under the Tories.

The Liberal Democrats and Labour have already announced different measures for funding a “pupil premium” scheme, but last night, Gove still had no answers on how he Tories would pay for this without making cuts to school budgets. He also ducked questions on why the Tories are the only party not allowed to increase education spending when Labour are proposing to increase budgets for the next three years and the Lib Dems have pledged to “prioritise education spend above all other areas”.

Mr Laws said:

“It makes me despair that cutting inheritance tax is a bigger priority for the Tories than the schools’ budget.”

Mr Balls said it was “scandalous” that the Tories planned to expose schools to free market mechanisms:

“If you only rely on the market, you must watch month by month until the school goes to the wall. Meanwhile, it’s the poorer students who loose form this market approach.”

He added that this “unfair and expensive” system would lead to rising social inequality and pit head teachers against each other in a competitive relationship:

“The schools-supporting-schools approach of the last ten years will receive a huge set-back.”

Mr Miliband’s speech to the SIIS set out Britain’s future relationship with the emerging economic superpower. Of primary focus was free trade following the credit crunch, with the foreign secretary clearly aware of China’s temptation towards protectionism he stated that “it will require a determination to deepen globalisation, by opening up our economies further to flows of goods, services and capital”.

Encouraging China to embrace free trade, however, is not the UK’s biggest challenge. In 2003, the Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, proposed a free trade zone across the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and at the London G20 summit in 2009 President Hu Jintao talked at great lengths of China’s budding relationship with Russia and Central Asia.

As the world’s largest producer economy China has embraced and will continue to embrace free trade and free markets to encourage its future economic development, but its current priorities with regards to this growth lie with central and eastern Asia – not Europe. Persuading China to look to Britain will be Mr Miliband’s biggest challenge on this visit.

Currently less than 4 per cent of the UK’s trade lies with China (the UK is the largest European trader operating in China), a statistic the foreign secretary acknowledged, but he also went on to point out that:

“Britain’s expertise in finance, professional services, education, pharmaceuticals, advanced engineering, creative industries and digital technology, mean that as Chinese consumers move up the value chain there will be a better fit between our economies than ever before.”

Persuading China to look at Britain for increased trade, though, seems to be reliant not only on China’s willingness to look beyond Asia, but also China’s position on the key areas of intellectual property rights, climate change and the increasingly contentious issue of sanctions against Iran.

With China being accused of wrecking the Copenhagen agreements, implementing internet attacks on other nations and moving closer to Iran on issues regarding energy; Britain, Europe and the United States still seem unsure as to the country’s long term ambitions.

The foreign secretary’s speech yesterday highlighted these crucial areas, and although he did not explicitly state the UK’s position it seems clear that Mr Miliband is looking to encourage a more constructive dialogue between east and west. However, getting past these crucial sticking points seem unlikely in the near future.

Ultimately for the Chinese Communist Party, their goal is the maintenance of the Chinese Communist Party and as such issues which are beneficial to the Chinese people at the detriment of its relations with other nations are acceptable. This means that inaction on climate change and building relations with ‘rogue states’ such as Iran will be considered in the context of the country’s economic growth not its diplomatic standing with countries such as the UK.

In “The Costs of Unemployment”, a briefing to mark the UK launch of the European Year for Combating Poverty today, the TUC shows that adults in workless households are more than twice as likely to be poor as those in households where some of the adults are in work and nine times as likely as those in households where all the adults are in work.

Just 2 per cent of the children of couples who both have full-time jobs are poor, compared with 68 per cent of the children of couples where neither has a job, while 10 per cent of the children of lone parents in full-time paid work are poor, compared with 55 per cent of the children of lone parents who aren’t in employment.

The death rate for children of parents classified as “never having worked” or long-term unemployed is 13 times that for children whose parents work in higher managerial or professional occupations. The children of long-term unemployed people are shorter than other children, miss more time from school and receive fewer qualifications. Almost half of young people living with an unemployed head of household are not in employment, education or training, compared with 1 in 14 where they are in full time work.

When unemployment hits a family the effects include eating less healthy food, not being able to make repairs to the home and building up more debt. Unemployment also greatly stresses families – a study carried out during the 1980s recession found that unemployed men felt irritable, strained or depressed by the loss of their role as the breadwinner, while their wives were burdened by the stresses of impossible budgeting.

Long-term unemployment can unsettle young men, and be a time when they establish a pattern of hazardous behaviour – being long-term unemployed as a young man is a significant predictor of heavy and more frequent drinking when aged 27–35. Men who have been unemployed are more likely to smoke and areas with high levels of unemployment are also more likely to have problems with drug abuse.

It should not come as a surprise to find that unemployed people are about twice as likely to be unhappy as those with jobs; what is more shocking is the fact that the impact of youth unemployment on life satisfaction is still there two decades later. The effect of unemployment on mental health is now regarded as almost certain by epidemiologists.

Unemployment is a major risk factor for depression (especially among young people) and unemployed people are far more likely to commit suicide. The connections between unemployment and stress and risky behaviour also mean that unemployed people are more likely to die from heart disease. Unemployed people are not only more likely to have poor health, they also have worse prognosis and recovery rates.

Unemployment is the test of political ethics. How high a priority do politicians give it? Immediately cutting public spending means that more people will be unemployed and more people will become long-term unemployed. The debate about macro-economic policy should take into account the misery this will cause.

Voters should be asking the parties how much are they willing to invest in employment programmes; the Conservatives need to spell out much more detail about the Work Programme with which they will replace the New Deal, which we all know will be cheaper. The future of the Future Jobs Fund is an important test. The Conservatives say they will abolish it, and the Liberal Democrats have not committed one way or the other.

Possibly the most worrying thought about a change of government is what might happen to the benefits of the long-term unemployed. Michael Portillo argued last summer that “we ought to assume that fit young people are not entitled to anything”, while earlier this month, Policy Exchange called for a 3 per cent “clawback” in benefit rates.

The party’s official line is unclear, but many will be worried by the failure to say that the Conservatives would at least protect the value of benefits, just as we should continue to deplore the failure of Labour to maintain the value of Jobseeker’s Allowance.

On BBC News 24 this morning, Clarke continued a theme from his Today programme interview this morning with Chief Secretary Liam Byrne. Referring to the European Union’s assessment that the UK should bring the national deficit below 3 per cent by 2014-15, Clarke said:

“[Gordon Brown] always claims that any alternative to his own policy involves some figure plucked out of the air of billions of pounds worth of cuts…

“A new Government is required to start cutting spending now, get rid of wasteful spending, and to continue to get onto the perfectly sensible target of 3% of GDP for a deficit which was the rule I had when I was Chancellor.”

The Treasury’s projections in the pre-Budget report show that the Government is set to reduce the “Treaty deficit” – the preferred EU measure – to 4.6 per cent by 2014-15. Given projected nominal GDP of £1,841 billion in 2014-15 (Table B1), the implied reduction of 1.6 per cent of GDP is equivalent to £29.5 billion.

On Today, Clarke got confused about whether the Conservatives would remove the entire structural deficit or the “bulk” of it. Paul Waugh later tweeted that the shadow business secretary backtracked in an interview on Sky News. Clarke also called on Today for “the kind of public spending round that I had when I was Chancellor”.

Over the last two weeks we have seen a large number of reports and articles critical of the asylum system. The Independent Inspector of the UK Border Agency highlighted the growing backlog of unprocessed asylum claims in a report published at the end of February.

His report was followed by Nuala O’Loan’s investigation into allegations of the abuse of asylum-seekers held in detention or in the process of removal from the UK. Yesterday the media reported that the costs of supporting asylum-seekers – who are not permitted to work – had risen by 1,700 per cent over the last five years.

All these reports point to an asylum system vulnerable to misadministration and crisis. There have been some improvements in the processing of asylum claims over the last ten years – the time it takes for an initial decision on an asylum case has fallen from 22 months in 1997 to seven months in 2009. An inspectorate for the UK Border Agency and greater commitment to the integration of those allowed to remain in the UK are other changes for the better.

Nevertheless, the asylum system remains flawed and prone to backlogs. It is high time progressives took an honest look at asylum in the UK. Yet a tabloid media hostile to asylum-seekers, coupled with a powerful refugee lobby have prevented a root and branch examination of the treatment of refugees.

The latest media articles, drawn from Home Office statistics, point to a reduction in the numbers of ‘failed’ asylum-seekers who are removed from the UK and a huge increase in the cost of supporting them. In 2009, some 26,832 removal notices were issued to failed asylum-seekers, yet only 7,850 persons from this group were removed from the UK.

Many of those who are not removed from the UK receive food vouchers and basic accommodation from the UK Border Agency, a type of sustenance known as Section Four support. Ministers are very concerned by the rising costs of Section Four support.

However, an in-depth analysis of Home Office asylum statistics shows why such small proportions of failed asylum-seekers end up being removed from the UK and why the costs of Section Four support have rocketed. In 2009, some 17,805 asylum-seekers – about 73 per cent of all applicants – received an initial negative decision in the UK. Of those refusals 4,150 were from Zimbabwe and 1,080 were from Sri Lanka. Yet government has suspended removals to these countries because it acknowledges that Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka are too unstable for the return of asylum-seekers.

Some 1,070 Iraqis and 585 Somalis were refused asylum in 2009. While the UK will return them, organising flights and onward transport in these countries is logistically challenging and expensive. Failed asylum-seekers from countries such as Zimbabwe and Somalia are kept in limbo: their applications have been refused, yet we cannot send them back. It is an inhumane and costly trap. A progressive asylum policy would allow those who we cannot remove from the UK to remain here, work and contribute to their new communities.

Our government does remove those who have overstayed their permission to remain in the UK, a group that includes failed asylum-seekers. At present there are weekly charter flights to countries such as Nigeria and Afghanistan.

Frontex, the EU external borders agency, will soon be taking responsibility for chartering and coordinating removal flights. Yet progressives have given very little consideration to removals policy. Honest debate about this issue is often heavily suppressed by the open borders movement, groups and individuals who often have links with the left.

We need to get to grips with removals policy. We need to acknowledge that there are some people whose removal is practically impossible – they should be allowed to stay in the UK. We also need to confront other questions. How do we deal with those who physically resist removal? How can the activities of Frontex be made transparent and accountable? Should we have independent human rights monitors on charter flights, as some EU countries do? How do we monitor the safety of those returned to their home countries?

Above all, we need safeguards at our external borders, as many would be asylum-seekers do not make to European territory and are turned back at our external borders.

Among the poll’s main findings are:

• 42% believe that Northern Ireland will be part of the UK by 2021, the same proportion who believe it will be part of a united Ireland by the same time;

• 42% of respondents describe themselves as Irish compared with 39% who call themselves British;

• 18% describe themselves as “Northern Irish”, a figure which increases to 24% when questioning just Protestants;

• If a referendum on a united Ireland were to be held today, 55% of respondents would vote for Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK, against 36% who would prefer the north and south to unite. However, 26% of the Catholics questioned would want Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK, compared with 6% of Protestants who believe in a united Ireland; and

• 51% of respondents, across all sections of the community reported that difficulties faced by the Irish Economy make a united Ireland less likely.

The last referendum to be held on Irish Unity, in 1973, found that 98.9% of people favoured Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK, though nationalists boycotted the poll.

The calls could prove a catalyst for a renewed bout of calls for a referendum on Northern Ireland’s constitutional future. In 2002, the then Ulster Unionist Party leader, David Trimble, told his annual party conference that a vote on Northern Ireland’s constitutional future could lay the issue to bed for a generation. Similarly, in 2008, Sinn Fein’s regional development minister Conor Murphy called for a vote by 2016.

Speaking ahead of his St Patrick’s Day visit to the US, McGuinness said:

“I have no doubt that, as with previous trips, this trip will lead to investment and the creation of jobs in the future.”

The trip and opportunities available reflect the realities of Gordon Brown’s assertion last month that a deal on devolving policing and justice powers would provide the stability businesses need to invest in Northern Ireland and create much needed jobs. With significant investment now a very real possibility, it raises still more questions over the decision last week by the Ulster Unionists to be the only party at Stormont to vote against transferring policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, a strong signal of a normalisation of the nation’s politics.

What is more, the UUP’s sole MP, Lady Sylvia Hermon, who last month confirmed she would not seek re-selection in protest at her party’s electoral pact with the Conservatives, made a clear side swipe at her party’s position on policing and justice; speaking to the BBC, she said:

“The real enemies are not fellow unionists in the DUP, those are not our enemies, in fact Sinn Fein is not our enemy. The enemies in this community are dissident republicans who if they had their way would continue to wreak havoc across Northern Ireland. I wanted all of the parties in the Executive to stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of dissident terrorism and say we have had enough, we are going forward together.”

Last December, when news of the leaders’ debates was confirmed, Left Foot Forward argued for such debates, to cover the key policy issues of the economy, health, education, law & order and defence among others, the details of which may be lost in the Brown v Cameron v Clegg head-to-heads.

Even before today’s announcement, there have been several high profile debates already between ministers and opposition spokesmen since the turn of the year. Examples include business secretary Lord Mandelson and his shadow Ken Clarke appearing on Channel Four News to face questions from Jon Snow; Phil Woolas, Damian Green and Chris Huhne debating immigration on the Politics Show; and Lord Adonis, Theresa Villiers and Norman Baker discussing high-speed rail on last Thursday’s Newsnight.

Newsnight has also provided the platform for two 45-minute programmes focusing on defence and education – last month Bob Ainsworth, Liam Fox and Nick Harvey debated “A fighting future“, while last week Ed Balls, Michael Gove and David Laws took part in a heated debate about schools. More such debates are expected to follow in addition to the ones outlined today.

As published previously on this blog, here is a list of the leading cabinet ministers and their shadows:

In the strongest attack yet on Greece, the German finance minister has called for countries that fail to get their house in order “to be thrown out of the single currency”. Wolfgang Schäuble said stricter rules were needed, at a meeting of Eurozone finance ministers in Brussels where they hope to agree a plan for a financial bailout for Greece, reports The Times. Herr Schäuble said: “We need stricter rules. That means, in an extreme emergency, having the possibility of removing from the euro area a country that does not get its finances in order.” Responding to his remarks, French finance minister Christine Lagarde urged the Germans “to increase domestic demand to stimulate economic growth in the eurozone”. The Financial Times, however, reports agreement from finance ministers on establishing “an emergency financial support facility for the first time since the euro’s creation in 1999″. Austrian finance minister Josef Pröll told the FT: “The technical conditions for aid are in place, and it can be organised whenever necessary – but Greece didn’t ask for any aid.”

Staying in Brussels, and all the broadsheets report a warning from the European Union that Britain “must do more to curb its spiralling debt”. The Telegraph says the EC is urging the Treasury to put in place “more ambitious debt reduction plans”; it says: “The EC will chide Britain for failing to guarantee that it will meet the Maastricht limit for budget deficits of 3pc of gross domestic product by 2014/15 … However, the EC can do little but berate Britain, since its independence from euro membership means it is not bound to follow the rules under which euro members should not exceed deficits of 3pc of GDP.” The Guardian sees it as a warning from Europe to “cut deficit faster, deeper”, adding the reports reveal “European doubts over Britain’s finances” and question the “‘ambition’ of Labour’s plans to cut debt”. The Independent claims it is a “double blow for Brown” – with Brussels describing his plan to cut the deficit as “inadequate” – and The Times calls it “an embarrassing blow” which will “electrify the debate over the economy” coming just a week before the Budget.

The Israeli ambassador to Washington has described the state of relations between the two countries as the “worst crisis since 1975 – a crisis of historic proportions”. The freezing of relations follows US Vice-President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, during which he clashed with Benjamin Netanyahu over the building of more than 1,500 new settlements in occupied East Jerusalem, reports the Telegraph. Hitting back at Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Isralei prime minister had said: “Construction will continue in Jerusalem as this has been the case over the past 42 years”; with an unnamed cabinet minister adding: “The demands they are making of the government now are almost impossible as far as the coalition is concerned … How can we announce a construction freeze in Jerusalem? A move like that would break up the coalition.” The Times, however, reports the White House’s refusal to back down, saying the stalled peace talks “threaten the lives of American soldiers in the Muslim world”.

The Guardian reports fears over the digital economy bill, which critics say “is in danger of being rushed through parliament … with the government hoping that it can pass into the statute books before a general election is called”. The bill, which includes a “three strikes rule” to cut off internet access for suspected file sharers has been welcomed by the British Phonographic Industry, whose chief exec last night said: “It is vital for the future of the UK’s creative sector that the digital economy bill becomes law before the dissolution of parliament … We are pleased that it has passed successfully through the Lords and will continue to work closely with all parties as it progresses.” Opponents, however, are angry such little time is being devoted to it. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: “Our elected MPs will have spent a whole two hours on this bill … before they disappear back to constituencies to ask for our vote … Meanwhile, a ‘rump parliament’ made up of retiring MPs and party whips will pass disconnection measures – with no actual debate.”

And the Mirror reports the sudden death of Labour MP for Middlesbrough Ashok Kumar. The prime minister led the tributes to Mr Kumar, who was just 53 when he died: “I was greatly saddened by the sudden death of Ashok Kumar. Ashok was a hard-working constituency MP who took pride in representing the people of Middlesbrough as both a councillor and MP since 1987.” The Sun reports Tony Blair’s words of condolence: “Ashok Kumar’s sudden death is a genuine tragedy and source of real sadness. Ashok was a dedicated and committed local Member of Parliament, representing Middlesbrough with a real passion and determination to serve the community he was from.” Neighbouring MP Sir Stuart Bell added: “The death of Ashok Kumar at so young an age is tragic. He has been for many years a fine parliamentarian and good constituency MP. He built up his parliamentary majority and had every expectation of being returned to the House at the forthcoming election. He will be mourned by his many friends and colleagues.”