Netanyahu on Iran: ‘None of us can afford to wait much longer’

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu holds copies of 1944 correspondence asking the US war department to bomb the Auschwitz concentration camp Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, invoked the spectre of Auschwitz as he chided those who question whether Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon and warned that „none of us can afford to wait much longer” to act against Tehran.

In an address to the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, Netanyahu derided the effectiveness of sanctions hours after a meeting with Barack Obama at which the US president appealed for time for diplomacy to pressure Iran to open up its nuclear programme to inspection.

At the strained White House meeting, the Israeli prime minister responded to Obama’s demand for an end to „loose talk of war” and bluster over Iran by reiterating the Jewish state’s „right to defend itself”.

Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) hours later, Netanyahu questioned the premise of US policy that Iran has not yet made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon.

„Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right,” he said. „If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That’s right, it’s a duck. But this duck is a nuclear duck and it’s time the world started calling a duck a duck.

„Fortunately, President Obama and most world leaders understand that the idea that Iran’s goal is not to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous.”

In fact, Obama has consistently said that US intelligence does not show Iran is working towards a nuclear bomb or has decided to do so. Washington believes that even if Iran decides to develop a nuclear weapon, it is at least a year away from being able to do so.

At the White House meeting, the US president again urged that sanctions be given time to work. Netanyahu was dismissive in his speech to Aipac.

„For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on,” he said.

„Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue. We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.”

Netanyahu arrived in Washington planning to press Obama to commit to military action against Iran if it crosses specified „red lines” in development of its nuclear programme or fails to meet demands to dismantle its underground nuclear facility in Qom and to halt uranium enrichment.

US officials say the president did not want to make any such commitment, even though he says the military option remains on the table, out of concern that it will be seen as implicitly endorsing an Israeli attack if the demands are not met.

It’s not known if Netanyahu pressed the case at his one-on-one session with Obama and the Israeli prime minister told Aipac he wasn’t going to discuss it in public.

„I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that,” he said.

In his own speech to Aipac on Sunday, Obama demanded an end to the „loose talk of war” and „bluster” against Iran – a clear reference to the noise out of Netanyahu’s government. At the same time the US president repeated his reassurance that he „has Israel’s back”.

At the White House meeting, Obama spoke of the „difficult months” ahead.

„It is profoundly in the United States’ interest as well to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he said. „That’s why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever with respect to Iran. We do believe that there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue, but ultimately the Iranians’ regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far.

„My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons… When I say all options are at the table, I mean it. Having said that, I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically. We understand the costs of any military action.”

But Netanyahu told Aipac: „There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time to talk about the costs of not stopping Iran.”

The Israeli prime minister invoked the Holocaust in saying he would not allow Israelis to „live under the shadow of annihilation”. He said he had in his desk a copy of a letter from the World Jewish Congress asking the US war department to bomb the Auschwitz death camp in 1944.

Netanyahu said that in their reply the Americans said that such an operation would require them to divert too many aircraft from other missions and it probably wouldn’t succeed.

„And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all, and I quote: ‘Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans’. Think about that – ‘even more vindictive action’ – than the Holocaust,” he said. „Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future. That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries. But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.”

Netanyahu – who tellingly made no mention of the conflict with the Palestinians, exposing how it has been sidelined by the whipping up of the Iran crisis – was talking to a sympathetic audience of 13,000 Aipac members who loudly cheered and clapped the Israeli leader. But he was also addressing a powerful one.

More than half the members of the US Congress were in attendance, a reflection of Aipac’s influence on Capitol Hill where it has been a driving force in pressing for stronger sanctions legislation against Iran and upping the rhetoric.

The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, addressed the conference shortly before Netanyahu and backed the Israeli wish to see Obama make an explicit threat of military action against Iran if red lines are crossed, although he did not mention Netanyahu’s demands for the dismantling of existing nuclear facilities.

McConnell blamed Obama’s attempts to engage with the Iranian leadership when he first came to power for allowing Tehran time to develop its nuclear programme, describing the approach as a „critical flaw” in policy.

He said that Obama is now relying too heavily on sanctions and called for a „clear declarative policy of what we will do and why”.

„This is the policy I recommend: If Iran at any time begins to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels or decides to go forward with a weapons programme, then the United States would use overwhelming force to end that programme,” McConnell said to loud cheers and applause and whistles.

„All that’s been lacking until now is a clear declarative policy, and if the administration’s reluctant for some reason to articulate it then Congress will attempt to do it for them.”

View the original article here

Thousands evacuate NSW towns as floods continue in Australia

Aerial view from a helicopter of flooded areas in Wagga Wagga in southwest NSW, Australia Photograph: Lukas Coch/EPA

Vast areas of Australia’s east and southeast are facing devastating flooding after weeks of heavy rain.

In NSW alone – Australia’s most populous state – an area the size of France is either under water or at risk of going under, after 16 river systems have flooded. Southeast Queensland and northern Victoria also face serious threats of flooding.

„This is devastating for small businesses, for farmers and for those whose houses have been flooded,” said NSW state premier, Barry O’Farrell, who toured the state’s affected region.

Attention has focused on the NSW town of Wagga Wagga, 475km south west of Sydney, as it faces its biggest flood in 150 years.

Around 9,000 residents have been evacuated from the city centre amid fears the town’s levee banks may not withstand the flood coming down the Murrumbidgee river.

It brings to 13,000 the number of people evacuated from their homes across the state.

The levee surrounding Wagga Wagga is 11m high and the river is expected to peak at 10.9m later on Tuesday. It’s NSW’s biggest inland city with 50,000 residents and it is an important agricultural, military and transport hub.

Residents have been filling sandbags to protect their properties and businesses. Two hundred and fifty homes on the north of the city have already been inundated.

„This is a very significant flood emergency and will continue to be a significant flood emergency down stream in the coming weeks,” said James McTavish of the State Emergency Services.

Authorities have pleaded with residents to heed evacuation requests and to stay away from floodwaters.

The president of the NSW Farmers Association, Fiona Simson, said the floods will have a massive impact on rural communities.

„Not least because we know the government hasn’t got a lot of money,” she told the Sydney Morning Herald.

The state government says it expects the bill for repairing roads alone will come to at least A$500m (£335m).

Rising floodwaters in southeast Queensland are also threatening properties. More than 200mm of rain fell in 24 hours in some areas this week.

An 82-year-old man died in the town of Gympie, about 175km north of Brisbane on Monday after his car was caught in rising floodwaters.

The deluge in southeast Queensland follows earlier flood emergencies in the state’s inland areas, including the state’s biggest emergency evacuation in the town of St George in February.

The huge amount of rainfall is being attributed to the La Nina phenomenon where the sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean falls lower than normal by three to five degrees celsius.

It has meant NSW has had the ninth wettest and fourth coldest summer on record.

View the original article here

Putin makes his presence felt as protesters take to Moscow’s streets

Protesters chant ‘Russia without Putin’ at an opposition demonstration in Moscow after the election results were announced. Photograph: Sergeo Ilnitsky/EPA

Thousands of Russians streamed through metal detectors for hours, past camouflaged trucks and under the whirring blades of a helicopter, to join a mass protest against Vladimir Putin’s official return to the Kremlin.

They were furious and frustrated. Gone were the lighthearted slogans and costumes that had thus far marked the protests that exploded in Moscow in December and carried through Russia’s presidential vote on Sunday.

A few held white flowers, a symbol of the peaceful movement. Their white ribbons, until now emblazoned with words like „For a Putin-less Russia”, hung bare.

Many protesters had hoped to force Putin into a second round, proving that Russia’s longtime leader had indeed lost the support of the heartland.

Instead they were met with an official result of nearly 64% for Putin, buoyed, election monitors say, by massive fraud. Russia’s elections chief, Vladimir Churov, called the vote the „most honest in the world”.

„It’s not just about falsifications,” said Ivan, 65, an office manager, explaining why he turned out on a workday to stand for two hours in wet, windy snow. „I want our country to be democratic. I want to be led not by crooks and thieves, but by normal people. I want society to democratise, to allow different parties to take part in elections, to allow different people into the presidential election. I want them to stop robbing the country.”

To the 20,000 people who turned out for the protest, Putin wasn’t a president, but a tsar. „These weren’t presidential elections – it was a succession to the throne,” read one large sign held high above protesters’ heads.

Opposition leaders, taking to a stage constructed in the shadow of Alexander Pushkin, Russia’s most revered poet, refused, one by one, to recognise a president they denounced as „illegitimate”.

„I’ve heard that a lot of people are disappointed,” opposition leader Alexey Navalny shouted from the stage. „Did you expect something different from these crooks and thieves? They robbed us.”

„We don’t say we have a monopoly, but we are the people – we have a voice. We are the power here!” he shouted, launching a refrain repeated dozens of times over by the thousands of angry people in the crowd.

He promised that the protests would continue. But he also conceded, in the face of a crowd some five times smaller than those that had gathered before the presidential vote, that change would not come quickly.

„Everyone asks, will we be victorious? When will this happen and what should we do? I have two words that answer all these questions: truth and belief,” he said.

„We overestimated our numbers a bit. We thought that the rest of the country knows everything that we do.” That was a recognition of the split result – if Putin won 64% of votes around the country, he failed to break the 50% barrier in the capital.

„They fucked us again,” read one massive placard, a succinct summation of what protesters said they felt.

Alissa, 21, flew to Moscow early on Monday with her boyfriend in order to attend the protest. They bought their tickets for the two-hour flight from the Urals city of Orenburg after Putin’s militant victory speech, which he made before less than 30% of votes were counted on Sunday evening. „I do not agree with yesterday’s election,” Alissa said. „We need a new government. We need changes.”

Olga, 17, was just five years old when Putin first came to power, anointed by former president Boris Yeltsin in 1999. She stood beside her father and pushed her fashionably-cut blonde fringe out of her eyes, as she said: „There are injustices in our government and in our country. If the people who are against that unite, maybe we can change something.” If Putin serves his full six-year term, she will be a college graduate by then. If he serves a second term, as allowed by the constitution, she will be nearly 30.

Her father, Fyodor, said: „I don’t understand how the people of our country, with peace in their souls, can elect a person who didn’t just renounce his KGB past, but on the contrary, promotes the system’s continuation.” Peering over the overwhelmingly young crowd, he said he didn’t know what would come next.

„No one came here to fight with anyone, or to die for anyone,” he said. „Of course it’s scary. But if the worst happens, it won’t be because of us, but because of what the government does.”

The Kremlin has so far taken the approach of allowing protesters to gather, provided they obtained the appropriate permission from city authorities. Their bet, analysts believe, is that the protest movement will run out of steam.

The protesters indicated that would not be the case. As the thousands of peaceful attendees began to flood out of the square, into adjacent streets and metro entrances guarded by thousands of riot police, around 1,000 protesters refused to go.

Among them were Navalny and the leftist opposition leader Sergei Udaltsov, who moved towards a fountain in the middle of the square, surrounded by supporters locked arm in arm.

Riot police, wearing camouflage and black helmets, moved in to encircle them, launching an hour-long standoff before they finally rushed in, roughly dragging the protesters away to waiting vans. Police said some 250 had been carted off in total. Hundreds more were briefly detained and immediately let go. Navalny was released around four hours later.

The riot police rush blew the lid off the anger inside the square. Protesters shouting „Russia without Putin!” flooded on to Tverskaya Street, the Moscow thoroughfare that leads straight to the Kremlin. They were chased by columns of riot police, blocking traffic in a chaotic scene. Two hours later, riot police locked arm in arm continued to sweep down Tverskaya, chasing the remaining activists away. One woman in her 40s, wearing a white ribbon, burst into tears. „Who are you protecting? This isn’t Chechnya, it’s Moscow”

Earlier, 50 people were detained during an unsanctioned rally of around 3,000 people in St Petersburg and 50 more at a separate, unsanctioned protest in Moscow.

Some opposition leaders had threatened an escalation in protest methods, but did not put the move to the larger crowd that had gathered earlier.

Many protesters said they were ready to march on the Kremlin if opposition leaders called for it.

„We are ready to be surrounded, thrown into an arrest van and beaten,” Arnold, 20, who attended the protest with two teenage friends, told the Guardian. He was adorned with badges reading „Putin go fuck yourself” written backwards.

Some observers believe a change in tactics by the opposition was inevitable given that the presidential election is over and activists may have difficulty sustaining regular peaceful demonstrations.

Speaking on stage ahead of his arrest, Navalny denied that the demonstrators would grow weary. „We will not get tired of coming out into the streets. We will not go away,” he said.

Ahead of the election and the planned protest, the government had poured thousands of extra police and interior ministry troops into the capital, backed by army trucks and at least one helicopter.

Putin’s decision to return to the presidency has led to an unprecedented movement against his rule. His militant victory speech, in which he described his election win as an „open and honest battle”, only fuelled protester anger. Several demonstrators carried signs citing a Soviet-era film, „Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears”, mocking his show of emotion at the Sunday night victory rally.

„We need to do this – of course something will change,” said Alexey, 38. „Pinochet also didn’t listen to his people. But when enough got together and forced him into a referendum, he left.”

It was clear that other protesters sought to take a different turn. Upon his release around 1am local time, Navalny said the attempt to occupy the square was an „experiment” launched by Udaltsov. The events of Monday night, he said, „showed that there are already hundreds of people ready to remain until the end.”

View the original article here

Afghan clerics’ guidelines ‘a green light for Talibanisation’

Afghan policewomen at work: guidelines released by the country’s top clerics have been described as reminiscent of the Taliban era when women couldn’t go out without a male guardian. Photograph: Jalil Rezayee/EPA

Women are subordinate to men, should not mix in work or education and must always have a male guardian when they travel, according to new guidelines from Afghanistan’s top clerics which critics say are dangerously reminiscent of the Taliban era.

The edicts appeared in a statement that also encouraged insurgents to join peace talks, fuelling fears that efforts to negotiate an end to a decade of war, now gathering pace after years of false starts and dead ends, will come at a high cost to women.

„There is a link with what is happening all over the country with peace talks and the restrictions they want to put on women’s rights,” said Afghan MP Fawzia Koofi, who warned that the new rules were a „green light for Talibanisation”.

The points agreed at a regular meeting of the Ulema Council of top clerics are not legally binding. But the statement detailing them was published by the president’s office with no further comment, a move that has been taken as a tacit seal of approval.

„Ultimately, I don’t see a way you can read it as not coming from (Hamid) Karzai,” said Heather Barr, Afghanistan researcher at Human Rights Watch. „It’s probably not an extreme position for the Ulema Council, but it’s an extreme position for Karzai, and not compatible with the constitution, or Afghanistan’s obligations under international law.”

The clerics renounced the equality of men and women enshrined in the Afghan constitution, suggesting they consider the document that forms the basis of the Afghan state to be flawed from a religious perspective.

„Men are fundamental and women are secondary,” the statement says, according to a translation by Afghan analyst Ahmad Shuja. „Also, lineage is derived from the man. Therefore, the use of words and expressions that contradict the sacred verses must be strictly avoided.”

The statement drew criticism in parliament, where some politicians took it as a direct assault on the constitution and the wider government. If a ban on men and women working and studying together were implemented, it would in effect dissolve the legislature.

„The statement is against the constitution, against human rights and against women’s rights,” said Ahmad Shah Behzad, a member of parliament from western Herat province, who warned that Karzai risked being in dereliction of his duty to protect the constitution.

The clerics also appeared to condone violence against women in some circumstances.

„Teasing, harassment and beating of women without a sharia-compliant reason, as set forth clearly in the Glorious Qur’an, is prohibited,” the statement said, although it then called for punishment of those who assault women.

There were some positive points in the list of women’s rights given before the list of their obligations, Barr said. Most notably it denounces forced marriage and the practice of exchanging women to settle family disputes over money or honour.

But overall, the statement marks a disturbing return to the language and ideology of the Taliban, said Nader Nadery, a former commissioner on Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission and an outspoken advocate for women’s rights.

„It renews some of the restrictions that were imposed during their rule, and therefore it could be alarming should it influence government policies,” Nadery said.

In focusing on the status of women, the clerics are ignoring issues that worry ordinary Afghans more, Koofi added.

„The country has a lot of other priorities, and the religious scholars need to come forward and condemn those issues that people are concerned about, like suicide bombers or corruption.”

View the original article here

Syrians fleeing to Lebanon ‘feared slaughter’ in Assad backlash

Thousands of Syrians have fled the Assad crackdown in Homs, including Hassana Abu Firas and her family. Photograph: Hussein Malla/AP

Syrian refugees fleeing to neighbouring Lebanon on Monday said they feared they would be slaughtered in their own homes as government forces hunted down opponents in a brutal offensive against the opposition stronghold of Homs.

Activists accused the regime of trying to hide its crimes from the world as the military cracks down on an anti-government uprising that has raged for nearly a year.

With world pressure at a peak, the Syrian regime agreed to allow in two prominent international emissaries it had previously rebuffed – former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, the new special envoy to Syria, and UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos. Annan will go to Damascus on Saturday and Amos said she will arrive in the capital on Wednesday and leave on Friday.

Amos said the aim of the visit was „to urge all sides to allow unhindered access for humanitarian relief workers so they can evacuate the wounded and deliver essential supplies”.

The Obama administration added Syrian state television and radio to a US sanctions list – part of an effort to block Syrian government assets within the US. The treasury department’s sanctions chief, Adam Szubin, said the Syrian General Organisation of Radio and TV has „served as an arm of the Syrian regime as it mounts increasingly barbaric attacks on its own population and seeks both to mask and legitimise its violence”.

He said any institutions supporting President Bashar al-Assad government’s „abhorrent behaviour will be targeted and cut off from the international financial system”.

The UN refugee agency said on Monday that as many as 2,000 Syrians had crossed into Lebanon over the last two days. In the Lebanese border village of Qaa, families with women with small children came carrying only plastic bags filled with a few belongings.

„We fled the shelling and the strikes,” said Hassana Abu Firas. She came with two families who had fled government shelling of their town al-Qusair, about 14 miles (22km) away, on the other side of the Syrian border.

The town is in Homs province, where the government has been waging a brutal offensive for the past month.

„What are we supposed to do? People are sitting in their homes and they are hitting us with tanks,” Firas said. „Those who can flee, do. Those who can’t will die sitting down.”

Although the government promised to let the Red Cross enter the hardest-hit district of Homs, Baba Amr, last week, regime forces refused to let the humanitarian teams inside, citing security concerns. On Monday the Red Cross said it had received new permission to enter, but the lockout continued.

Activists say hundreds have been killed in the month-long Homs offensive, and the UN recently put the death toll for a year of violence in Syria at 7,500. Activists say the toll has already surpassed 8,000.

View the original article here

Poverty in England: how Experian ranks where you live

How poor is your area – and how much worse will it get?

Credit ratings company Experian, besides supplying information to credit cards companeis and banks, also provides data for the public sector – and have given us this data.

It ranks every English local authority are by a set of key poverty indicators, they include:

• Greatest overall risk of poverty taking account of multiple factors
• Greatest likelihood to contain those in current poverty
• Greatest likelihood to contain those who may fall into poverty in the short to medium term
• Greatest likelihood to contain those who may fall into poverty in the Longer Term Future
• Greatest likelihood to contain households whose income is less than 60% of the median for England
• Likelihood for the presence of households at risk of long term unemployment
• Likelihood for the presence of households at greatest risk of experiencing child poverty
• Greatest likelihood to contain households at risk of financial exclusion
• Greatest likelihood to contain households at risk of COPD

Where do they get the facts from? Experian says:

The majority of indices are derived from our proprietary sources and our own modelled work. A key input for most of the indicators is Mosaic Public Sector, a version of Experian’s consumer classification but designed specifically for use by Public Sector organisations. Mosaic contains over 400 data variables. Two thirds of the indicators use the linkage between Mosaic Public Sector and external data to derive a baseline to create a specific indicator of poverty. The other third are based upon either Experian proprietary consumer marketing data, or modelling of publically available data such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation, HMRC data on Child Poverty and Claimant Count data from NOMIS (unemployment).

The data shows just how the North East of Ebngland is at the top of these indicators. The key rankings are:

• Most at risk of falling into poverty: Middlesborough
• Most likely to contain people living in poverty: Hull
• Most at risk of long-term unemployment: Newham
• Greatest risk of child poverty: Newham
• S Tyneside is the place most at risk of households with COPD, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The other side of this is the most ‘resilient’ places: City of London, Westminster, Richmond, Hart and Bucks.

How does it compare to the places suffering the biggest cuts in public spending?

The full data is below. What can you do with it?

Click heading to sort table. Download this data

Local Authority (District/Borough, City, Metropolitan- excludes Counties)Income less than 60% of the median for EnglandRisk of long term unemploymentGreatest risk of child poverty

• DATA: download the full spreadsheet

• Facts are Sacred: the power of data (on Kindle)

Data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

• Search the world’s government data with our gateway

• Search the world’s global development data with our gateway

• Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk

• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
• Like us on Facebook

View the original article here

No 10 and Treasury divided over curbs on child benefit

The PM wants to deal with child benefit’s ‘cliff edge’ problem that means a two-income family could be more favourably treated. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

The government is struggling to keep a united front on plans to save £2.5bn by withdrawing child benefit from higher rate taxpayers, in one of the first major policy clashes in the coalition government between No 10 and the Treasury.

George Osborne is making clear in Whitehall that his proposal is a popular way of showing that all income earners will share in the pain of deficit reduction. The chancellor is also saying that the public finances are so tight it would be difficult to fund a watering down of the change, which is due to be introduced in January 2013.

David Cameron, nervous about unsettling Middle Britain, is keen to deal with the „cliff edge” problem of removing child benefit the moment at least one parent’s income reaches the 40% tax threshold of £42,745 a year. No 10 is alarmed that a family with one earner, whose income is just short of £43,000, loses the benefit while a family in which both parents have a joint income of just over £80,000 will be unaffected if neither is taxed at 40%.

Kenneth Clarke, the former chancellor, waded into the row on Monday when he said Osborne had been right to tell the Conservative party conference in 2010 that higher rate taxpayers should not enjoy such a generous benefit in such a bleak economic climate. „It is quite wrong that some people are paying the higher rate of income tax on the basis that they’re above average earners and at the same time receiving a social benefit to help them pay for their children,” Clarke, the justice secretary, told ITV News. „It’s an anomaly which, at a time of acute financial crisis, was bound to be addressed.”

Clarke indicated that some minor changes might be announced by the chancellor in his budget on 21 March or in his autumn statement in November, but said there would be no U-turn. „I am sure the details can be looked at but the idea the government’s going to do a U-turn on that is ridiculous,” Clarke said. „We are in the middle of an acute financial crisis. It’s very hard on the families but they are higher rate taxpayers. We’ve all got, I’m afraid, to find that we’re tightening our belt a bit to get ourselves out of the mess we’re in to get the economy recovering again.”

Clarke spoke out after Nick Clegg indicated the government was looking to amend its plans. Speaking on Sky News, the deputy prime minister said: „We have been very open as a government that it is right that people at the top who earn much more than people with average incomes should be asked to make an extra sacrifice and that it is justifiable to say that people at the top don’t receive child benefit in the way people do on ordinary incomes.

„But we’re also equally accepting that there’s an issue about how you do that so you make sure you don’t create unintended consequences where, say, a family with one earner gets child benefit removal when there’s another family with income earners who actually collectively earn more but keep the benefit.”

The intervention by the Liberal Democrat leader prompted speculation that he was adding child benefit to a list of demands his party is tabling ahead of the budget. But it is understood Clegg simply thought he was helping out the prime minister, who has spoken publicly of the need for a rethink on child benefit.

Clegg’s main priority is still to take low income earners out of tax by raising the income tax allowance to £10,000, to be funded by a tax on wealth.

The nerves in Downing Street come as Tory MPs vowed to oppose the change. Stewart Jackson, who resigned as a ministerial aide last year over Europe, dismissed the policy as „barmy, tokenistic and unfair”. He said: „We understand that tough decisions have to be made and that there has to be burden-sharing across all groups. What’s a problem for the government is seeming to clobber hard-working people, including single parents, while at the same time uprating benefits by over 5%.

„The Rolls Royce minds at the Treasury need to find a way out of the mire. If not, they need to drop the whole policy. It holds against basic tenets of fairness and equity.”

The prime minister voiced his concerns about the child benefit changes in January when he said he would examine the way in which the withdrawal of child benefit kicks in so quickly. He told the House Magazine: „Some people say that’s the unfairness of it, that you lose the child benefit if you have a higher rate taxpayer in the family. Two people below the level keep the benefit. So there’s a threshold, a cliff-edge issue.

„We always said we would look at the steepness of the curve. We always said we would look at the way it’s implemented and that remains the case, but again I don’t want to impinge on the chancellor’s budget.”

Osborne is making clear that he has little room for manoeuvre after the slower than expected economic recovery forced him to delay by a year his initial pledge to eliminate the structural deficit within the lifetime of this parliament. The chancellor had thought in 2010 there was a strong chance he would never have to introduce the change.

But he is now saying that the proposal, which will only affect 15% of taxpayers, is popular even among those who pay tax at 40% or more. He is also saying that introducing major changes would be difficult.

Changes to his original plan could include: raising the cap so that child benefit is only withdrawn from those earning more than £50,000; allowing parents with children under the age of five to keep the benefit; or lessening the impact on families with one earner who pays tax at 40%.

Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said: „The government’s policy on child benefit is now in total disarray. These unfair changes are due to hit hundreds of thousands of families on middle incomes in just 10 months time. The chancellor must now put implementation of these plans on hold and announce an urgent review.

„It cannot be right that a two-earner family each earning £42,000, a total of £84,000, would keep all their child benefit, but a single-earner family on £43,000 would lose it all at a stroke. And if ministers can look again at cutting child benefit for families on £43,000 they should also reconsider perverse and unfair cuts to tax credits for parents on the minimum wage which will leave thousands not only worse off, but better off if they quit work.”

View the original article here