GUARDIAN Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:45:00 GMT
• City regulator thrown into chaos as chief executive resigns • Move casts doubt over future of the FSA The City regulator was thrown into chaos this morning as chief executive Hector Sants resigned. Sants, a former banker, is stepping down from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the summer. He has decided to tender his resignation ahead of the election, which has cast uncertainty over the future of the FSA because the Conservatives have a policy to disband the regulator. Concerns will now be mounting about the willingness of chairman Lord Turner to remain in his post during a radical overhaul of financial regulation following the taxpayer bailout of the banking system. While Sants had told friends that he intended to stay as chief executive for only three years, the timing of his departure so close to the election will raise speculation that he decided to announce his departure now because of the uncertainty facing the FSA. The Conservatives have announced plans to disband the FSA and hand its powers for supervising banks to the Bank of England, effectively tearing up the system of regulation introduced by Labour when it was swept to power in 1997. The opposition has blamed the current tripartite system – involving the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury – for the current financial crisis. Sants said: "When I was appointed I told the board that I planned to serve as chief executive for three years, and I intend to stick to that timetable. Of course, those three years have encompassed the most extraordinary circumstances for a financial regulator, and I am very proud of the manner in which the FSA rose to the challenge of dealing with such unprecedented turbulence across global financial markets. "Moreover, I believe the FSA candidly examined the failings in financial regulation that contributed to the onset of the crisis, learned the lessons and has gone on to reform itself into a much stronger and better equipped organisation. "I believe the FSA has made great strides in ensuring that such individuals are in place in the UK and I am sure that after I leave they will continue to do invaluable work to ensure financial stability and protect the interests of consumers." He joined the regulator in May 2004 as the managing director responsible for wholesale and institutional markets which allowed him to avoid direct criticism of the supervision of Northern Rock, the first bank to endure a crisis of confidence in living memory. The banking crisis erupted just as he became chief executive in July 2007, from which point he was embroiled in overseeing the nationalisation of Northern Rock and the bailout of Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS. Turner tried to present a picture of business as usual at the FSA and paid tribute to Sants. "Hector has given outstanding service and leadership through the turbulent last three years and has played a pivotal role in reforming the FSA into a truly effective organisation. He will leave behind an organisation with strong purpose and a clear strategy," said Turner. "We will be immensely sorry to lose him, but understand his decision to move on in the summer and wish him well in whatever he chooses to do after his departure. In the meantime, we will continue to work together to deliver the FSA's reformed and intensive supervisory approach and drive forward the global regulatory reform agenda.". Financial Services Authority (FSA) Banking Conservatives Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
GUARDIAN Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:52:41 GMT
Conservatives should support referendum to introduce the alternative vote method because that is the system they use for their own internal party elections, say Lib Dems David Cameron was accused of hypocrisy ahead of today's Commons vote on a referendum on electoral reform because Tory MPs will oppose a system they use in internal party elections. Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, made the allegation in advance of a vote this afternoon in the Commons on a proposal to hold a referendum on abandoning the first-past-the-post voting system after the general election. Under electoral reform plans championed by Gordon Brown, the country would be asked to choose whether to switch to the alternative vote (AV) method. The prime minister has hailed the change as part of a "new politics" which could restore public trust in Westminster in the wake of last year's expenses scandal. But the Tories will oppose the move, which Cameron dismissed yesterday as a "fiddle", accusing Brown of "a cynical attempt to save his own skin". Although Brown is likely to win the vote this afternoon, the plan has almost no chance of becoming law before the general election because there will not be enough time to get it through the Lords. But Lib Dem MPs and supporters are strongly committed to electoral reform and Brown's move may increase the chances of the Lib Dems doing a deal with Labour in the event of the election producing a hung parliament. This morning Huhne told the Today programme that it was hypocritical of Cameron to oppose AV. "The Conservatives use the alternative vote to elect their own leader, but they don't think it's good enough for us to elect MPs. That's a hypocritical party if ever I saw one," Huhne said. Huhne said that AV was "not a perfect solution" but that it was "a step in the right direction". Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, told the same programme that the government was not proposing a referendum because it wanted to improve relations with the Lib Dems. "It's about trying to do the right thing because we need to restore trust in politics," Benn said. Amendments tabled by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to the constitutional reform and governance bill would require a referendum to be held by the end of October 2011. It would offer a straight choice between the existing system and AV – under which voters would rank candidates in order of preference. The Lib Dems will seek to change the question to offer the choice of a more proportional system – the single transferable vote – instead of AV. They also want to bring forward the last date of the referendum to May next year and close what they say is a loophole that would allow an incoming Conservative administration to abandon the vote without the need for fresh primary legislation. Campaigners for voting system change welcomed the AV proposal as a "small step" towards making the electoral system more representative. Ken Ritchie, the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, said today's vote will reveal "a dividing line between the old and new politics". He went on: "Gordon Brown is prepared to take one small step for democracy with the alternative vote. With the single transferable vote the Lib Dems are prepared to take one giant leap. "Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem content to march as one through the lobbies and endorse our defunct system which they hope will give them power. "This vote will illustrate better than any before the divisions between and within parties. It will send a powerful signal to voters where their MPs' interests lie – whether they value job security or old prejudices over the needs of their voters. "We're not too sure how Conservatives can reconcile their change agenda with a three-line whip in defence of first-past-the-post. But we assume that Tories and Labour rebels will have the opportunity to explain their decision to voters at the coming election." Willie Sullivan from the Vote....
GUARDIAN Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:00:05 GMT
As chairman of the BBC Trust, Michael Lyons faces an internal battle over costs – and an external one for his job The new home of the BBC Trust may be close to one of London's most expensive private hospitals and full of lovely primary-coloured sofas but it is not, insists its chairman, Sir Michael Lyons, expensive. "It was the cheapest property on offer by some margin," he says of the former Google call centre. The price of things, especially buildings, is a particularly sensitive issue for the BBC at the moment. Not only is the National Audit Office (NAO) about to produce what is expected to be a highly critical report into the £813m refurbishment of Broadcasting House , but outrage over the cost of executive pay and onscreen talent over the past two years has fed into almost every other criticism of the corporation and its governing body. Allied with criticism from commercial rivals of the corporation's expansionist ambitions, it is the issue most likely to annoy members of the public, although most polls suggest they still support the BBC. Next month, the director general, Mark Thompson, is expected to publish a strategic review demanded by the trust. It is set to tackle the size and shape of the BBC and whether it is spending its guaranteed £3.6bn a year income wisely. Losing grip If Lyons has a favourite word to sum up both the failings of the past and the desire to get back on track, it is "grip" – financial and editorial. "The BBC relaxed both its editorial grip and its grip on value for money," he says. "And to some extent the challenge of recent years has been to reassert that grip and that focus on value for money, particularly in how much you pay to top managers and onscreen talent." The "wholly indefensible" Ross/Brand broadcast in October 2008 led to a much-needed "tightening up of editorial controls", he adds, which had loosened during the early noughties. Overspending on Broadcasting House can all be traced back to those years, according to Lyons. Greg Dyke, the person in charge of the BBC at the time, is now leading a review of the UK's creative sector for the Conservatives. In response, he says: "No controls went out of the window. We expanded the organisation, which is why we were given an increased licence fee." Lyons clearly sees the 25% cut in the executive pay bill over the next three years as one of the trust's great achievements, while the trust's critics see yet another example of it doing just a tad too little, too late. In an interview with Ariel, the BBC's in-house magazine, Thompson perhaps inadvisedly said BBC salaries could not be compared with those in local government. "It's not a county council," sniffs Lyons, "but it's not a casino either." To help meet the target, bonuses have been frozen and two senior managers – Pat Loughrey and Richard Sambrook – have not been replaced. Pay negotiations are likely to be tougher. "The BBC needs to be more confident that people will accept the most extraordinary discount to come and work for it," says Lyons, adding that the corporation must bring on more new talent from "all parts of the nation" rather than the same old (expensive) faces. So the bidding wars in which the BBC competed aggressively with its commercial rivals are over. "We are simply not going to see what the public regard as excessive salaries, so [the BBC] must be harder in negotiations and much more willing to walk away." Proud of starting the vogue for publishing executive expenses, he believes revealing details of individual pay deals for talent would push up rather than depress pay but promises "more information" on the total cost of onscreen performers. His own basic pay of £143,000 last year was boosted by a £70,000 benefits package that covered his travel costs to and from his home in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, use of a London chauffeur and hotel accommodation that he often has to use four nights a week for his part-time job. Disclosing expenses may not "always..
GUARDIAN Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:08:06 GMT
Justice secretary misled parliament and breached ministerial code over handling of legal advice on war, say Lib Dems Jack Straw returns to the Iraq inquiry on Monday facing allegations that he misled parliament and breached the ministerial code over his handling of the legal advice about the war in 2003. The Liberal Democrats accuse the justice secretary of "hoodwinking" the British public when he prevented the cabinet from hearing doubts about the legality of the invasion. As the war continues to cast a shadow over Labour, Alastair Campbell almost broke down on television today when questioned about Tony Blair's claim that it was "beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Asked whether the former prime minister had misled parliament, Campbell, the former No 10 communications chief, stumbled as he said on the Andrew Marr Show: "I've been through a lot of this, Andrew, and I've been through a lot of that inquiry ... You did it again this morning, which is probably why I'm a bit upset – this constant sort of vilification." Since Straw's previous testimony, the Iraq inquiry has heard that a week before the invasion, on 13 March 2003, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told Straw, then foreign secretary, that he might need to tell the cabinet the legal issues were "finely balanced". Goldsmith was advised by Straw not to do so, warning of "the problem of leaks from the cabinet". The inquiry has heard that the cabinet was never told of Goldsmith's concerns. The Lib Dems have outlined a three-point charge sheet against Straw, claiming that he: • Knowingly misled parliament on the legality of the war. On 17 March, a day before MPs voted to authorise British involvement in the war, Straw told them: "There is no question about the legality of the action that we propose to take." The inquiry has heard that the two most senior Foreign Office legal advisers, Sir Michael Wood and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmhurst, believed the war was illegal. • Breached the ministerial code by preventing the cabinet from seeing Goldsmith's full legal advice. At paragraph 2.12 the code says: "When advice from the law officers is included in correspondence between ministers, or in papers for the cabinet or ministerial committees, the conclusions may if necessary be summarised but, if this is done, the complete text of the advice should be attached." • Abused his powers and failed to declare a confict of interest when he vetoed a freedom of information request to release the minutes of the cabinet discussion about Iraq on 17 March 2003. The Lib Dems believe Straw gave a misleading account when, as justice secretary, he vetoed the FoI request last year. He described the cabinet as "the forum in which debates on the issues of greatest significance and complexity are conducted". Ed Davey, the Lib Dems' foreign affairs spokesman, said: "Jack Straw has tried to hoodwink the cabinet, parliament and then the British people in his cover-up." Straw should resign if he fails to provide adequate answers, Davey said. "How can any judge or lawyer, let alone the British people, have confidence in the minister in charge of our legal system when he has apparently shown such reckless disregard for the legal advice he's given, the ministerial code he's supposed to keep to and the demands of the freedom of information act he piloted through parliament."Straw is expected to be asked by the inquiry to explain why he dismissed legal advice and to explain his evidence last month, when he said he had agonised about the decision to go to war. Subsequent evidence has shown that he swept aside the unanimous view of his top legal advisers that an invasion of Iraq was unlawful without a fresh UN resolution. Iraq war inquiry Jack Straw Liberal Democrats Politics and Iraq Iraq Nicholas Watt Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
GUARDIAN Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:40:41 GMT
Osborne believes that unless tough action is taken to cut record £178bn fiscal deficit, Britain could lose AAA rating David Cameron and George Osborne are drawing up plans to impose real-terms spending cuts that would see Britain's public services slashed by billions of pounds during the next parliament. Senior Tory sources have told the Guardian that the party leadership is determined to press ahead with cuts that go dramatically further than Labour's plans for an overall spending freeze –already likened to a return to the 1970s – from next year. Cameron is under pressure after declaring last week that a Tory government would not introduce "swingeing" spending cuts in its first year in office. Labour claimed that the Conservatives had been forced to accept the need for continuing public spending in the face of weak economic recovery. Senior Tories say the leadership accepts the need to act with caution in the financial year of 2010-11 which will be well under way by the time of the party's planned emergency budget this summer after an election victory. But Osborne is still determined to push far-reaching, real-terms spending cuts that could be imposed as early as the financial year starting in April 2011. The shadow chancellor believes that unless tough action is taken to cut the record £178bn fiscal deficit, Britain could lose its prized AAA rating. This would lead to higher borrowing rates which could push up interest rates and stunt economic growth. One senior Tory source said: "In the post-2011 period overall spending will decrease. It is imperative that we keep interest rates low. That is the lodestar of the whole thing. "Whatever decisions we take on the fiscal deficit that will be at the heart of it." The Tories are cautious about discussing their plans for cuts in public spending after the leadership was unsettled by figures released last month which show that Britain is inching its way out of recession. The economy grew by just 0.1% in the last quarter of 2009, prompting Gordon Brown to warn that Tory plans for early action to cut spending would jeopardise the recovery. But Osborne showed his ambitions last week when he dismissed Labour's plans to cut the structural deficit as not credible, declaring that he aimed to "eliminate a large part" of this over the next parliament. Labour is planning to cut the structural deficit – tackled only through raising taxes or cutting spending – from 8% of GDP in 2010-11 to 3.1% of GDP by the end of the next parliament. To go further than Labour's plan would involve real-terms cuts in overall public spending. This would go deeper than Labour's plans for what the Institute for Fiscal Studies described last week as a freeze in total public spending over four years (2011-12 to 2014-15). The IFS said that halving the overall fiscal deficit in three years – the nearest estimate of the Tory plan – rather than over four years, would lead to cuts in departmental spending of 4.2% a year from 2011. The Tories would find it harder to cut so-called "annually managed expenditure" – debt interest and welfare payments. The IFS estimates the Tory plan would mean a £5bn tax increase and public spending cuts of £11bn beyond Labour's strategy. The prospect of real-terms cuts in "total managed expenditure" – overall spending – is alarming some senior Tories. Kenneth Clarke, the shadow business secretary, recently warned against imposing "calamitous" cuts. One senior Tory said: "It is very difficult to achieve real-terms spending cuts. I hope this is just an aspiration because the economic picture is very bleak." A Tory spokeswoman confirmed that Osborne would cut the fiscal deficit faster than Labour: "Conservatives have set out a clear benchmark, against which we can be held to account, to safeguard Britain's credit rating and eliminate a large part of the structural deficit over a parliament." Conservatives Tax and spending George Osborne Recession David Cameron Labour Nicholas...
GUARDIAN Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:22:54 GMT
The former PM's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry does not seem to have made a particularly good impression John Rentoul's campaign to defend Tony Blair's reputation doesn't seem to be going to well. According to a ComRes poll out today, 37% of voters think he should be put on trial for going to war with Iraq. At first glance this suggests that Blair's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry did not make a particularly good impression. ComRes conducted most of their fieldwork over the weekend, after Blair's appearance at the inquiry. Last month, when a polling organisation last asked a question about Blair being put on trial, only 23% of respondents said that Blair should be tried as a war criminal. But the questions were framed differently and a direct comparison isn't fair. In January YouGov offered the "war crimes" option as one of five alternative answers to a question. ComRes just asked respondents to agree or disagree with the proposition that Blair should be "put on trial for going to war with Iraq". Some 57% disagreed, 37% agreed and 5% did not know. As the Independent points out in its write-up of the poll today, the ComRes findings also suggest that Gordon Brown is not going to have much luck blaming it all on Blair. The poll also says that 60% of voters think Brown should share responsibility with Blair for the decision to go to war. Iraq Iraq war inquiry Politics and Iraq Politics past Tony Blair guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
GUARDIAN Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:50:12 GMT
Shadow chancellor says choice at next election is five more years of Gordon Brown or getting Britain back on its feet George Osborne today set out eight "clear and transparent benchmarks for Britain" against which he said the public could judge the success or failure of a Conservative government. The shadow chancellor said the choice for voters at the general election would be "five more years of Gordon Brown or the chance to get Britain back on its feet" as he unveiled "a new economic model for growth" under the Tories. Osborne said the Conservatives were setting themselves the "tough test" of eliminating a large part of the structural deficit in a first parliament. In comments that appeared to be part of the Tories' recent softened approach to cuts in the first year of government, Osborne said the Conservatives would "make a start" in denting the deficit in 2010. Until last week, the Tory pledge to start making cuts in 2010-11 had been seen as one of the great dividing lines of the general election, with Labour claiming the Tory plan for "premature cuts" would take money out of the economy at a vital time. Claiming that Labour had "no credible plan" for tackling the deficit, Osborne said the Conservatives would protect Britain's credit rating, which he said is currently under the threat of being downgraded for the first time, which could tip the country back into recession. The shadow chancellor unveiled the Tory strategy as polling evidence suggested that some voters, especially women, were being alienated by a perception that the party might be ideologically committed to big and immediate spending cuts. A ComRes poll for The Independent, published today, showed the Tory lead over Labour down from nine to seven points, with the Tories on 38% and Labour on 31%. It found 82% of voters believed the Tories ought to be clearer about what they would do with the economy. Aside from macro-economic stability, Osborne's eight benchmarks for his new economic model also include: • Increasing exports, business investments and savings as a share of GDP. • Getting Britain working by lowering youth unemployment and the number of children living in workless households. • Ensuring Britain is "open for business". • Ensuring all regions of Britain share in a rising prosperity. • Making the public sector deliver 'more for less' through reforms. • A safer banking system that would see the bank of England 'back in charge' of regulation. • Moves to boost new and green technologies, including a new Green Investment Bank to coordinate funding. This was just the beginning, said Osborne. Over the next two months the Conservatives would go around the country making the economic arguments for change. "These benchmarks will enable you to judge if we are going in the right direction ... We are seeking to establish a big economic argument about where growth will be coming from." Conservatives George Osborne Economic policy Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
MIRROR Wed, 03 Feb 2010
The ex-International Development Secretary told how a "deceitful" Mr Blair silenced Cabinet colleagues who questioned his plans for the 2003 invasion. She said she was jeered by Mr Blair and his pro-war "mates" when she raised objections.

In a ferocious attack on Blair's government, Ms Short made a series of explosive remarks. She accused the former Prime Minister of misleading Parliament and claimed law chief Lord Goldsmith conned the Cabinet that the invasion was legal.

She revealed that Gordon Brown believed Mr Blair pushed ahead with war as he was "obsessed with his legacy". At the end of her fiery three hours of testimony, Ms Short won rapturous applause from the public gallery.

Ms Short dramatically claimed the Cabinet had no say and Mr Blair used "little chats" to decide policies.

"It was not a decisionmaking body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion in Cabinet.

"If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. The machinery of government had broken down quite badly. But when you add secrecy and deceit, it's positively dangerous."

She told the panel, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, how she had tried to question Lord Goldsmith in Cabinet about his 11th-hour ruling that the invasion was, after all, legal.

"I said, 'That is extraordinary.

Why is it so late?' They all said 'Clare!'. I was jeered at to be quiet. If the Prime Minister says be quiet there is only so much you can do".

Ms Short said the Cabinet was never told that Lord Goldsmith had previously judged the invasion to be illegal without a second resolution and changed his mind after being "leaned on".

Nor was she told the two top Foreign Office legal advisors believed the war was against international law. "I think he misled the Cabinet and misled me."

She went on: "The ministerial code said legal advice should be circulated and it wasn't. There was a lot of misleading of Parliament too."

Ms Short said Mr Blair was wrong to say the French would not have backed a second resolution."That was in my view a lie, a deliberate lie. It was one of the big deceits," she said.

Asked why she did not quit until March 2003, she replied: "If knew then what I know now I would have. What Blair promised me wasn't true. I was conned."

WORLDPRESSNETWORK 2 Feb 2010
By cartoonist Leon Kuhn whose work can also be seen on his own website http://www.leonkuhn.org.uk where postcards of some of his cartoons can be ordered.

See Leon Kuhn's page on "SpideredNews | Politics" at http://www.spiderednews.com/LeonKuhn.htm
GUARDIAN Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:36:38 GMT
Gordon Brown is not the right man for Labour. But if his party suffers election defeat he must stay on as leader for up to a year My general rule with a striking Sunday paper political headline is not to believe it unless I can check my own sources first. As a former Sunday man myself, I know the pressure the Sunday political journalists come under to give a story a bit of welly that can take it from idle speculation to front page splash. Yesterday's Sunday Times story that Gordon Brown intends to stay on as Labour leader after the general election unless the Conservatives win a convincing majority would normally fall into that category. I'll certainly try to check it out for myself. But this is one apparent political flyer that I'd be inclined to believe. I'm inclined to believe it partly because I bumped into someone a couple of weeks ago who has known Brown well for a long time. We got to talking about the general election. Then, out of the blue, my chum said this. "I'll tell you one thing. If Gordon thinks there's the slightest chance of hanging on, he'll cling on for dear life. He won't go easily." It's possible, I suppose, that the man I was talking to is also the "senior Labour source" on whose words the Sunday Times story is based. If so, though, the label is a bit of stretch. I would have called my own man a "veteran Brown watcher" or some such euphemistic cliche. But I think we're looking at different people here. More importantly, I think they are probably right about Brown. We forget at our peril that Gordon Brown is a politician who is obsessed with power. To say a politician is fascinated by power is a bit like saying that cats are fascinated by little birds. Even so, it is unusually true of Brown. His career is about lots of other things too, but in the end I think it's mostly about power. Recall just a couple of them. First, his relentless obsession with the succession throughout every one of the 13 years that Tony Blair was Labour leader. From 1994, Brown built up his own party within a party, then his own government within a government. From the day he first bent the knee to reality and stood aside in Blair's favour, Brown had a fanatical obsession with spheres of influence within the party and the government. Domestic policy belonged to him, not Blair, hence the bloody battle between Frank Field (pp Blair) and Harriet Harman (pp Brown) in the social security department in the first year of government, and hence the later battles with Alan Milburn over health, David Blunkett over education and Peter Mandelson over trade. Everything was about building up, sustaining and extending Brown's power. Second, recall Brown's absolute determination to wrap any potential challenger in a metaphorical concrete overcoat in order to ensure that Brown would be unchallenged as Blair's successor. The preoccupation with the issue was extraordinary. But it is a key to Brown's approach. Power is a zero sum game. He wants as much of it as he can. No challengers, no threats, no rivals. Brown's real political enemies are the pretenders to his own power, from Robin Cook to David Miliband. Brown's political model is not, as he likes to pretend, John Smith. Most of the time, it's Vito Corleone. Everything about Brown's career suggests that he is not going to walk away from the Labour leadership quickly either. The claim that he will hang on if there is a hung parliament rings absolutely true. His prime consideration after the election is often said to be to ensure that Ed Balls inherits the party. I don't think this is true. I think Brown's prime thought will be to hold on to his own power as long as possible. I think a lot of Labour people are being very naive in assuming that a leadership contest will follow soon after the election. It won't be like that, not if Don Gordeone has anything to do with it, at any rate. And for once, as it happens, I think he would be right. Not because I think Brown is the right man for.......
MIRROR Wed, 03 Feb 2010
The ex-International Development Secretary told how a "deceitful" Mr Blair silenced Cabinet colleagues who questioned his plans for the 2003 invasion. She said she was jeered by Mr Blair and his pro-war "mates" when she raised objections.

In a ferocious attack on Blair's government, Ms Short made a series of explosive remarks. She accused the former Prime Minister of misleading Parliament and claimed law chief Lord Goldsmith conned the Cabinet that the invasion was legal.

She revealed that Gordon Brown believed Mr Blair pushed ahead with war as he was "obsessed with his legacy". At the end of her fiery three hours of testimony, Ms Short won rapturous applause from the public gallery.

Ms Short dramatically claimed the Cabinet had no say and Mr Blair used "little chats" to decide policies.

"It was not a decisionmaking body. I don't think there was ever a substantive discussion in Cabinet.

"If you ever raised an issue with Tony Blair he would cut it off. The machinery of government had broken down quite badly. But when you add secrecy and deceit, it's positively dangerous."

She told the panel, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, how she had tried to question Lord Goldsmith in Cabinet about his 11th-hour ruling that the invasion was, after all, legal.

"I said, 'That is extraordinary.

Why is it so late?' They all said 'Clare!'. I was jeered at to be quiet. If the Prime Minister says be quiet there is only so much you can do".

Ms Short said the Cabinet was never told that Lord Goldsmith had previously judged the invasion to be illegal without a second resolution and changed his mind after being "leaned on".

Nor was she told the two top Foreign Office legal advisors believed the war was against international law. "I think he misled the Cabinet and misled me."

She went on: "The ministerial code said legal advice should be circulated and it wasn't. There was a lot of misleading of Parliament too."

Ms Short said Mr Blair was wrong to say the French would not have backed a second resolution."That was in my view a lie, a deliberate lie. It was one of the big deceits," she said.

Asked why she did not quit until March 2003, she replied: "If knew then what I know now I would have. What Blair promised me wasn't true. I was conned."