Featured Posts

Chase Bank Limits Cash Withdrawals, Bans International... Before you read this report, remember to sign up to for 100% free stock alerts Chase Bank has moved to limit cash withdrawals while banning business customers from sending...

Read more

Richemont chairman Johann Rupert to take 'grey gap... Billionaire 62-year-old to take 12 months off from Cartier and Montblanc luxury goods groupRichemont's chairman and founder Johann Rupert is to take a year off from September, leaving management of the...

Read more

Cambodia: aftermath of fatal shoe factory collapse... Workers clear rubble following the collapse of a shoe factory in Kampong Speu, Cambodia, on Thursday

Read more

Spate of recent shock departures by 50-something CEOs While the rising financial rewards of running a modern multinational have been well publicised, executive recruiters say the pressures of the job have also been ratcheted upOn approaching his 60th birthday...

Read more

UK Uncut loses legal challenge over Goldman Sachs tax... While judge agreed the deal was 'not a glorious episode in the history of the Revenue', he ruled it was not unlawfulCampaign group UK Uncut Legal Action has lost its high court challenge over the legality...

Read more

Queen’s speech: consumer bill of rights to cover faulty apps or downloads

Category : Business

Business ministers want to consolidate consumer rights and extend them to non-traditional internet or online purchases

Consumer rights covering products such as cars and white goods are to be extended to apps and music downloads in a consumer bill of rights to be unveiled in the Queen’s speech on Wednesday.

Jo Swinson, the consumer minister, said the government would update the law to make it “fit for the 21st century” by ensuring consumers can secure refunds or replacements if web-based products fail.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that the changes could save up to £4bn over 10 years by consolidating consumer rights in one place. These are currently split between eight pieces of legislation while powers giving trading standards officers the ability to investigate breaches of consumer law are spread across 60 pieces of legislation.

The changes will lead to:

• An updating of the law to give greater protection to consumers who download films, music and games – a £1bn industry. The bill will make clear that a consumer must receive a refund if an online game freezes or if a film stream is unwatchable even if the broadband connection is fine.

• New protections for consumers making it easier to apply for compensation for breaches of competition law and new powers for trading standards officers to seek court orders requiring compensation to be paid.

Swinson said: “Stronger consumer protection and clearer consumer rights will help create a fairer and stronger marketplace. We are fully aware that this area of law over the years has become unnecessarily complicated and too confusing, with many people not sure where to turn if they have a problem. We are hoping to bring in a number of changes to improve consumer confidence and make sure the law is fit for the 21st century.”

Richard Lloyd, executive director of the consumer rights organisation Which?, said: “A consumer bill of rights is a welcome step towards ensuring that we have consumer laws fit for the 21st century. This bill is about making it easier for people to understand their rights and giving consumers power to challenge bad practice. It should also mean that both consumers and regulators have the tools they need to challenge unscrupulous businesses that breach the law.

“There are many welcome proposals in this bill, including extending the power of collective redress in competition cases and reforming the law on unfair terms and conditions. We urge the government to go further and to extend civil remedy powers to allow private enforcement bodies, like Which?, to take action against rogue companies and force them to put things right for consumers.”

Letters: NHS sell-off regulations back in the Lords

Category : Business

The latest poll from the King’s Fund shows how both young and old continue to support the principles of the NHS: that healthcare, funded through taxation, is available to all on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay. On 24 April the Lords will debate competition regulations made under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act, which, if implemented, establishes a default position of local commissioning groups having to put services out to tender. It would put profit before patients, quick fixes before quality care and seriously undermine the NHS, leaving many people to suffer under a postcode lottery. Yet experience has shown that the market has already damaged the culture of the NHS. From 1948 onwards the public have helped create, fund and support the principle of healthcare for all. The government has no mandate to end this. Those of us who value the NHS must defend it. Contact a peer and ask them to show their opposition to the competition regulations.
Dot Gibson National Pensioners Convention, Ken Loach Director, Spirit of

Key libel reform thwarted as Conservatives block defamation bill

Category : Business

Conservatives succeeded in blocking a Lords amendment to tighten up laws which allow corporations to stifle free speech

The Conservatives have succeeded in their attempt to water down defamation laws which would have prevented large companies ranging from McDonald’s to Tesco from suing their critics unless they could prove financial losses.

The Conservatives won a vote in the House of Commons to remove a House of Lords amendment to the defamation bill to tighten up the laws which critics say allow corporations to stifle free speech.

But during the Commons debate, the justice secretary Helen Grant promised to reconsider the amendment after the vote to get the support of the Liberal Democrats.

But Labour denounced Grant’s concession as a sham and it is almost certain the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Lester, who has led a three-year battle for libel reform, will move to reinstate the amendment when the bill returns to the Lords.

After losing the vote 298 to 230, shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: “The government gave the impression there would be last minute concessions but this has proved false.”

Labour MP Paul Farrelly said “the issue here is not just about big corporations which want to bully like McDonalds intimidating the little people just because they could … it’s also about the desire of big businesses to silence its critics”. He said big corporations used the libel laws “to take journalist out of the game”.

Tracey Brown from Sense about Science which has campaigned for doctors and scientists who have been sued after they criticised big health companies said she was “deeply disappointed” the clause was removed but that support from many MPs on the issue had led to the government concession.

The amendment also included a clause, now struck out, which would have banned local councils and their subcontractors from suing anyone who criticised them in their performance of public duties, paid for by the taxpayer.

Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley made an impassioned plea with his fellow politicians not to vote to remove this clause said that although case law had established, under the so-called Derbyshire principle, that councils could not sue, this did not extend to private companies such as Atos Healthcare, a company employed by the department of work and pensions, which has threatened disability blogs and websites with legal action.

Agreeing with Bottomley, Khan said: “Just because a school, prison or hospital is run by a private company doesn’t mean it should be insulated from public criticism.”

English PEN, whose campaign for libel reform has been backed by high-profile figures including Stephen Fry and William Boyd said: “We’re depending on the Lords now to deliver the reform that all the parties signed up to.

“It’s essential that companies are no longer allowed to exploit libel law to bully whistleblowers into silence. This has always been a key demand for the campaign.”

Marjorie Scardino: business leaders will back EU in the end

Category : Business

Former Pearson CEO draws parallels between Europe and US and says current government is ‘pandering to Ukip’

Dame Marjorie Scardino, the first woman chief executive of a FTSE 100 company, has said she believes the UK business community will ultimately back the European Union in any referendum on Britain’s membership.

Scardino, who was chief executive of Financial Times and Penguin owner Pearson for 16 years until the end of 2012, said she thought business leaders were intelligent enough to know where their best interests lay, which was in closer European integration – even though her faith in the British business community generally was “at a nadir”.

“I think they will be for Europe in the end. I think the business community is smart enough to realise that just having a trade union is not enough,” she said. “They are smart enough to know they need to be part of a union that has political and financial power.”

In January, David Cameron announced that if the Conservatives won the next election, they would hold an in-out referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017.

The prime minister also said that before that he would be seeking a new settlement between the UK and Brussels, through a full treaty renegotiation or other means, to repatriate powers to Britain, and that he wants the EU to abandon its commitment to “ever closer union”.

Scardino made the comments on the EU referendum during a question and answer session after delivering the 2013 Hugo Young lecture in London on Tuesday evening.

In her speech, she said she thought Young, the pro-European former Guardian political columnist who died in 2003, would “likely have scolded the government for pandering to Ukip”.

Scardino, who was born and raised in Texas but has lived in the UK for 20 years, also said the EU was in need of leaders of the stature of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to help it through its current political and financial malaise.

In a speech that drew comparisons between the EU and the development of the US as a political union over more than two centuries, she added that having a single, strong leader was one of the factors that had helped her native country survive numerous political crises that could have torn it apart, including the civil war.

Answering a question on this point, Scardino said she thought there was a “such a paucity of imagination among politicians and business leaders” responsible for making decisions about the EU’s political and financial future.

“If you don’t have anyone brave enough to say, ‘We’ve got to have something to bind ourselves together,’ you are never going to have [a sense of union like the US has],” she added. “The politics of Europe is unimaginative and bureaucratic.”

However, Scardino said another lesson from the history of the US was that building a union between disparate groups of people takes time, above all else.

She added that the US grew from 13 British colonies that shared a common language and culture, where as the EU was trying to forge closer union from countries that in some cases had been in existence for more than 1,000 years, with “very, very long histories and very well-dug-in legacies”.

“It’s not about legislatures being more compromising; it’s not about anything other than time. It takes a long time to build democracy, to build freedom.”

The annual Hugo Young lecture is organised by the Scott Trust, the owner of the Guardian.

Bankers carry on unabashed, unscathed and unashamed | Nick cohen

Category : Business

The right’s folly lies in its inability to understand that bankers have barely been slapped

The self-pity of the British right swells in inverse proportion to its self-knowledge. Conservatives, of all people, ought to have been horrified when the state used taxpayers’ money to prop up lame-duck banks. Conservatives, who shout the loudest about scroungers living off the taxpayers, ought to have been the most concerned about sponging financiers.

In the 19th century, James Mill described the British empire “as a vast system of outdoor relief for the upper classes”. In the 21st, honest conservatives might describe the public purse “as a vast source of corporate welfare for the moneyed classes”. Yet honest conservatives have been replaced by paranoid fantasists. Fraser Nelson, a charming man who edits me when I write for the Spectator, and is without doubt my favourite rightwing loon, complains: “It has been almost five years since the crash and still the guilty men are being tracked down and subjected to what seems like a never-ending trial for financial war crimes.”

I remember Anthony Browne berating “cowboy” dentists and condemning London cabbies as a “white working-class mafia holding the capital to ransom” when he was a lowly reporter here at the Observer. Now he is chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association and his former hatred of rent-seekers has vanished. “We need to put banker bashing behind us,” he says of cowboys whose ransom demands would make the real mafia blush.

The right’s folly lies in its inability to understand that bankers have not been bashed. Indeed, they have barely been slapped. The courts have jailed no one responsible for the crash. Instead of “a never-ending trial for financial war crimes”, there have been no trials whatsoever. No one has sought to compensate the taxpayer by confiscating the bonuses taken in the bubble. The Financial Services Authority has barred only a handful of bankers from working in the UK financial sector. This palpable injustice allows me to summarise the coalition’s failure to convince the public that “we are all in this together” in a paragraph.

The taxpayer injected about £65bn into RBS and HBOS in share capital. Those shares are currently showing a loss of £20bn. The overall cost to taxpayers is incalculably higher because we must now manage in a zombie economy with a crippled banking system that can’t send credit to where it’s needed. Yet rather than punish those responsible, the coalition has cut their taxes.

The worst of it to my journalist’s mind is that the British have not been able to tell their own stories without fear of retribution. Hugh Tomlinson QC, the chairman of Hacked Off, a malign organisation that dumb liberals think is on their side, fought for months to stop the public knowing that Fred Goodwin was having an affair at the very moment when his bank was hurtling toward ruin. The parliamentary commission on banking standards‘ report on the collapse of HBOS, just published, has many virtues. Its greatest is that parliamentary privilege – a right to free speech Parliament will not extend to the rest of us – allows the commission to speak without authoritarian lawyers and judges blacking out the detail.

The commission’s account of how HBOS’s pre-tax losses reached £30bn breaks the bankers’ mythology. They thought they were the successors of the respectable Victorian Yorkshiremen, who founded the Halifax building society, and the equally prudent founders of the Bank of Scotland. To their minds, they were simply unlucky managers caught out by a crisis they could not have predicted. Sir Ronald Garrick, director and deputy chairman, said that the “HBOS Board was the best board I ever sat on”. Even with benefit of hindsight, Lord Stevenson, the chairman, says that far from being a giddy corporate dictatorship in which dissenters were fired, HBOS had an atmosphere “where people were able to be very direct and blunt”. What brought the bank down, he maintained, was the freeze in global wholesale money markets the day after Lehman Brothers went bust.

It was the same line Gordon Brown endlessly parroted. “A crisis that began in America” destroyed the British banking system. If it had not been for sub-prime loans in California and Bush’s refusal to bail out Lehmans all would have been well.

The banking commission, a strange but surprisingly intelligent group of MPs, peers and – only in England! – His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, takes the wishful thinking apart with admirable brutality. Lord Stevenson and his colleagues’ version of events “represents a model of self-delusion”, it says. HBOS suffered from a solvency, not a liquidity, crisis.

The once respectable Bank of Scotland and Halifax went on an “aggressive, asset-led growth” that took the “quick and easy path to expansion without acknowledging the risks inherent in that strategy”. Because HBOS was trying to muscle into new markets, it took risks sensible bankers would not take. In short, Americans did not kill HBOS: it committed suicide.

It is not as if the managers were not warned. The banking commission skates over the staggering case of Paul Moore, HBOS’s head of regulatory risk in 2004, who tried to talk sense into James Crosby, the chief executive. Crosby fired his risk manager for warning of a risk.

The subsequent careers of the two men sum up the degradation of the last decade. Moore went into the street and burst into tears. He did not know how to tell his wife he had lost his job. Because he had spoken out of turn, not only would no other bank hire him, no head hunter would put him on its books. By contrast, Brown knighted Crosby, and promoted him to serve on the Financial Services Authority. The man who had sacked his risk manager for warning of a risk was now protecting the banking system. Small wonder this country’s bust.

There is a more glaring fault. The banking commission condemns the FSA but, like the Tories and Labour, it will not recommend breaking up the banks by splitting their high street businesses from the investment business. Banks that were too big to fail and had to be bailed out by taxpayers in 2008 are still too big to fail in 2013.

Grasp this point, and the complaints about “banker bashing” turn from the ridiculous into something more sinister. The banking lobby is so unscathed – so unbashed, unbattered and unbruised – it has the muscle to prevent an urgent and necessary reform and can act as if the crisis never happened.

VAT is 40 years old – and now has middle-age spread

Category : Business

Levy has raised around £1.6tn but has become a headache for business with hopes for a cheap and simple EU tax in the past

Pink Floyd had just released The Dark Side of the Moon and the doors of the London Stock Exchange were finally open to female members when Conservative chancellor Anthony Barber introduced the nation to value added tax.

Imposed as a condition of Britain’s joining the common market, VAT is 40 years old on Monday and it has so far raised £1.6tn for the public purse, according to a study by the accountancy company Deloitte.

Designed by French tax expert Maurice Lauré in the postwar years and first levied in the UK on April Fools’ Day 1973, VAT is now the government’s third largest source of revenue after income tax and national insurance.

But what started out as a simple, easy to collect tax – a low, flat rate imposed on most goods and services – has become increasingly complex, with exemptions for everything from children’s clothes to Jaffa Cakes.

“The initial idealistic hope that it would be a simple tax, easy to apply, has constantly been eroded because there are always special lobbies,” said Deloitte tax expert Daniel Lyons. “Politics and economics got in the way of simplicity.”

Today, many of life’s essentials are not liable for VAT, including water, eggs, fish, milk, butter, cheese, newspapers, books, nuts, prescription medicines, cold sandwiches, tea, coffee, cooking oil and cereals. Other goods and services including zoos, burials, antiques and TV licences are simply exempt.

VAT was a European replacement for the purchase tax, which was charged at different rates according to the luxuriousness of an item. The new levy, a flat 10% on most goods and services, was in theory simpler to administer.

Paid by the buyer but collected by the seller, it is still one of the cheapest taxes for HM Revenue & Customs to administer because it requires businesses to act as tax collector.

It even had its own, user-friendly tribunal, where business owners could represent themselves when pleading their case.

But just one year in, Labour chancellor Denis Healey began to muddy the waters. He reduced the standard rate to 8%, but introduced a higher rate of 12.5% for petrol and some luxury goods, doubling the upper rate later that year to 25% before lowering it in 1976.

In 1979, the higher rate was abolished and the standard rate increased to 15%, where it remained until Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont increased it to 17.5% in 1991. Lamont also imposed an 8% rate on domestic fuel and power, which had previously been zero-rated.

The 1997 general election swept Labour to power and with it came a new series of tweaks and exemptions. Gordon Brown brought domestic fuel and power down to 5%, and knocked money off the rate for home insulation materials. He applied his own moral stamp, with VAT reductions on nicotine gum and other stop-smoking products, along

Post to Twitter

Conservatives seek eleventh-hour press regulation deal

Category : Business

Newspaper groups including owners of Sun and Mail threaten boycott of regulator if plan proposed by Labour agreed to

Britain’s main political leaders are taking talks on the future of press regulation down to the wire amid signs that David Cameron is prepared to reach a last-minute deal to avoid a damaging defeat in the House of Commons on Monday.

As George Osborne insisted that the government was not “grandstanding” over the issue of press reform, the prime minister appeared to change tack by reopening talks with Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, days after abandoning all-party negotiations.

The renewed political discussions came as three of Britain’s largest newspaper groups, including the owners of the Sun and the Daily Mail, ramped up the pressure by signalling that they were prepared to boycott the proposed press watchdog and set up their own body if Labour and the Lib Dems succeed in creating a statutory underpinning of the new royal charter.

The deputy prime minister found himself effectively acting as a go-between between the prime minster and Ed Miliband . Clegg spoke to the Labour leader on three occasions during the day – twice before meeting the prime minister and once afterwards.

The reopening of limited all-party talks came amid signs that Cameron is heading for a defeat in the Commons over tabled amendments to the crime and courts bill to establish exemplary damages for media organisations that do not sign up to a new regulatory body. Labour and the Lib Dems, who have 314 MPs to the Tories’ 304 MPs, are planning to table their own amendments to strengthen the planned royal charter establishing the new body.

The Tories and Labour played hardball in what appeared to be something of an operation to paper over changes on all sides. Maria Miller, the culture secretary, was despatched on to the airwaves to say Labour had climbed down.

“Labour has been trying to push through a tough form of statutory regulation for the press with really unacceptable consequences for freedom of speech in this country,” Miller told Sky News. “I think their climbdown from that position has put them much closer to our position and I think that is to be welcomed.”

Labour dismissed Miller’s remarks and insisted that it was standing by its core demands – statutory underpinning of the royal charter, a guarantee of prominent apologies by errant newspapers and no press veto on members of the new regulatory body.

A senior Labour source said: “We are in lock-step with the Lib Dems on this. We are clear we are not going to accept [Cameron's] royal charter. Any agreement must be on the basis of our royal charter. We are planning to go ahead with the votes in the Commons.”

There was silence in Whitehall as the government parties prepared for another round of talks in the runup to the votes in the Commons.

The Tories claim that talks between the party leaders broke down last week when Labour sought to strengthen the royal charter on the basis of last-minute proposals by the Hacked Off campaign group. This prompted the prime minister to call for a Commons vote on his proposals.

One observer said: “It is like a game of poker. On Tuesday, the prime minister called their bluff. Then, at the weekend, when they published their royal charter and seemed to revert to their earlier position, they folded their hand.”

This was dismissed by Labour which said the prime minister appeared to be changing his position. The chancellor indicated that Downing Street may be adopting a more flexible approach when he said he was still hopeful of an all-party agreement.

Osborne told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1: “It would be great on Monday if we can get some kind of agreement, even at this late stage, between the parties. Frankly, press regulation that is achieved in a way that divides the political parties is not a press regulation that is really going to last and it is not a press regulation which is deeply rooted in our culture.

“I would say there is still an opportunity for us to get together and get a press regulation that works.

Ultimately we are not about grandstanding on this. We are about getting a press law that works and protects the press and gives justice to victims of press abuse.”

It is understood that the prime minister may be able to live with a statutory underpinning of the royal charter – one of the key Lib Dem and Labour demands. The legal underpinning is designed to ensure that the royal charter can only be changed by agreement of two thirds of MPs, and not simply, like other royal charters, by ministers.

Cameron believes such underpinning is not necessary but is willing to be flexible because he has seen off what Osborne described as “some all-singing, all-dancing Leveson law”.

But there are still differences over the composition of the regulatory body and on how apologies would be carried.

The prime minister is understood to share the concerns of many in the press that leading lights in the Hacked Off group, such as Brian Cathcart, could find themselves on the new body.

Downing Street said it was unable to answer the latest of several requests from the Guardian to reveal how many meetings the prime minister has had with editors, publishers or representatives of the press.

Spanish party denies slush fund

Category : World News

Spain’s ruling conservatives deny allegations that Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and others benefited from secret party accounts.

Read more here: Spanish party denies slush fund

Post to Twitter

Conservative council leader quits over ‘lie detector’ tests on benefit claimants

Category : Business

Fiona Ferguson resigns saying controversial Voice Risk Analysis software could do enormous damage to Cornwall council

The Conservative group leader at Cornwall council has quit her post over the use of “lie detector” tests on people claiming benefits.

Fiona Ferguson, who was responsible for corporate resources at the unitary authority, cited concerns about the use of voice risk analysis (VRA) software. In her resignation letter to Jim Currie, Tory leader of the council, Ferguson warned that using VRA would not help the council to pursue fraud and would be “extremely damaging to our reputation”.

She added: “It is clearly right that Cornwall council takes a strong line against people who deliberately mis-claim tax benefits but in this case I am more concerned about the impact on the vast majority of honest claimants.”

Ferguson claimed in her resignation email – which was placed online by councillors – that Currie had threatened to sack her from her post if she revealed the details of the lie detector test being used. She also announced that she was launching a petition to require any use of the technology to be approved by a larger meeting of the council.

Private outsourcing company Capita says on its website that VRA is “capable of identifying stress and emotion in a caller’s voice pattern”. The contract will cost the taxpayer about £50,000 but is intended to save many times that amount in preventing false claims, according to Cornwall council which states that research carried out in other areas of the country suggests 4%of single person benefit discounts could be false claims.

A council spokesman said: “As part of this ‘zero tolerance’ approach to fraud, the authority has commissioned Capita to carry out a review of all council tax payers who are receiving a 25% single person discount on their council tax bills.”

He said letters asking for claimants to provide information on their current circumstances have been sent to more than 30,000 households and telephone interviews will be carried out with a number of claimants to verify the details they have provided.

“These interviews will be carried out by trained assessors who will use specialist technology to assist this process,” he said.

Currie said: “There is tremendous pressure on the council’s budget and we need to do everything we can to prevent fraud. This will not affect people making genuine claims but we estimate that identifying and removing inappropriate claims could save the council at least £1m.”

Ferguson’s resignation letter noted that the techniques used by Capita were used by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) on a trial basis in 24 local authorities on the processing of housing benefit between August 2008 and December 2010.

A subsequent report said: “From our findings, it is not possible to demonstrate that VRA works effectively and consistently in the benefits environment. The evidence is not compelling enough to recommend the use of VRA within DWP.”

Capita said it was not commenting on issues surrounding Ferguson’s resignation. In response to the DWP report, the company said: “The selective use of VRA technology for the purposes of verifying high risk applications for council tax single person discount is a useful additional tool in the validation process of identifying fraudulent claims. The technology is not used in isolation.”

Southwark council in London has also reportedly used the Capita technology, to check households where a 25% council tax discount was being claimed. Harrow council said it used VRA software in a pilot scheme for housing benefit and council tax benefit claims, but stopped using it a number of years ago.

Ed Miliband: Old and New Labour no longer relevant in Britain today

Category : Business

One Nation Labour will reach out to voters alienated in the 80s and resist vested interests, party leader will tell Fabian Society

Ed Miliband is to set himself apart from old and New Labour when he declares that both strands in his party’s postwar history have lost relevance in 21st-century Britain.

In his first speech of the new year, Miliband will say his new one nation Labour will reach out to voters alienated by the party in the 1980s while standing up to the vested interests courted by the party in government over the past decade.

“New Labour rightly broke from old Labour and celebrated the power of private enterprise to energise our country,” Miliband will tell the Fabian Society on Saturday. “New Labour, unlike old Labour, pioneered the idea of rights and responsibilities. From crime to welfare to antisocial behaviour, New Labour was clear that we owe duties to each other as citizens.”

But Miliband will say that New Labour, which was famously launched with a “prawn cocktail” charm offensive in the City of London, failed to stand up to big businesses. He will say: “By the time we left office, too many of the people of Britain didn’t feel as if the Labour party was open to their influence, or listening to them.”

The Labour leader sees this speech as a chance to show that his address to the Labour conference last year, in which he first spoke of creating a one nation party, was not just a simple political slogan.

He regards it as a coherent political project which will achieve two broad goals: give an honest account of the party’s past and set out a governing framework for the economy, society and politics.

On the economy, Miliband believes a Labour government would provide greater opportunities than the Tories and New Labour, which “skewed the system to the powerful few”, in the words of one source.

Miliband believes his society theme highlights his determination to focus on greater responsibility from top to bottom, with bankers expected to show restraint in remuneration and responsibility in lending, and welfare recipients expected to seek work.

On the politics theme, Miliband will also focus on empowerment – helping people to feel involved and appreciated.

One example is on immigration, as Miliband makes clear that people should feel free within certain bounds to voice concerns.

He will distance himself from his mentor, Gordon Brown, who famously described the Rochdale pensioner Gillian Duffy as a “bigoted woman” after she raised concerns with the then PM about immigration during the election.

Miliband will say: “I bow to nobody in my celebration of the multi-ethnic, diverse nature of Britain. But high levels of migration were having huge effects on the lives of people in Britain – and too often those in power seemed not to accept this. The fact that they didn’t explains partly why people turned against us in the last general election.”

Miliband will also say that his new approach stands in stark contrast to what is described as the government’s “old trickle-down divisive ideology” in which taxes are cut for the rich while benefits for the poor rise below the rate of inflation.

He will say: “Can David Cameron answer this call for one nation? This week shows yet again why he can’t. At the Ronseal relaunch, all we saw was an empty tin with no vision for the future of our country and an attempt to divide the country between scroungers and strivers.”