The Daily Mail got the exclusive today:

Disgraced former RBS boss Fred Goodwin was told this afternoon that his knighthood is being removed by order of the Queen.

The unprecedented step was taken on the recommendation of a secretive Whitehall body which is responsible for ensuring the honours system does not fall into disrepute.

But as others pointed out:

Fred the Shred loses knighthood, Hester rejects £1m bonus. Phew, says City, diversion worked, business as usual, no regulation please.

— Jerome Taylor (@JeromeTaylor) January 31, 2012

On Saturday four Sun journalists were abruptly arrested by the Metropolitan Police in an investigation into police bribery.

The arrests sent shock-waves through the press because it was the first time that prominent Sun executives had been targeted.

The Guardian reported:

A Scotland Yard spokesman said that Saturday’s operation was the result of information provided by News Corp. “It relates to suspected payments to police officers and is not about seeking journalists to reveal confidential sources in relation to information that has been obtained legitimately,” the spokesman said.

The four Sun employees have now been suspended by the paper on full pay.

But here’s why this has massive implications. One of those arrested on suspicion of was former Sun managing editor Graham Dudman.

But, as the Leveson inquiry notes (hat-tip Tom Watson):

On 26 March 2007, the Managing Editor, Graham Dudman, said that he wanted to make it “absolutely clear The Sun deplores the type of snooping revealed by the [Clive] Goodman case and we have in the past made strenuous efforts to ensure that type of conduct does not happen at the Sun”.
…
With regard to the other issue raised by the Goodman case, namely, cash payments being made to contributors, Mr Dudman confirmed that no payments were made by The Sun without the personal written authorisation of the Editor or the Editor of the day. Once signed, each payment would have to be approved by him or the Deputy Managing Editor and a permanent paper record of all cash payments would be retained.

[my emphasis]. If illegal payments had been made to the police for information, and had been signed off by the editor or senior executives – then this can of worms has just been opened.

Bad news for the left and the Labour party yesterday from YouGov:

YouGov’s Peter Kellner said that from the beginning of 2011 to 2012, public opinion changed as such:

* The proportion of people expecting their family’s finances to get worse has declined, from 64% to 53%

* The proportion expecting public spending cuts to have an impact on their own life has fallen from 72% to 62%

* The number accusing the Government of cutting spending too fast is down from 58% to 48%

* The proportion saying the cuts are necessary is up from 55 to 60%, while the number saying they are unnecessary is down from 34% to 26%.

Remember – these are figures over an entire year, not just recently. Though I’d like to see if they showed sudden movement during that period.

YouGov’s Peter Kellner says:

One big reason why it isn’t is that, despite the rise in unemployment, the Government is winning the argument about the necessity for spending cuts and who should be blamed for them. Compared with last January, there has been no material change in the numbers: almost twice as many voters still pin most blame on Labour rather than the Conservatives.

It can’t be denied that despite vigorous campaigning on the left about the cuts – the public still blame Labour for them (for ‘spending too much’) and as a result don’t want to punish the government for them.

Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liam Byrne has finally picked up on the issue of profiteering by private landlords, and how that drives up housing benefit.

In a letter to Nick Clegg he said that billions of taxpayers money was “flowing straight into the hands of private landlords”.

He said the government needed to look at how to regulate the private landlords “who have done so much to drive up the costs of housing benefit”.

These private landlords currently receive a public subsidy to make enormous profit on properties often in a very poor state of repair. Why are we letting them get away with this?

Responsibility has to run all the way through society – the majority of private landlords provide decent accommodation at a fair price – now it is time for every landlord to live up to those standards.

Our message to the Government is simple. We all agree on the principle of a benefit cap. But let’s not pretend that will solve every problem. The bill for housing benefit is too high – and it won’t come down to a reasonable level until we build more homes including at affordable rents, set higher standards for decent rented accommodation and clamp down on profiteering private landlords once and for all.

It’s not clear why Laim Byrne did not decide to begin with this narrative from the start of the welfare cap debate.

A new site called ‘Talking Climate‘ has been launched to offer information and research on climate change communication.

They say that there is a great deal of research on climate change communication.

But too often this valuable knowledge doesn’t reach the people who need it most: climate change communicators. At the same time, researchers are often unaware of how to promote their work beyond academic journals.

At Taking Climate, the best research evidence is translated into practical guides on a wide range of topics, ensuring academics and practitioners get the most from climate change communication research.

Talking Climate is a partnership between the Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN), the Public Interest Research Centre (PIRC) and Nottingham University School of Sociology and Social Policy.

The site launches with a comprehensive and regularly updated database of academic papers, a newsletter, and a blog featuring comment and analysis from climate change communication experts.

Talking Climate

Related
Sunny Hundal – The climate change message is not being heard. Here’s how to change tack