Aerial photographs show the extent of the destruction wrought by the powerful tornado in Oklahoma. Officials searching through the rubble have revised the death toll in Moore down from 51 to 24, saying every home has been searched at least once

CAIRO (AP) -- Six Egyptian policemen and a border guard kidnapped by suspected militants in the volatile Sinai Peninsula last week were freed by their captors Wednesday after successful mediation, the country's military spokesman said....

KATMANDU, Nepal (AP) -- An 80-year-old Japanese extreme skier who climbed Mount Everest five years ago, but just missed becoming the oldest man to reach the summit, was back on the mountain Wednesday to make another attempt at the title....

MOORE, Okla. (AP) -- With an ominous storm approaching, the Moore Public School District flashed a text alert to parents: "We are currently holding all students until the current storm danger is over. Students are being released to parents only at this time."...

NEW YORK (AP) -- Anthony Weiner's run for a renaissance is officially on....

PYONGYANG, North Korea (AP) -- After months of ignoring China's warnings to give up its nuclear program, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sent a high-level confidant to Beijing on Wednesday, in a possible effort to mend strained ties with its most important ally and the latest sign that Pyongyang may be giving diplomacy a chance....

MOORE, Okla. (AP) -- With her son holding her elbow, Colleen Arvin walked up her driveway to what was left of her house for 40 years....

CANNES, France (AP) -- Associated Press journalists open their notebooks at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival....

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A House committee taking Congress' latest look at the Internal Revenue Service's mistreatment of tea party groups will apparently have to do so without input from the star witness....

PHOENIX (AP) -- In a surprise jailhouse interview just hours after a jury began deliberating her fate, Jodi Arias spoke out Tuesday about her murder trial, her many fights with her legal team and her belief that she "deserves a second chance at freedom someday."...

Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and the stories that will be talked about today:...

Labour leader cites Google founders' 2004 promise in which they said they would forgo short-term gains to do good things

Labour Leader Ed Miliband has said Google is "wrong" to avoid paying taxes on UK revenues, citing its founders' 2004 promise to to forgo short-term gains in order to do good things.

At an event hosted by the search giant near London, Miliband also pledged that a future Labour government would change laws unilaterally to stop "transfer pricing" by which companies such as Amazon shift profits between countries and to increase transparency about profits and revenues. Miliband called the system "crazy" and said he would also lead a crackdown on offshore tax havens.

He warned too that internet companies risked taking the same approach as banks had during the early part of the century, when their corporate culture meant they took a short-term approach which ignored wider effects.

Speaking at the company's annual "Big Tent" event, Miliband pointed to the letter written by founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 2004 in which they said they would sometimes ignore short-term interests in favour of the long term.

Miliband read out the passage, in which Page and Brin wrote: "Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served – as shareholders and in all other ways – by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short-term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company."

Referring to that, the Labour leader said: "I can't be the only person in this room who feels deeply disappointed that a great company like Google with great founding principles should be reduced to arguing that even though it employs thousands of people here in Britain, makes billions of pounds in revenue here in Britain, that it's fair that it should pay just a fraction of 1% of that in tax."

Miliband referred to comments by Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who has previously said that Google's tax arrangements – by which "sales" are begun in the UK but "completed" in Ireland, where it pays a small corporation tax rate – are "just capitalism".

Miliband retorted: "I'm sorry that Eric Schmidt isn't here this morning to hear me say this directly. When Google does great things I will praise you. But when Eric Schmidt says that its current approach to tax is just capitalism, I disagree. And when when Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong. And it's not just me that says it, it's Google's founding principles, and it's crystal clear from them."

He said that paying fair levels of taxes was important to support health, education and transport services, and was part of "responsible capitalism".

• Google
• Eric Schmidt
• Internet
• Ed Miliband
• Tax avoidance
• Corporate governance

Charles Arthur
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    

Our photo coverage of the day's events in the UK and around the world

When Google does great things for the world, I applaud. When it goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, it's wrong

This is the prepared text of a speech delivered at Google's Big Tent event on the morning of Wednesday 22 May, 2013.

It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent.

My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the "Killer Robots" and the "Captain of the Moonshots" at your sessions.

I'd like to start by showing you four pictures and asking you to decide which is the odd one out, because it's reveals the theme of my talk: what kind of future we want to build.

The first is my dad. His name was Ralph Miliband. He was a Marxist professor.

The second is Willy Wonka, the genius who owns the factory in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and eventually gives it all away to Charlie's family.

The third is Margaret Hodge, Labour chair of the public accounts committee, who, as you know, has been very critical of Google in the last few days.

And the fourth is Google, along with your founding slogan: "Don't be evil".

So, as they say on "Have I Got News from You?", I'd like people to tell me who is the odd one out.

Well, I'll tell you my answer.

My answer is that it is my dad.

Because he's the only one who thought that the route to a fair society was not through capitalism but through socialism based on public ownership.

It wasn't just my dad who thought it, of course.

Until 1995 this view was enshrined on the membership card of the party I now lead.

Tony Blair got rid of it and rightly so, because nationalising the major industries is not the route to a fair society.

Nowadays, there are some people who will tell you that because capitalism is here to stay there aren't really any choices any more about what kind of society we need.

But I don't believe that either.

So here's another four people that might tell us why.

First, here's Richard O'Neill, he's a small businessman who runs a small company called School Office Services in London and despite it being a highly competitive industry, he prides himself on paying all of his workers a living wage.

The second is Muhammad Yunus, the microfinance genius, who won the Nobel peace prize.

The third is Charlie Mayfield, who is head of Britain's major employee-owned retail chain, John Lewis, sharing its profits with its workforce.

And, the fourth is Montgomery Burns, who runs the nuclear power plant in The Simpsons.

Now, the odd one out is obvious this time.

It is Mr Burns.

He's not such a good guy.

He leaves radioactive nuggets lying around.

Of course, he is cartoon character, but I could have substituted him with RBS or some of the other big banks before the financial crash.

He illustrates my case today because there is a choice to make.

A choice between an "irresponsible capitalism" which sees huge gaps between the richest and the poorest, power concentrated in a few hands, and people are just in it for the fast buck whatever the consequences.

And a "responsible capitalism", and this is an agenda being led by business, where companies pursues profit but we also have a equal society, power is in the hands of the many and where we recognise our responsibilities to each other.

And my case is a "responsible capitalism" isn't only fairer but we're more likely to succeed as a country with it.

Now, this is an argument I have made for the last two years, as leader of the Labour party.

And today I want to apply it to the internet and the digital age.

The possibilities of the internet

On the face of it, we have many reasons to believe that digital technology is taking us to a more "responsible capitalism".

Digital technology has opened up markets to people who used to have no access to them it, from the African farmer to the small business people in my constituency.

From politics to media, it helps break down old hierarchies.

And by making the world more interconnected, the internet creates communities that are more likely to see their responsibilities to each other.

And of course, Google is at forefront of this.

People all over the world rely on you.

And from your search engine, to Gmail, to Google Glass, you have been at the cutting edge of all this revolution.

And I applaud you for your innovation.

Big choices remain

Of course, you are used to politicians coming and saying this sort of thing.

But if that's all there was to it, there weren't any big questions that we need to resolve, then frankly I am not sure I should be here.

But there are choices we need to make.

The internet opens up opportunities for millions, but countries and people can be left behind.

The internet breaks down old hierarchies but it can also create new powerful vested interests.

And the internet connects people across the globe, but it can also enable footloose global companies to shirk their responsibilities.

The rules that we set, the behaviour we encourage, and the cultures we reward will all help to determine which future we end up in.

Whether our economy has more Mr Burns or more Charlie Mayfields.

Creative people

Let me start with how we give every individual an opportunity to benefit from the internet and how we avoid being left behind as a country.

There are still 2.6 million households in Britain without access to basic broadband.

And there are millions of people in Britain who have never used the internet.

That digital divide excludes the potential designers, innovators, entrepreneurs of the future.

We've got to turn it around.

It's bad for them and it is wrong for our country.

But taking advantage of the internet goes far beyond access.

It is about putting creativity at the heart of our education system.

Google has recognised this by distributing Raspberry Pi computers to schools across the country.

But we need to take that insight and use it to transform the way our whole national education system works.

Unfortunately, our education is going in the opposite direction.

Schools are spending 15% less time on art, design and technology in England, compared to only three years ago.

There are over a third fewer teachers being trained in these subjects.

And it is no wonder.

The government's favoured EBacc simply doesn't include creative and vocational subjects.

Art, design, technology and creativity have been rendered second class.

But this is precisely the wrong message to be sending out to schools.

Just think about Sir Jony Ive.

As a kid his Christmas present every year was a day in the classroom with his parents who were design teachers.

Sir Jony went on to change the world by designing the iMac and iPad.

We need to make sure the next generation aren't just good at using Google, Facebook, and YouTube, but are also designing and creating the next phase of the digital world.

That's why we have to put art, design and technology back at the heart of our education system.

An economy made by the many

The second part of our task is to harness the ability of the internet to transform our economy.

In particular making sure that power isn't concentrated in a few hands, but we allow the smallest firms to flourish.

Enabling individual creators to work hand-in-hand both with the public sector and with global companies as they design the next generation of technology.

That will only happen if the big firms don't squeeze out their smaller rivals.

Sometimes markets themselves see off this danger.

Like Google did when it gave Android to the world, open source.

It prevented the smartphone market being monopolised.

But we can't rely on the private sector alone.

In the public sector the principle should be create more open access.

Think of our great public institutions, like the BBC and the British Library, there is more we can do to open them up, through digital public space.

Think of the old world where you had to go to the British Library, where you had to go and have a membership card to get in.

Then imagine a world where you don't need to go to the British Library with an exclusive membership card to access to the amazing archives they have.

Helping a whole new generation of small businesses in this country.

We also need to make sure there are proper financial returns to creativity.

So Labour is working with the present government, starting with the Bill currently going through Parliament, to resolve the problems over copyrighting, piracy and intellectual property.

And finally, there needs to be regulation that responds to the complexity of the internet.

Preventing monopolies arising while being careful not to stifle creativity and we should work with the industry to make sure that doesn't happen.

The case has been made, including in our Small Business Taskforce, that Britain needs a digital ombudsman to track anti-competitive practices as they emerge, and provide information to government as they work with regulation at a European level.

We welcome people's views about whether this is a sensible way forward.

Above all, if we're to have a responsible capitalism we need to make sure that the opportunity offered by the internet is spread to a large number of small businesses not restricted to a small number of large ones.

Responsible companies

To create a more responsible capitalism, we also need responsible companies.

It is great that the Google Big Tent encourages debate on every issue.

And I want to engage with you on the issue of tax that has been so prominent in the last few days: with Google, Apple and Amazon all in the spotlight.

The first and primary responsibility of government is to get the law right.

I welcome Google's call for international tax reform.

The government should be putting forward proposals now to make this happen at the G8.

Those proposals should guarantee country by country reporting transparency to show how much profit firms are making and tax they're paying.

Reform of the rules on transfer pricing to stop companies from shifting profits unfairly.

A crackdown on tax havens as well.

I hope Google will support us in our endeavours.

And, let me say, if we cannot get international agreement, a Labour government will act here at home.

But does the responsible company need to do more than obey the letter of the law?

My answer is yes.

In Google's 2004 IPO prospectus, it said:

"Don't be evil. [We will] be stronger in the long term, we will be better served – as shareholders and in all other ways – by a company that does good things for the world, even if we forego some short-term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared in the company."

So you were saying: Your employees want a culture where they feel they are doing the right thing.

Your customers want it too.

Our society depends on the right messages being sent out from the top.

And the reputation of business depends on the most prominent businesses doing the right thing.

That's why I spoke out after the Select Committee hearings last week.

I can't be the only person here who feels disappointed that such a great company as Google, with such great founding principles, will be reduced to arguing that when it employs thousands of people in Britain, makes billions of pounds of revenue in Britain, it's fair that it should pay just a fraction of one per cent of that in tax.

So when Google does great things for the world, I applaud you.

But when Eric Schmidt says, its current approach to tax is just "capitalism", I disagree.

And it's a shame Eric Schmidt isn't here to hear me say this direct: when Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong.

And it's not just me that thinks it.

It is crystal clear from your own founding principles.

Conclusion

So these are some of the ways we create a more responsible capitalism.

A society that is more equal not less.

Where power is spread to the many, not concentrated in the hands of the few.

And where we show our responsibilities to each other.

I started with my dad and I will end with him.

He was wrong about public ownership.

But he was right about something else.

He was a refugee here in Britain.

Who came here at the age of 16 in 1940.

And he joined the Royal Navy.

He used to talk about those days in the Navy, where people of all backgrounds, all walks of life, came together for a common purpose.

That's how Great Britain succeeds.

That's how great companies succeed.

That's what responsible capitalism is about.

That's what I call One Nation.

That's the future we must build together.

• Google
• Tax avoidance
• Corporate governance
• John Lewis
• Retail industry
• United States
• Labour

Ed Miliband
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    

When Google does great things for the world, I applaud. When it goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, it's wrong

This is the prepared text of a speech delivered at Google's Big Tent event on the morning of Wednesday 22 May, 2013.

It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent.

My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the "Killer Robots" and the "Captain of the Moonshots" at your sessions.

I'd like to start by showing you four pictures and asking you to decide which is the odd one out, because it's reveals the theme of my talk: what kind of future we want to build.

The first is my dad. His name was Ralph Miliband. He was a Marxist professor.

The second is Willy Wonka, the genius who owns the factory in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and eventually gives it all away to Charlie's family.

The third is Margaret Hodge, Labour chair of the public accounts committee, who, as you know, has been very critical of Google in the last few days.

And the fourth is Google, along with your founding slogan: "Don't be evil".

So, as they say on "Have I Got News from You?", I'd like people to tell me who is the odd one out.

Well, I'll tell you my answer.

My answer is that it is my dad.

Because he's the only one who thought that the route to a fair society was not through capitalism but through socialism based on public ownership.

It wasn't just my dad who thought it, of course.

Until 1995 this view was enshrined on the membership card of the party I now lead.

Tony Blair got rid of it and rightly so, because nationalising the major industries is not the route to a fair society.

Nowadays, there are some people who will tell you that because capitalism is here to stay there aren't really any choices any more about what kind of society we need.

But I don't believe that either.

So here's another four people that might tell us why.

First, here's Richard O'Neill, he's a small businessman who runs a small company called School Office Services in London and despite it being a highly competitive industry, he prides himself on paying all of his workers a living wage.

The second is Muhammad Yunus, the microfinance genius, who won the Nobel peace prize.

The third is Charlie Mayfield, who is head of Britain's major employee-owned retail chain, John Lewis, sharing its profits with its workforce.

And, the fourth is Montgomery Burns, who runs the nuclear power plant in The Simpsons.

Now, the odd one out is obvious this time.

It is Mr Burns.

He's not such a good guy.

He leaves radioactive nuggets lying around.

Of course, he is cartoon character, but I could have substituted him with RBS or some of the other big banks before the financial crash.

He illustrates my case today because there is a choice to make.

A choice between an "irresponsible capitalism" which sees huge gaps between the richest and the poorest, power concentrated in a few hands, and people are just in it for the fast buck whatever the consequences.

And a "responsible capitalism", and this is an agenda being led by business, where companies pursues profit but we also have a equal society, power is in the hands of the many and where we recognise our responsibilities to each other.

And my case is a "responsible capitalism" isn't only fairer but we're more likely to succeed as a country with it.

Now, this is an argument I have made for the last two years, as leader of the Labour party.

And today I want to apply it to the internet and the digital age.

The possibilities of the internet

On the face of it, we have many reasons to believe that digital technology is taking us to a more "responsible capitalism".

Digital technology has opened up markets to people who used to have no access to them it, from the African farmer to the small business people in my constituency.

From politics to media, it helps break down old hierarchies.

And by making the world more interconnected, the internet creates communities that are more likely to see their responsibilities to each other.

And of course, Google is at forefront of this.

People all over the world rely on you.

And from your search engine, to Gmail, to Google Glass, you have been at the cutting edge of all this revolution.

And I applaud you for your innovation.

Big choices remain

Of course, you are used to politicians coming and saying this sort of thing.

But if that's all there was to it, there weren't any big questions that we need to resolve, then frankly I am not sure I should be here.

But there are choices we need to make.

The internet opens up opportunities for millions, but countries and people can be left behind.

The internet breaks down old hierarchies but it can also create new powerful vested interests.

And the internet connects people across the globe, but it can also enable footloose global companies to shirk their responsibilities.

The rules that we set, the behaviour we encourage, and the cultures we reward will all help to determine which future we end up in.

Whether our economy has more Mr Burns or more Charlie Mayfields.

Creative people

Let me start with how we give every individual an opportunity to benefit from the internet and how we avoid being left behind as a country.

There are still 2.6 million households in Britain without access to basic broadband.

And there are millions of people in Britain who have never used the internet.

That digital divide excludes the potential designers, innovators, entrepreneurs of the future.

We've got to turn it around.

It's bad for them and it is wrong for our country.

But taking advantage of the internet goes far beyond access.

It is about putting creativity at the heart of our education system.

Google has recognised this by distributing Raspberry Pi computers to schools across the country.

But we need to take that insight and use it to transform the way our whole national education system works.

Unfortunately, our education is going in the opposite direction.

Schools are spending 15% less time on art, design and technology in England, compared to only three years ago.

There are over a third fewer teachers being trained in these subjects.

And it is no wonder.

The government's favoured EBacc simply doesn't include creative and vocational subjects.

Art, design, technology and creativity have been rendered second class.

But this is precisely the wrong message to be sending out to schools.

Just think about Sir Jony Ive.

As a kid his Christmas present every year was a day in the classroom with his parents who were design teachers.

Sir Jony went on to change the world by designing the iMac and iPad.

We need to make sure the next generation aren't just good at using Google, Facebook, and YouTube, but are also designing and creating the next phase of the digital world.

That's why we have to put art, design and technology back at the heart of our education system.

An economy made by the many

The second part of our task is to harness the ability of the internet to transform our economy.

In particular making sure that power isn't concentrated in a few hands, but we allow the smallest firms to flourish.

Enabling individual creators to work hand-in-hand both with the public sector and with global companies as they design the next generation of technology.

That will only happen if the big firms don't squeeze out their smaller rivals.

Sometimes markets themselves see off this danger.

Like Google did when it gave Android to the world, open source.

It prevented the smartphone market being monopolised.

But we can't rely on the private sector alone.

In the public sector the principle should be create more open access.

Think of our great public institutions, like the BBC and the British Library, there is more we can do to open them up, through digital public space.

Think of the old world where you had to go to the British Library, where you had to go and have a membership card to get in.

Then imagine a world where you don't need to go to the British Library with an exclusive membership card to access to the amazing archives they have.

Helping a whole new generation of small businesses in this country.

We also need to make sure there are proper financial returns to creativity.

So Labour is working with the present government, starting with the Bill currently going through Parliament, to resolve the problems over copyrighting, piracy and intellectual property.

And finally, there needs to be regulation that responds to the complexity of the internet.

Preventing monopolies arising while being careful not to stifle creativity and we should work with the industry to make sure that doesn't happen.

The case has been made, including in our Small Business Taskforce, that Britain needs a digital ombudsman to track anti-competitive practices as they emerge, and provide information to government as they work with regulation at a European level.

We welcome people's views about whether this is a sensible way forward.

Above all, if we're to have a responsible capitalism we need to make sure that the opportunity offered by the internet is spread to a large number of small businesses not restricted to a small number of large ones.

Responsible companies

To create a more responsible capitalism, we also need responsible companies.

It is great that the Google Big Tent encourages debate on every issue.

And I want to engage with you on the issue of tax that has been so prominent in the last few days: with Google, Apple and Amazon all in the spotlight.

The first and primary responsibility of government is to get the law right.

I welcome Google's call for international tax reform.

The government should be putting forward proposals now to make this happen at the G8.

Those proposals should guarantee country by country reporting transparency to show how much profit firms are making and tax they're paying.

Reform of the rules on transfer pricing to stop companies from shifting profits unfairly.

A crackdown on tax havens as well.

I hope Google will support us in our endeavours.

And, let me say, if we cannot get international agreement, a Labour government will act here at home.

But does the responsible company need to do more than obey the letter of the law?

My answer is yes.

In Google's 2004 IPO prospectus, it said:

"Don't be evil. [We will] be stronger in the long term, we will be better served – as shareholders and in all other ways – by a company that does good things for the world, even if we forego some short-term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared in the company."

So you were saying: Your employees want a culture where they feel they are doing the right thing.

Your customers want it too.

Our society depends on the right messages being sent out from the top.

And the reputation of business depends on the most prominent businesses doing the right thing.

That's why I spoke out after the Select Committee hearings last week.

I can't be the only person here who feels disappointed that such a great company as Google, with such great founding principles, will be reduced to arguing that when it employs thousands of people in Britain, makes billions of pounds of revenue in Britain, it's fair that it should pay just a fraction of one per cent of that in tax.

So when Google does great things for the world, I applaud you.

But when Eric Schmidt says, its current approach to tax is just "capitalism", I disagree.

And it's a shame Eric Schmidt isn't here to hear me say this direct: when Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong.

And it's not just me that thinks it.

It is crystal clear from your own founding principles.

Conclusion

So these are some of the ways we create a more responsible capitalism.

A society that is more equal not less.

Where power is spread to the many, not concentrated in the hands of the few.

And where we show our responsibilities to each other.

I started with my dad and I will end with him.

He was wrong about public ownership.

But he was right about something else.

He was a refugee here in Britain.

Who came here at the age of 16 in 1940.

And he joined the Royal Navy.

He used to talk about those days in the Navy, where people of all backgrounds, all walks of life, came together for a common purpose.

That's how Great Britain succeeds.

That's how great companies succeed.

That's what responsible capitalism is about.

That's what I call One Nation.

That's the future we must build together.

• Google
• Tax avoidance
• Corporate governance
• John Lewis
• Retail industry
• United States
• Labour

Ed Miliband
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

When Google does great things for the world, I applaud. When it goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, it's wrong

This is the prepared text of a speech delivered at Google's Big Tent event on the morning of Wednesday 22 May, 2013.

It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent.

My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the "Killer Robots" and the "Captain of the Moonshots" at your sessions.

I'd like to start by showing you four pictures and asking you to decide which is the odd one out, because it's reveals the theme of my talk: what kind of future we want to build.

The first is my dad. His name was Ralph Miliband. He was a Marxist professor.

The second is Willy Wonka, the genius who owns the factory in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and eventually gives it all away to Charlie's family.

The third is Margaret Hodge, Labour chair of the public accounts committee, who, as you know, has been very critical of Google in the last few days.

And the fourth is Google, along with your founding slogan: "Don't be evil".

So, as they say on "Have I Got News from You?", I'd like people to tell me who is the odd one out.

Well, I'll tell you my answer.

My answer is that it is my dad.

Because he's the only one who thought that the route to a fair society was not through capitalism but through socialism based on public ownership.

It wasn't just my dad who thought it, of course.

Until 1995 this view was enshrined on the membership card of the party I now lead.

Tony Blair got rid of it and rightly so, because nationalising the major industries is not the route to a fair society.

Nowadays, there are some people who will tell you that because capitalism is here to stay there aren't really any choices any more about what kind of society we need.

But I don't believe that either.

So here's another four people that might tell us why.

First, here's Richard O'Neill, he's a small businessman who runs a small company called School Office Services in London and despite it being a highly competitive industry, he prides himself on paying all of his workers a living wage.

The second is Muhammad Yunus, the microfinance genius, who won the Nobel peace prize.

The third is Charlie Mayfield, who is head of Britain's major employee-owned retail chain, John Lewis, sharing its profits with its workforce.

And, the fourth is Montgomery Burns, who runs the nuclear power plant in The Simpsons.

Now, the odd one out is obvious this time.

It is Mr Burns.

He's not such a good guy.

He leaves radioactive nuggets lying around.

Of course, he is cartoon character, but I could have substituted him with RBS or some of the other big banks before the financial crash.

He illustrates my case today because there is a choice to make.

A choice between an "irresponsible capitalism" which sees huge gaps between the richest and the poorest, power concentrated in a few hands, and people are just in it for the fast buck whatever the consequences.

And a "responsible capitalism", and this is an agenda being led by business, where companies pursues profit but we also have a equal society, power is in the hands of the many and where we recognise our responsibilities to each other.

And my case is a "responsible capitalism" isn't only fairer but we're more likely to succeed as a country with it.

Now, this is an argument I have made for the last two years, as leader of the Labour party.

And today I want to apply it to the internet and the digital age.

The possibilities of the internet

On the face of it, we have many reasons to believe that digital technology is taking us to a more "responsible capitalism".

Digital technology has opened up markets to people who used to have no access to them it, from the African farmer to the small business people in my constituency.

From politics to media, it helps break down old hierarchies.

And by making the world more interconnected, the internet creates communities that are more likely to see their responsibilities to each other.

And of course, Google is at forefront of this.

People all over the world rely on you.

And from your search engine, to Gmail, to Google Glass, you have been at the cutting edge of all this revolution.

And I applaud you for your innovation.

Big choices remain

Of course, you are used to politicians coming and saying this sort of thing.

But if that's all there was to it, there weren't any big questions that we need to resolve, then frankly I am not sure I should be here.

But there are choices we need to make.

The internet opens up opportunities for millions, but countries and people can be left behind.

The internet breaks down old hierarchies but it can also create new powerful vested interests.

And the internet connects people across the globe, but it can also enable footloose global companies to shirk their responsibilities.

The rules that we set, the behaviour we encourage, and the cultures we reward will all help to determine which future we end up in.

Whether our economy has more Mr Burns or more Charlie Mayfields.

Creative people

Let me start with how we give every individual an opportunity to benefit from the internet and how we avoid being left behind as a country.

There are still 2.6 million households in Britain without access to basic broadband.

And there are millions of people in Britain who have never used the internet.

That digital divide excludes the potential designers, innovators, entrepreneurs of the future.

We've got to turn it around.

It's bad for them and it is wrong for our country.

But taking advantage of the internet goes far beyond access.

It is about putting creativity at the heart of our education system.

Google has recognised this by distributing Raspberry Pi computers to schools across the country.

But we need to take that insight and use it to transform the way our whole national education system works.

Unfortunately, our education is going in the opposite direction.

Schools are spending 15% less time on art, design and technology in England, compared to only three years ago.

There are over a third fewer teachers being trained in these subjects.

And it is no wonder.

The government's favoured EBacc simply doesn't include creative and vocational subjects.

Art, design, technology and creativity have been rendered second class.

But this is precisely the wrong message to be sending out to schools.

Just think about Sir Jony Ive.

As a kid his Christmas present every year was a day in the classroom with his parents who were design teachers.

Sir Jony went on to change the world by designing the iMac and iPad.

We need to make sure the next generation aren't just good at using Google, Facebook, and YouTube, but are also designing and creating the next phase of the digital world.

That's why we have to put art, design and technology back at the heart of our education system.

An economy made by the many

The second part of our task is to harness the ability of the internet to transform our economy.

In particular making sure that power isn't concentrated in a few hands, but we allow the smallest firms to flourish.

Enabling individual creators to work hand-in-hand both with the public sector and with global companies as they design the next generation of technology.

That will only happen if the big firms don't squeeze out their smaller rivals.

Sometimes markets themselves see off this danger.

Like Google did when it gave Android to the world, open source.

It prevented the smartphone market being monopolised.

But we can't rely on the private sector alone.

In the public sector the principle should be create more open access.

Think of our great public institutions, like the BBC and the British Library, there is more we can do to open them up, through digital public space.

Think of the old world where you had to go to the British Library, where you had to go and have a membership card to get in.

Then imagine a world where you don't need to go to the British Library with an exclusive membership card to access to the amazing archives they have.

Helping a whole new generation of small businesses in this country.

We also need to make sure there are proper financial returns to creativity.

So Labour is working with the present government, starting with the Bill currently going through Parliament, to resolve the problems over copyrighting, piracy and intellectual property.

And finally, there needs to be regulation that responds to the complexity of the internet.

Preventing monopolies arising while being careful not to stifle creativity and we should work with the industry to make sure that doesn't happen.

The case has been made, including in our Small Business Taskforce, that Britain needs a digital ombudsman to track anti-competitive practices as they emerge, and provide information to government as they work with regulation at a European level.

We welcome people's views about whether this is a sensible way forward.

Above all, if we're to have a responsible capitalism we need to make sure that the opportunity offered by the internet is spread to a large number of small businesses not restricted to a small number of large ones.

Responsible companies

To create a more responsible capitalism, we also need responsible companies.

It is great that the Google Big Tent encourages debate on every issue.

And I want to engage with you on the issue of tax that has been so prominent in the last few days: with Google, Apple and Amazon all in the spotlight.

The first and primary responsibility of government is to get the law right.

I welcome Google's call for international tax reform.

The government should be putting forward proposals now to make this happen at the G8.

Those proposals should guarantee country by country reporting transparency to show how much profit firms are making and tax they're paying.

Reform of the rules on transfer pricing to stop companies from shifting profits unfairly.

A crackdown on tax havens as well.

I hope Google will support us in our endeavours.

And, let me say, if we cannot get international agreement, a Labour government will act here at home.

But does the responsible company need to do more than obey the letter of the law?

My answer is yes.

In Google's 2004 IPO prospectus, it said:

"Don't be evil. [We will] be stronger in the long term, we will be better served – as shareholders and in all other ways – by a company that does good things for the world, even if we forego some short-term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared in the company."

So you were saying: Your employees want a culture where they feel they are doing the right thing.

Your customers want it too.

Our society depends on the right messages being sent out from the top.

And the reputation of business depends on the most prominent businesses doing the right thing.

That's why I spoke out after the Select Committee hearings last week.

I can't be the only person here who feels disappointed that such a great company as Google, with such great founding principles, will be reduced to arguing that when it employs thousands of people in Britain, makes billions of pounds of revenue in Britain, it's fair that it should pay just a fraction of one per cent of that in tax.

So when Google does great things for the world, I applaud you.

But when Eric Schmidt says, its current approach to tax is just "capitalism", I disagree.

And it's a shame Eric Schmidt isn't here to hear me say this direct: when Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong.

And it's not just me that thinks it.

It is crystal clear from your own founding principles.

Conclusion

So these are some of the ways we create a more responsible capitalism.

A society that is more equal not less.

Where power is spread to the many, not concentrated in the hands of the few.

And where we show our responsibilities to each other.

I started with my dad and I will end with him.

He was wrong about public ownership.

But he was right about something else.

He was a refugee here in Britain.

Who came here at the age of 16 in 1940.

And he joined the Royal Navy.

He used to talk about those days in the Navy, where people of all backgrounds, all walks of life, came together for a common purpose.

That's how Great Britain succeeds.

That's how great companies succeed.

That's what responsible capitalism is about.

That's what I call One Nation.

That's the future we must build together.

• Google
• Tax avoidance
• Corporate governance
• John Lewis
• Retail industry
• United States
• Labour

Ed Miliband
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Ed Miliband also warns Eric Schmidt at Google conference that it's wrong for multinationals not to pay fair share

Nick Clegg raised the controversy over Google's tax affairs directly with the internet giant's chairman Eric Schmidt at a meeting in Downing Street this week, the deputy prime minister revealed.

News of his intervention came as Labour leader Ed Miliband told Schmidt at a conference: "When Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong."

Clegg told Schmidt his company was among those causing massive public concern over the amount of tax it pays, and it was not in the long-term interests of his own company, as he himself was discovering. David Cameron did not mention Google by name when discussing his drive for greater tax transparency with business leaders at the meeting on Monday.

The issue is hurtling up the political agenda amid successive corporate tax avoidance scandals, and growing demands by world leaders for concerted international co-operation to transform the international tax code for a digital global age.

Cameron on Wednesday was due to urge an EU summit to make progress on tax transparency. Miliband this week criticised the PM – who has vowed to make tax a top priority for the UK's presidency of the G8 this year – over his failure to confront Schmidt on the issue .

Miliband told the Google-hosted conference on Wednesday: "When Google does great things for the world, I applaud you. But when Eric Schmidt says, its current approach to tax is just 'capitalism', I disagree. And it's a shame Eric Schmidt isn't here to hear me say this direct: when Google goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying its taxes, I say it's wrong.

"And it's not just me that thinks it. It is crystal clear from your own founding principles."

Google paid only £10m in corporation tax in the UK between 2006 and 2011, despite revenues of £11.9bn.

Clegg told a press conference in London this morning: "My overall approach to tax is the obvious one. I put this directly to Eric Schmidt from Google and other business leaders at a meeting in Downing Street a couple of days ago.

"We are bringing the tax burden on corporations down by lowering the rate of corporation tax but in return people have to pay their fair share."

He said tax havens were symptoms of the growing pains of globalisation. "You have got tax systems that are national, rooted in an old economy, and now we have got these new corporate goliaths that operate in this disembodied way, particularly in the digital sector, who quite unsurprisingly think they can exploit the best deal for themselves in the cracks and crevices between the national tax systems.

"What we can do and what we are doing, absolutely at the core of our G8 agenda, is to say we have got to ensure the rules apply more evenly across the piece so big companies can't play cat and mouse with the tax system."

Aides stressed that Clegg's comments to Schmidt, made during a regular meeting of the PM's Business Advisory Group, should not be seen as a "dressing down". The deputy PM raised the issue of Google's tax affairs in a "polite but firm" way as an example of the controversies which have embroiled a number of major companies in recent months, said an aide.

Clegg told Schmidt there was massive public concern "as Google are finding out" that, at a time of austerity for ordinary households and businesses, big companies should pay their fair share of tax.

Clegg also admitted that some European Union nations such as Ireland were making it harder to reach an international agreement to clamp down on avoidance.

He said he was not "seeking to impose some rigid straightjacket of tax harmonisation", but "you do have to have clear standards of transparency and rules by which taxes are administered".

He added: "There are some governments that feel [these companies] have stolen a march on tax jurisdictions and are concerned that this will erode their competitive advantage. I think the worm has turned on this. There is now a feeling – you can see it America, Germany, the US and France – that people construct a system where there is a level playing field."

• Tax avoidance
• Corporate governance
• Tax and spending
• Google
• Tax
• Nick Clegg
• Ed Miliband

Patrick Wintour
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

    

Disturbances in Sweden spark debate about government failures over youth unemployment and immigration

Hundreds of youths have set fire to cars and attacked police and rescue services in poor immigrant suburbs in three nights of rioting in Stockholm, in Sweden's worst scenes of disorder in years.

On Tuesday night, a police station in the Jakobsberg area in the northwest of the city was attacked, two schools were damaged and an arts and crafts centre was set ablaze, despite a call for calm from prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The riots in one of Europe's richest capitals have shocked a country that prides itself on a reputation for social justice, and fuelled a debate about how Sweden is coping with both youth unemployment and an influx of immigrants.

"We've had around 30 cars set on fire last night, fires that we connect to youth gangs and criminals," Kjell Lindgren, spokesman for Stockholm police, said on Wednesday. He said eight people had been arrested on Tuesday night, but there were no reports of injuries.

The riots appear to have been sparked by the police killing of a 69-year-old man wielding a machete in the suburb of Husby this month, which prompted accusations of police brutality. "Everyone must pitch in to restore calm – parents, adults," Reinfeldt told reporters on Tuesday.

After decades of the "Swedish model" of generous welfare benefits, Sweden has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy.

While average living standards are still among the highest in Europe, governments have failed to substantially reduce long-term youth unemployment and poverty, which have affected immigrant communities worst.

The left-leaning tabloid Aftonbladet said the riots represented a "gigantic failure" of government policies, which had underpinned the rise of ghettos in the suburbs. "We have failed to give many of the people in the suburbs a hope for the future," Anna-Margrethe Livh of the opposition Left Party wrote in the daily Svenska Dagbladet.

An anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, has risen to third in polls ahead of a general election due next year, reflecting unease about immigrants among many voters. Some 15 per cent of the population is foreign-born, the highest proportion in the Nordic region.

Unemployment among those born outside Sweden stands at 16%, compared with 6% for native Swedes, according to OECD data. Among 44 industrialised countries, Sweden ranked fourth in the absolute number of asylum seekers, and second relative to its population, according to UN figures.

• Sweden
• Europe

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Freshwater supply and water quality under pressure, warns UN secretary general on International Day of Biological Diversity

Ban Ki-moon has warned the world is on course to run out of freshwater unless greater efforts are made to improve water security.

Speaking on the UN's International Day of Biological Diversity, Ban said there was a "mutually reinforcing" relationship between biodiversity and water that should be harnessed.

"We live in an increasingly water insecure world where demand often outstrips supply and where water quality often fails to meet minimum standards. Under current trends, future demands for water will not be met," Ban said.

Water, food, energy and climate are all linked.

Most forms of energy generation require water, variable weather is making agriculture harder while extreme weather events are hindering natural water storage.

Ban believes there is an opportunity to address these challenges as the Millennium Development Goals are replaced with a new set of objectives.

"As the international community strives to accelerate its efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and define a post-2015 agenda, including a set of goals for sustainable development, water and biodiversity are important streams in the discussion.

"Although seemingly abundant, only a tiny amount of the water on our planet is easily available as freshwater," he said.

The latest UN World Water Development Report, released last year, called for $13.7bn to $19.2bn of the Green Climate Fund's annual targeted funding of $100bn to be directed at the challenges faced by the water sector.

Much of this would be used to tackle supply shortfalls and flood management.

Climate change is already impacting the availability of water through rainfall disruption, soil moisture, glacier, snow and ice melt and river, ground and water flows.

Ban said the once competing campaigns for water and biodiversity protection could now be turned to the benefit of societies facing stresses on both water and food security.

"Where once the focus was on trade-offs between water use and biodiversity, today we are coming to understand how biodiversity and water security are mutually reinforcing," he said.

"Ecosystems influence the local, regional and global availability and quality of water. Forests help regulate soil erosion and protect water quality and supply. Wetlands can reduce flood risks. Soil biodiversity helps maintain water for crops.

"Integrating nature-based solutions into urban planning can also help us build better water futures for cities, where water stresses may be especially acute given the rapid pace of urbanization."

• Access to water
• Water
• Ban Ki-moon
• Biodiversity
• Wildlife
• Rivers

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Climate Desk are invited to dinner by their most pernicious, climate-denying troll, Hoyt Connell