Sunday, 4 May 2014

PTA clarifies its position on Warid’s 4G ads

PHOTO: WARID TELECOM
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has for the first time clarified its position in response to Warid Telecom’s advertisement of its 4G/LTE services.
The four companies that took part in the 3G/4G auction of the next-generation technologies had expressed concern over Warid advertising 4G services.
PTA Chairperson Dr Ismail Shah briefed The Express Tribune about the complex issue on Sunday.
“The existing Warid license is technology neutral but it does not mean that it is service neutral,” Dr Shah said.
He said that all newly launched services require proper consent from PTA, for which Warid will have to send a proper request to the authority.
PTA will then consider such a request based on the license conditions and on the greater interests of the cellular industry, specially the bidders who had participated in the 3G/4G spectrum auction.
The offer of 4G/LTE services by Warid will have to go through a process as per their license and PTA’s requirements of assurance of proper coverage, quality of service, enhanced monitoring requirements and commencement permissions.
“Warid should provide details about how much spectrum would be carved out from the 8.8 MHz in 1800 band for LTE services and its impact on the existing GSM/GPRS/EDGE customers,” Dr Shah said, adding that not all releases of LTE are 4G.
Specific information about the version of LTE to be deployed have to be provided by Warid Telecom, the PTA chief said. “No plan has been shared with PTA yet.”
Without these details being made available, the claims made in Warid’s advertisement cannot be endorsed in any manner, he added.
The PTA on May 3 had accepted Warid Telecom’s plea that it has no need to obtain a new licence to launch 4G services.
The PTA chairperson had said that Warid Telecom had approached the authority to start 4G service without obtaining any new licence. “However, we have asked the company to share its detailed work-out plan with the PTA,” Shah has said.

Floyd Mayweather weathers Maidana storm to win by majority decision


Floyd Mayweather Jr. punches Marcos Maidana during their WBC/WBA welterweight unification fight at the MGM Grand Garden Arena on May 3, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Floyd Mayweather Jr. punches Marcos Maidana during their WBC/WBA welterweight unification fight at the MGM Grand Garden Arena on May 3, 2014 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Photograph: Harry How/Getty Images
Floyd Mayweather saw off a hurricane in Las Vegas, a rough night to end a chaotic week. He was cut early and battered for several of the 12 rounds as Marcos Maidana rolled towards him with little regard for his own safety, but Mayweather did what he always does: he found a way to win.
His self-belief and his unbeaten record remain intact – he had the audacity to have notes bearing the statistic 46-0 scattered over the crowd before the first bell - and he has the Argentinian's WBA welterweight belt to add to the one he already looks after on behalf of the WBC. But the aura has diminished every so slightly, to the point whereAmir Khan – who dropped and outpointed the former world champion Luis Collazo earlier in his welterweight debut and first fight at the MGM – is now a credible opponent. He ought to be, given he beat Maidana in 2010.
“A true champion can make adjustments,” Mayweather said, a hail of Latino boos drowning out his victory speech. “I got cracked early by a headbutt over my eye, and couldn't see properly. If the fans want see it again, we can do it again.”
Maidana, clearly unimpressed, said: “Other fighters gave him too much respect and didn't go toe-to-toe with him. I'll give him a rematch because I won the fight. I'm not scared of him.”
Indeed, so rousing a performance did Maidana produce, a lot of fighters will now fancy their chances against Mayweather – and that makes any of his three remaining fights on his Showtime contract all the more intriguing. He is, at last, beatable.
The judges gave him a majority win by margins of 114-114, 117-111 and 116-112. I scored it for him 116-114, with the third and the eighth rounds shared, and the latter of those two could have gone to Mayweather.
It was always going to be a collision of the crude and the clever – but nobody outside Argentina could have predicted with confidence that Maidana would give the finest defensive boxer of modern times so much sustained hell.
Maidana and his shrewd trainer Robert Garcia made no secret of his fight plan beforehand: come out swinging that overhand right and hope to knock Mayweather out. Well, he tried. And he tried. Mayweather also promised an unreserved battle and, whether or not he really wanted to do that, he had little choice in a first round as tough as any he has endured in his career.
Showtime announced Maidana's dressing-room weight as 165lbs, with Mayweather on the 148lbs welterweight limit, just as he had been at the weigh-in, which is extraordinary on both counts.
If Mayweather's strategy was to start World War III – he was setting a record for blows to the back of the head after three rounds - Mayweather had said he welcomed an opponent bringing his best as it might force him to finally produce his A game, self-aggrandizement not that far from the truth; he had won all but a couple of his 45 previous bouts in cruise control. In the third, he got a 10-9 under his belt and was back in business.
In the fourth, Maidana still had not found his manners. He was warned for elbowing Mayweather, who now was complaining regularly, and he hit him low out of the referee's line of vision. In between the argy-bargy, he landed enough decent shots to take the round and leave a cut above his rattled opponent's right eye, a rare sight indeed.
Mayweather's renowned defensive skills were under serious assault again in the fifth, and he was getting caught with crude punches that brought a steady roar from the packed arena's loud Latino audience on Cinco de Mayo weekend.
Approaching the half-way stage, Mayweather knew he was in one of the toughest fights of his life, up there with those against Miguel Cotto and Jose Luis Castillo – and he found some championship form, whipping in left hooks and long rights that hurt and bamboozled Maidana.
The boxing lesson continued in the seventh, and those parts of the crowd rendered silent for the first part of the entertainment, encouraged their man with the familiar chants of “USA! USA!”. His confidence restored, Mayweather now looked like the master boxer who schooled Saul Alvarez and Robert Guerrero, dominant, sneering and utterly irresistible.
Maidana still had fire in his eyes, but blood around his left eye and maybe a doubt or two implanted at last in his mind. He bore in regardless and corralled Mayweather on the ropes, letting go a barrage of unpunished blows to the back of the head, and one below the belt. That apart, he earned a share of the points in the eighth.
Having earned Mayweather's respect and full attention, Maidana now discovered what it was like to be on the end of what the great man described as his A game, which did not stop him going forward – and straight into a hail of sharp, hurtful blows to head and body.
The Maidana tank rumbled on in the 10th, and the sniper Mayweather received him with appreciation and interest, rattling his rock-like head time and again with jabs and hooks. He put a full stop to the session with a long right.
With six minutes left, Maidana surely knew he had to do what he said he would do at the start: knock Floyd Mayweather out. And, as everyone else has discovered, that is not only easier said that done, it requires taking awful risks. Tormented and angry, he barrelled Mayweather through the ropes, and gave him a whack in the ribs while he had his back turned and was trying to get to his feet.
Still chasing that knockout, Maidana landed a cracking right at the start of the 12th and Mayweather had to go into survival mode rather than the grandstand finish he most certainly wanted. Ducking, swaying and countering, he back-pedalled to the ropes, his familiar refuge, and retaliated when he saw the inevitable gaps. Both raised their arms, but the victory went the way most sane analysts thought it would.
Mayweather said Maidana was “a true champion, true competitor and a hell of a fighter”. He added, “He was rugged, a tough guy. Everybody used to seeing me dominate. People saying, 'What's wrong with Floyd?' I think tonight we gave everybody the excitement they want. If he feels he won? September. He can get it again. Absolutely. I could have made the fight a lot easier if I wanted to. Did those rights hurt? He's a strong fighter. I came in at 148, he came in at 165.”
He said he objected to the type of gloves Maidana wanted to use because he did not think they were safe. “When it's all said and done, we already fought. But I'm in this to protect the boxers. A lot of them finish their careers without any money because they can't articulate or even count anymore.
“I'm a mentally strong person, though. I've never done anything but box. That's the difference between me and any other fighter – I can make adjustments.”
Referring to the one score of 114-114, he said, “I'm not going to complain about how the judges judge the fight. They're not always right.”
He turned to Maidana and said, “You're a great fighter, great champion. You have a beautiful family. But next time, don't hit me in the dick.”
As for next time, Mayweather said, “I don't know what I'm going to do for my next fight yet. But I always find a way to win. There's no way to break the May-Vinci code.”
The night ended badly for some spectators. Advised that a crowd crush outside the press conference had injured several people, Richard Schaefer, the chief executive of Golden Boy Promotions, said: “If anything happened, the MGM will investigate, and their security. They are well equipped to handle big fights, so I am surprised to hear that.

Coca-Cola removing controversial ingredient from Powerade drink

powerade
Powerade sports drink is now being made without brominated vegetable oil. Photograph: Jon Elswick/AP
A controversial ingredient is being removed from some Powerade sports drinks, after the chemical was also taken out of rival Gatorade last year.
The ingredient, brominated vegetable oil, had been the target of a petition by a US teenager, who questioned why it was being used in a drink marketed toward health-conscious athletes. The petition on Change.org noted that the ingredient is linked to a flame retardant and is not approved for use in Japan or the European Union.
In response to customer feedback, PepsiCo said last year it would drop the ingredient from Gatorade. At the time, Coca-Cola declined to say whether it would remove the ingredient from the two flavours of Powerade that contain it as well.
But this week, bottles of Powerade in fruit punch and strawberry lemonade flavours being sold in the Detroit, Omaha, New York and Washington DC areas no longer list the ingredient. Other bottles still list it, however, suggesting Coca-Cola may have started phasing it out recently. Representatives for the Atlanta-based company were not immediately available to provide details on the change.
The Food and Drug Administration says brominated vegetable oil is used as a stabiliser for flavouring oils in fruit-flavoured drinks. Coca-Cola has said in the past that it uses the ingredient to "improve stability and prevent certain ingredients from separating".
The decision by Coca-Cola to remove brominated vegetable oil from Powerade is just the latest evidence that food makers are coming under pressure for the ingredients they use. While companies stand by the safety of their products, some are making changes in response to the movement toward foods that people believe are natural.
Earlier this year, for instance, Subway said it would remove an ingredient dubbed the "yoga mat chemical" from its breads. The ingredient, azodicarbonamide, is approved for use by the FDA and can be found in a wide variety of breads. The petitioner, Vani Hari of FoodBabe.com, said she targeted Subway because of its image for serving healthy food.
Likewise, brominated vegetable oil can also be found in several other drinks. But the Mississippi teenager, Sarah Kavanagh, said she targeted Gatorade and Powerade in petitions because they are designed for athletes, who are probably more concerned about what they are putting into their bodies.
As Americans cut back on soda, sports drinks have become more important for Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, which is based in Purchase, New York.
Although Coca-Cola has long dominated rival PepsiCo on the soda front, it lags the company in the growing sports drink category. According to the industry tracker Beverage Digest, Gatorade has 64% of the sports drink market.

Democrats criticise 'bogus' new congressional Benghazi inquiry

US Consulate in Benghazi attacked by terrorists in 2012
The US consulate in Benghazi on the night of 11 September 2012. Photograph: Esam Omran Al-Fetori/Reuters
Allies of President Barack Obama on Sunday sharply criticised the latest Republican inquiry into his response to the deadly 2012 attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, describing it as a “bogus” scheme to score political points that was fuelled by conservative media.
David Plouffe, a former senior White House adviser to Obama, said: “What is happening here, and it’s stoked by the talk-radio personalities and Fox News, is an alternative reality.”
“This has been politicised like we’ve never seen before,” Plouffe added, on ABC's This Week. “There’s a very loud, delusional minority that’s driving our politics, that’s in control of the Republican party. There is no conspiracy here at all.”
Anita Dunn, Obama's first White House communications director, dismissed Republican claims that a newly disclosed email, sent after the incident in Libya by a White House spokesman, contained explosive proof that aides knew it had been a terrorist attack, and tried to hide the fact.
“It's been called a smoking gun – I think, if you look at this email, it's a lot more like a leaking water pistol,” Dunn said on NBC's Meet the Press, adding: “There's nothing in there that's inconsistent with the emails that have been released before, and there's nothing in there that is inconsistent with what the CIA had written.”
Their remarks followed the announcement by the House Speaker, John Boehner, on Friday that he will convene a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack, which killed the US ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans, as well as its aftermath.
The work of the committee is likely to refocus attention on the Obama administration's handling of the attack in the months approaching November's midterm congressional elections, in which the Republican party, which controls the House, hopes to seize control of the Senate.
Boehner's announcement came soon after the release, to a freedom of information request, of the email from Ben Rhodes, then deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. It was sent three days after the 11 September 2012 attack in Benghazi, which occurred amid protests elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa against a controversial online video clip about Islam that was made in America.
The email was not handed over with other materials subpoenaed by a congressional committee last year. During a discussion about the “talking points” administration officials should use in public remarks, Rhodes urged that regarding Benghazi, it should be stressed “that these protests are rooted in an internet video, and not a broader policy failure”.
The documents given to Congress last year showed that a list of talking points circulated by the CIA hours before Rhodes sent his email stated: “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US embassy in Cairo.”
Susan Rice, then the US ambassador to the United Nations, characterised the attack as such on several Sunday morning political TV shows that weekend.
The administration later said the attack in Benghazi had, in fact, been a planned terrorist strike. But senior Republicans have continued to allege that the White House orchestrated a cover-up of that fact, possibly in an attempt to shield Obama politically in the weeks approaching the 2012 presidential election, in which he eventually defeated Mitt Romney.
“They put out a narrative that was not supported by the evidence and that they knew was false,” Rick Santorum, the runner-up to Romney in the Republican presidential primary contest, said on ABC.
“From the very beginning they knew this was a terrorist incident, the CIA knew it was a terrorist incident, it's very clear, the State Department knew. And they put out something that they knew, or at least a lot of people knew, was wrong.”
Jason Chaffetz, a Utah Republican who sits on the House oversight committee, which has aggressively investigated the Benghazi attack, added: “We want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
“The White House has long denied any personal involvement in manipulation of those talking points,” said Chaffetz. “The reality is, you have the CIA, you have the military, you have the State Department themselves, that said it was not a video. That was a false narrative perpetuated at the time; to my mind it became a lie.”
Dunn insisted the Obama administration had handled the crisis “transparently and [by] telling the truth”, adding: “The reality of this is when something like this happens, in the first 48 to 72 hours, you don't know, and you have to go with what your intelligence agencies tell you.”
Chris Stevens, Christopher Prentice, Suleiman Fortias
Ambassador Chris Stevens, centre, died in Benghazi. Photograph: Ben Curtis/AP
Plouffe attacked Republicans in Congress for refusing to allow the US to spend more money on embassy security, as had been recommended in an inquiry by Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, following the Benghazi attack. Plouffe suggested the Republicans “start there instead of bogus committee investigations”.
“This was happening in real time. As soon as information was identified, it was released. That's why over the course of those weeks, we knew exactly what happened. There was no politicisation of this at all,” said Plouffe.
“There's been 31 investigations, over 25,000 documents. What ought to be done here is not another bogus committee but real work to protect our embassies.”
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, reacted furiously to claims his party was attempting to benefit politically from the saga.
“Anybody who believes this is just about politics should go tell that to the family members,” Graham told CBS’s Face the Nation. “Go explain to the family members how it's OK for the White House to withhold information from the Congress and the American people.
“Anybody who plays politics with Benghazi is going to get burned, so if we're playing politics with Benghazi then we'll get burned. If our Democratic friends are shielding the administration, to protect themselves and their re-election because they couldn't stand the truth about Benghazi, then they'll get burned.

Ira Glass: 'The first time I took ecstasy, my anxiety lifted away'

Ira Glass
'I am a pretty worried person'. Photograph: Stuart Mullenberg/This American Life
You might not know his face, but if you're one of the 2.1million listeners who tune into his weekly radio show, you definitely know his voice. Ira Glass is the host and producer of This American Life, a weekly radio show broadcast on 587 local radio stations in the US, the CBC in Canada, ABC in Australia, and as of Sunday, BBC Radio 4 Extra in the UK. As Glass prepares to take his show to another non-American audience, he discusses his feelings about becoming "the face of radio" in the US, and which stories have affected him the most.
This year, you had a cameo in the Veronica Mars movie and a shout-out on The Simpsons, but why didn’t you play yourself onOrange is the New Black?
Well, I haven’t seen it. It’s no bearing on the quality of the show or my desire to see it – but just my utter lack of leisure time. Let’s say I'm a little over-committed. I don’t mean to sound super important, I'm not meeting with the secretary of state or anything. I do the show, I give talks, I walk my dog. Jenji [Kohan] wrote me to make the pitch, and I graciously declined and wished her the best.
Why did you graciously decline?
I thought it was well-written. I thought it was fine. I felt uncomfortable playing myself. It's flattering to be asked and included in such a great show, but it just made me feel strange. I did do a cameo in the Veronica Mars movie, but that just seemed so small and easy and fun, and the whole staff of This American Life was on that, not just me.
You’ve done 523 episodes now, over 19 years [the show began in 1995]. Of all those stories, which have meant the most to you personally?
There are stories that change the way I see stuff, like the Harper High School story. I didn't really understand what it was like to live in a neighborhood like that, or be a kid like that. One of the things we learned is that every kid in the school is in a gang. The nerd kids are in a gang. The drama kids are in a gang. Before I read that series, and this is kind of ugly to say, but I would think, ‘Well, if they got shot they're a gang kid ... that's a bad kid.’ I don't feel that any more at all. Those of us who don't live in neighborhoods like that, we're so dumb.
And then occasionally there will be this moment in a show where I get to talk about my personal life. In this week's show, there's a moment in an interview that I do with Marc Maron. He was an addict, and he's talking about not regretting it. And then I told him a story about taking ecstasy. I really hope it stays in the show.
I am mostly a pretty worried person. In conversations, I am always worried about what to say. The first time I took ecstasy, all of that lifted away. All the anxiety, which is the baseline of my life in some way, and I had this moment of like, wait a second! Are there people who feel this way all the time? This is like a whole way to be, where you don't feel anxious? Oh my god! It was so amazing. In the months after that, it was a really helpful thing to have experienced. It remains to this day a feeling that is helpful to know about. If we could get that on the air it would mean a lot to me.
Do you feel like the face of not only This American Life, but of public radio as a whole?
I only think I am representing This American Life. We are different enough from what is on public radio. Most people who discover it somehow feel like it's their secret. People have a relationship with it that's like 'it's just us'.
So you see This American Life as separate from public radio?
We are both very different and also quintessentially linked to public radio in the US. In terms of tone, we're different, and in terms of the conversational style of it and the subject matter we tackle, we're very different. But then something in the mission of the show is so quintessentially public radio. It’s like we took the principles that everyone is working with, pushed them a little further, and morphed into something completely new.
What are those principles?
I mean there are a lot of super idealistic things that people try to do in public broadcasting that, when you say them out loud, sound so well-meaning, like something noone would ever want to listen to. Those things are to provide a perspective on the world you can't hear elsewhere, to bring you voices you would never hear anywhere else, to provide an analysis of the world you wouldn't get anywhere else.
When I started in public broadcasting, the way we reported on “real people” would be with these quaint little stories about someone with a quaint little hobby like making hammered dulcimers or carving wooden ducks. Figuring out a way to do report on real people, in totally compelling and super fun ways, seemed like an interesting challenge. I figured out if you use plot -- and to get the person to tell a story -- it becomes less precious and way more enjoyable.
This American Life is about to start airing on British radio for the first time, on Radio 4 Extra. Will it translate?
The name is definitely a marketing problem. I think you can tell we had no intention of being an international show. And there's no one in Britain who's like, ‘You know what I don't get enough of? American culture.’
The shows that the BBC chose are really traditional, documentary with a capital D, 'we-are-serious-journalist' stories. The first one includes a story about the Holocaust, because everybody knows that that's a classy story to put on the radio. They are feeling protective of us, [worrying] that their audience will notice that the tone is different and jauntier and more conversational, and not understand the seriousness of intent underneath it. I appreciate that whoever is programming for the BBC is trying to protect us.
I do worry that people will not understand why I'm talking the way I talk as the presenter of the show, and truthfully, when we went on the air in the United States, we would hear from program directors who would say, 'Ira was a great reporter when he was on NPR, but when are you going to get a real host? When is the adult gonna show up?'.
When you see shows like 99% Invisible and Welcome to Night Vale becoming successful, do you worry about TAL getting old? Does it need to evolve to stay relevant?
Maybe I'd be a more canny producer if I did think that way. I don't need other shows to worry about that. For me, the only thing that makes the show interesting is if we're doing something new, and so that's a lot of what I'm thinking about all the time. What else should we do? What else should we do? It’s constantly running through my brain.
Ira Glass
'I don't own a radio.' Photograph: Nancy Updike/This American Life

Reader questions: Ira responds

I don't tweet because I don't need another creative venue. I don't need another form for self-expression. I don't need another way to get my thoughts out to people. I have one. I'm good. But I totally think it's wonderful for anyone who doesn't have their own national radio show. I think it's a fine alternative.
If This American Life were to go off the air, what show would you want it to take its place?
I love Radiolab and I feel like a lot of our audience is already listening to Radiolab but if we went off the air, I would love to give our audience to Radiolab. I think it's a really different, and beautiful, and inspiring show.
We rewrite it usually three or four times. And then in the studio I will probably run through it, parts of it, twice and at the most three times.
How do you take care of your voice?
I don't take care of my voice at all, which is one reason that I sound as bad as I do.
He's doing so well. Thanks for asking. We just reran the story that we did about him and I was so excited that we got excited by Cesar Millan's people. So apparently the Dog Whisperer would be willing to fix our whole situation but we graciously declined. For a while he was eating kangaroo and ostrich. And now we've cycled back and he's eating pork, which is amazing because you can buy it at the grocery store.
When do you listen to the radio?
In the morning, when I shave. And really, not for very long. I don't hear the radio that much. I don't own a radio. I listen to everything through apps, or on my iPhone. And then I download the shows I like. Shows like Fresh Air, Radiolab, Snap Judgement, all those shows.

Nine acrobats seriously injured in Providence circus 'hair-hang' fall

Providence circus accident
Emergency workers tend to injured performers at the Dunkin' Donuts Center in Providence. Photograph: Tara Griggs/AP
A platform collapsed during an aerial hair-hanging stunt at a Rhode Island circus performance on Sunday, sending eight entertainers plummeting to the ground. Nine were seriously injured in the fall, including a dancer below.
Stephen Payne, a spokesman for Feld Entertainment, the parent company of Ringling Brothers, said the accident happened during an act in which eight female performers hang "like a human chandelier", using their hair.
Payne said eight of the injured acrobats fell up to 40ft, after the metal-frame apparatus from which they were hanging came free from the metal truss to which it was connected.
All the performers had been doing "some variation of this act for some time", Payne said, though he didn't know how long. The current incarnation of the act began in January with the launch of the show, he said.
An eyewitness, Sydney Bragg, 14, said the collapse happened about 90 minutes into the show. She said the platform began to fall as it neared the rafters of the arena. At first, she said, she thought it was part of the act.
"It just went crashing down," Bragg said. "Everyone was freaking out. We heard this huge clatter and then we just heard the girls scream."
She said spotlights were on the performers at the time, but all the lights went out after the fall.
The accident was reported at about 11.45am, during the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus' Legends show at the Dunkin' Donuts Center in Providence.
Providence public safety commissioner Steven Pare said officials and inspectors had not yet determined what caused the accident. He said none of the injuries appears to be life-threatening.
Roman Garcia, general manager of the show, said the accident occurred during the "hair hang" act in which the performers hang from their hair.
The hair-hanging stunt is described on the circus' website as a "larger-than-life act" featuring eight female performers.
"These 'hairialists' perform a combination of choreography and cut-ups including spinning, hanging from hoops, and rolling down wrapped silks, all while being suspended 35ft (10m) in the air by their hair alone," the description says.
"In this hair-raising act, audiences will even see the weight of three girls held aloft by the locks of only one of these tangled beauties."
Another witness, Rosa Viveiros, said the act was covered by a curtain. Shortly after the curtain was pulled away, she said, the performers fell on top of at least one other performer below, a man who stood up with his face bloodied.
The Dunkin' Donuts Center said two shows scheduled for later Sunday and two others for Monday were on hold

Coalition split over £63bn AstraZeneca bid by US rival Pfizer

Ed Miliband on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show
Miliband spoke about the potential takeover on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show, accusing the government of 'cheerleading' for a deal. Photograph: Handout/Reuters
The coalition was struggling on Sunday night to maintain a united front on the proposed £63bn takeover of the British pharmaceutical groupAstraZeneca by its giant US rival Pfizer as ministers gave conflicting responses to a proposal by Ed Miliband to toughen up the rules to protect key British companies.
As AstraZeneca stepped up its campaign against Pfizer, Vince Cablegave a guarded welcome to Miliband's proposal to expand the public interest test to protect Britain's "strategic" science base.
But Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps said the proposal by theLabour leader was "anti-business, anti-jobs and anti-jobs security".
He also accused David Cameron of acting as a cheerleader for the US group's proposed bid for its British rival AstraZeneca after the prime minister praised the US giant for delivering "robust" assurances.
Cameron spoke out after Ian Read, Pfizer's Scottish-born chief executive, promised to complete a "substantial" Pfizer research & development facility in Cambridge and to employ at least 20% of the combined company's total R&D workforce in the UK.
Miliband, however, said Pfizer had a "pretty dubious record" on takeovers and wrote to the prime minister calling for a change in the law to create a new public interest test to cover strategic economic interests.
Under the Enterprise Act, the business secretary can intervene in a proposed takeover on grounds of public interest if there is a threat to national security, media plurality or financial stability.
In his letter to the prime minister, Miliband called for a "more substantive assessment" of whether the takeover of "strategic elements of our science base" are in the national economic interest. The Labour leader also called for an independent assessment of the impact a Pfizer takeover would have on Britain's long term science and industrial base. He told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1: "David Cameron is in totally the wrong place on this issue. He has become a cheerleader for Pfizer's takeover when instead he should be championing the long-term agenda for high-quality jobs in this country which AstraZeneca provides.
"No other country in the world would be waving this bid through, nodding it through on the basis of pretty weak assurances from Pfizer who have a pretty dubious record when it comes to their record in this country and other takeovers … The prime minister, rather than being that cheerleader for this takeover with paper-thin assurances, should be actually championing British jobs and a British success story that is AstraZeneca – investing in research and development, a crucial part of our science base."
Cable indicated that he would be taking Miliband's idea seriously. The business secretary told the BBC: "We have obviously been looking at the options around the public interest test and other factors." Asked whether there were plans to review the public interest test, the business secretary said: "Obviously we are looking at this option amongst others."
But Shapps told Sunday Politics on BBC1: "Miliband's approach is to simply be anti-business, anti-jobs, and anti job security that families in this country want."
Shapps later told The World This Weekend on BBC Radio 4: "Playing politics with it, coming in and writing that kind of letter that suggests you want to introduce some new additional tests – the sort of tests they completely failed to use when Labour messed up the Kraft/Cadbury takeover – is really disingenuous. I don't often say this but on this occasion Miliband has overstepped the mark."
The contrasting remarks by Cable and Shapps highlighted different views within the government over the proposed deal. Cable is insisting that, from the moment the takeover emerged, he has been attempting to protect British jobs and AstraZeneca's research and development facilities.
The initial response of Conservative ministers was to hail the planned takeover as a sign of Britain's competitive corporate tax regime.
Cable is expected to stop short of introducing emergency legislation to change the law in line with Miliband's proposal. It is understood that existing legislation gives the business secretary enough power to intervene to protect Britain's science base.
Shapps indicated that the Tories had changed tack and were now stressing the importance of protecting Britain's science base: "We are going to have tests which ensure this get together becomes a great Anglo-American project or it doesn't happen."
The Tory chairman told the BBC: "The government's assessment of this is that we will be fighting for British jobs and British science, the research and development and the rest of it ... Everybody knows there are good and bad takeovers, good and bad mergers.
"This could be a great Anglo-American company but we have to make sure that both sides are approaching it in good faith and it is in Britain's interests, meaning for British jobs and British science."
Shapps rejected Miliband's claim that the prime minister had acted as a cheerleader for the Pfizer bid. He said: "The idea that we are cheerleading for one or the other side of this is completely insane. It symbolises Ed Miliband playing politics literally with people's jobs in this case."
An AstraZeneca spokesman said: "AstraZeneca has a deeply rooted history in the UK and we have reiterated our long-term commitment through our continued investments in research, development and manufacturing which we believe will deliver value for our company and for society for years to come."