British soldiers in Afghanistan have been warned to expect a fierce Taleban backlash from renewed efforts to quash the narcotics trade.

The new governor of Helmand province insisted yes- terday that he would force through plans to eradicate poppy fields, despite fears that it could jeopardise Western efforts to win the support of the Afghan people. It will create some problems, but we have to do it, Assadullah Wafa told The Times in his first interview with a foreign newspaper.

British officials fear that spraying will alienate impoverished smallholders and push their communities into Taleban control. And while Mr Wafa warned British commanders that a violent response was inevitable he revealed plans to open talks with the Taleban to try to negotiate peace.

Mr Wafa said: I want to promote tribal elders. For decades they have been kept out of local government, but they are the only people who can bring peace and stability. Through them I am going to invite the Taleban to come and take part in the peace process. The Taleban . . . are from the communities and so they trust their community leaders. We are relying on those leaders.

One military source said of the new governor: He knows how to reach people and he can make them understand that its their fight. He understands there are good Taleban and bad Taleban. He wants to engage with the good ones, who are prepared to negotiate.

Afghanistan produced 92 per cent of the worlds opium last year, largely because of a 162 per cent leap in cultivation in Helmand, according to the United Nations.

Think a heavyweight championship fight is a slugfest? Then you haven’t seen the battle that’s taking place between New York and London for the right to call itself the financial world champion.

The cross-pond competition heated up in 2006, when New York fell to third, behind Hong Kong and London, in the value of initial public stock offerings, according to Thomson Financial (see BusinessWeek.com, 12/27/06, ). Meanwhile, New York-based NASDAQ is pursuing a $5.3 billion hostile bid for the London Stock Exchange. And the rivalry has New Yorkers worried enough that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned on Jan. 22 that “stringent regulations, high litigation risk, and immigration policy” are leading New York’s financial markets to lose business and workers to London and overseas competitors.

In a world where reputation is just about everything, the implications are huge. After all, who wants to be top dog in the second city? And B-school students in the two cities aren’t immune from the fallout. In 10 years, what’s going to carry more prestige, that diploma from NYU or the one from LBS? Where are you going to have your buddy network? And who will you root for? The Bronx Bombers or the Blues? London Pounding on the Door

Most of the MBA students and alums BusinessWeek.com contacted about the great New York vs. London controversy—even the Brits—don’t quite believe the Big Apple will go quietly into the night. “There’s still a lot of money in New York,” says Orly Cooper, a 2006 London Business School graduate who lived in New York before moving to Europe. “I wouldn’t bet on London replacing it as the financial capital, although London has the potential to access capital from the Middle East and South America.”

On the other hand, some say that London could give New York a run for its money—literally. Paul Sturgess, a second-year Columbia Business School student who lived in London for five years and attended London School of Economics, says that the British capital has a stronger performance than New York when it comes to certain sectors such as insurance and IPOs.

Still, others see London as no threat at all. “The financial capital of Europe is London,” says Deirdre Humen, a soon-to-be graduate of the EMBA program that is jointly run by Columbia and London Business School and a manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers. But, she noted, “New York is the financial capital of the world.” For Students, Fit Is Foremost

Each city has its own allure. To oversimplify, London is regal and sophisticated and elegant. New York is spunky and gritty and full of character. B-schoolers appreciate London for its proximity to other European travel destinations, small parks, slower pace, and museums. They like New York for playing host to the world, Central Park, its frenetic pace, and museums. Most students who have experienced both cities feel torn. “I love them both for different reasons,” says Cooper.

So where’s the best bet for a student looking to go with a winner for B-school or an internship opportunity? Experts still advise that fit (not to mention receiving an acceptance letter) is the most important factor in choosing an MBA program or job opportunity (see BusinessWeek.com, June, 2006, ).

Still, you might want to get more acquainted with the world’s top two financial capitals before deciding where to apply. So we’ve put together a http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/01/0124_twocities/index_01.htm—a tale of the tape, if you will—that compares New York and London in contests big and small, such as size and how much a beer costs.

The leader of the Commons, Jack Straw, today outlined his proposals for further reform of the House of Lords, raising the prospect of first-ever elections to parliament’s second chamber.

The proposals, set out in a white paper, would produce a slimmed-down “hybrid” upper house of 540 members with a mixture of appointed and elected members who would no longer be known as peers.

Tony Blair indicated that he supported Mr Straw’s preferred option of a half-elected and half-appointed house.

But the white paper recognised that opinion on the issue among MPs remained split, allowing the Commons a free vote on their preferred proportion.

MPs will be asked to rank their preferences in order, in an attempt to ensure that one solution comes out on top, avoiding the deadlock in 2003 when the Commons voted down all of the reform options put before them.

Mr Straw said that his proposals represented “the best opportunity to make progress that we have had for many decades”.

In a detailed statement to the Commons, Mr Straw said that “a significant degree of consensus has been found on several - but not all - the important issues” surrounding the reforms.

He said that the white paper was “self-evidently and unapologetically a compromise”, but warned that a failure to reach a solution now would put any progress “on hold for a generation”.

Mr Straw told MPs: “The status quo is no longer an option.”

Following a year-long, cross-party consultation, Mr Straw said that it was agreed that a “long transitional period” would be required for the completion of this stage of reform.

It was also agreed that the primacy of the House of Commons had to remain, with the Lords acting as a “complement” and not a “rival” to the fully-elected house.

The white paper sets out the government’s preferred model of a half-elected, half-appointed second chamber, with 30% of the appointed members nominated by the political parties and 20% by a new, independent Statutory Appointments Commission.

The commission would be required to apply a double test of “suitability and propriety” to all those nominated for places.

Mr Straw said that the prime minister’s right to make appointments to the upper house would end.

He added that Church of England bishops would retain their right to a place on the red benches of the upper house and that no existing life peer would be forced to leave the Lords.

Mr Straw told the Commons: “There are many reasons why we should move ahead with reform of the House of Lords: to increase its effectiveness, to make it more representative of the United Kingdom, to increase its legitimacy.

“But there is a wider issue as well, and that is to seek - through this process - to strengthen parliament by enhancing the way in which the Lords complements the work of the primary chamber.

“By doing this, our democracy as a whole would be better served.”

In a two-day debate before Easter, MPs will be asked to vote first on whether there should be a second chamber at all, then on whether there should be any reform of the current arrangements, under which the current House of Lords has more than 750 members, the bulk of them appointed life peers.

If both of these votes are positive, MPs will be asked to rank the options for the division between elected and appointed members in order of preference.

If no option receives 50 per cent of first preferences, the least popular option will be removed and votes redistributed until a victor emerges.

The House of Lords will decide for itself how it votes on the issue.

Responding to the white paper, the Liberal Democrats’ spokesman on constitutional affairs, Simon Hughes, said that he welcomed the commitment to reform.

“Nobody can say that serious democratic reform of the second house of the British parliament is not well overdue,” he said.

But Theresa May, the shadow leader of the Commons, said that the proposals did not strengthen parliament and would leave political parties even more in control in the upper chamber.

Ms May said that the proposals would perpetuate “cronyism” while the proposed system of preferential voting on the measures would set a “dangerous precedent”.

Labour’s first attempt at reform resulted in the ejection of over 600 hereditary peers from the House of Lords in 1999. Ninety-two were allowed to stay, along with appointed life peers, Church of England bishops and law lords.