Sir David Nicholson says health minister is wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control The government’s health reforms ran into further trouble on Tuesday when the chief executive of the NHS publicly challenged a key proposal. As peers prepare to table a series of amendments to the health and social care bill, Sir David Nicholson said the government was wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, wants to repeal a provision in the 2006 National Health Service Act which allows for the “de-authorisation” of failing foundation trusts, triggering their return to NHS control. The change is designed to strengthen foundation trusts – a central element of the government’s plans to decentralise power in the NHS – which will eventually take over the running of all hospitals in England. In evidence to the public inquiry into failings at the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, Nicholson called on the government to retain the renationalisation of a failing trust in its “armoury”. Nicholson is understood to have voiced, in private, reservations about the Lansley plan, which was introduced as an amendments to the bill after the government’s “listening exercise” on the NHS reforms. Nicholson told the inquiry: “I do think that the opportunity in a sense to renationalise a foundation trust should be part of the armoury of any government in these circumstances. It’s not one shared, I have to say, by the government. But it’s something that I believe to be the case.” Asked by Tom Kark QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether his proposal went against the government’s central policy, Nicholson hesitated, then said: “They want all organisations to be foundation trusts, but I believe that from time to time it may be necessary for the state to take the direct management of an organisation.” Labour will lambast the health reforms at the party’s conference in Liverpool on Wednesday. Liz Kendall, the shadow health minister, said: “For David Nicholson to so directly and publicly contradict Andrew Lansley is a damning indictment of the Tories’ NHS proposals. Labour tabled amendments to the health bill to ensure foundation trusts can revert to NHS trust status in the event they fail, in order to protect patient care. Lansley must now listen and stop his reckless and risky NHS plans.” In a note on the bill this month, the government said of Lansley’s plan: “As a result of the amendment, the regime would be more independent and transparent, reducing unnecessary costs and delays, with additional safeguards for patients and taxpayers.” Nicholson told the inquiry: “The arrangements that we’re putting into place when the strategic health authorities are abolished at the end of March 2013 are that we will have to set up something that will be called the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, which all those organisations that are not foundation trusts by that date will be accountable to that body. And that body then will be responsible for taking those organisations through to foundation trust status.” The Mid Staffordshire inquiry, which is being chaired by Robert Francis QC, is to return to the matter on Wednesday. Francis is chairing his second inquiry to discover why as many as 1,200 patients died of preventable causes at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2008. The intervention by Nicholson comes at a sensitive time for Lansley. Peers are due to debate the bill on 11 October. Ministers are saying they will have to accept further amendments to the bill in the House of Lords because a hardcore group of rebel peers, led by the veteran Liberal Democrat Lady Willliams, are determined to challenge the government. Labour will condemn the bill at its conference in Liverpool. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, has warned that David Cameron faces a “lethal” threat as increasing numbers of voters decide he is threatening the security of the NHS. Health policy Health NHS Public services policy Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sir David Nicholson says health minister is wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control The government’s health reforms ran into further trouble on Tuesday when the chief executive of the NHS publicly challenged a key proposal. As peers prepare to table a series of amendments to the health and social care bill, Sir David Nicholson said the government was wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, wants to repeal a provision in the 2006 National Health Service Act which allows for the “de-authorisation” of failing foundation trusts, triggering their return to NHS control. The change is designed to strengthen foundation trusts – a central element of the government’s plans to decentralise power in the NHS – which will eventually take over the running of all hospitals in England. In evidence to the public inquiry into failings at the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, Nicholson called on the government to retain the renationalisation of a failing trust in its “armoury”. Nicholson is understood to have voiced, in private, reservations about the Lansley plan, which was introduced as an amendments to the bill after the government’s “listening exercise” on the NHS reforms. Nicholson told the inquiry: “I do think that the opportunity in a sense to renationalise a foundation trust should be part of the armoury of any government in these circumstances. It’s not one shared, I have to say, by the government. But it’s something that I believe to be the case.” Asked by Tom Kark QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether his proposal went against the government’s central policy, Nicholson hesitated, then said: “They want all organisations to be foundation trusts, but I believe that from time to time it may be necessary for the state to take the direct management of an organisation.” Labour will lambast the health reforms at the party’s conference in Liverpool on Wednesday. Liz Kendall, the shadow health minister, said: “For David Nicholson to so directly and publicly contradict Andrew Lansley is a damning indictment of the Tories’ NHS proposals. Labour tabled amendments to the health bill to ensure foundation trusts can revert to NHS trust status in the event they fail, in order to protect patient care. Lansley must now listen and stop his reckless and risky NHS plans.” In a note on the bill this month, the government said of Lansley’s plan: “As a result of the amendment, the regime would be more independent and transparent, reducing unnecessary costs and delays, with additional safeguards for patients and taxpayers.” Nicholson told the inquiry: “The arrangements that we’re putting into place when the strategic health authorities are abolished at the end of March 2013 are that we will have to set up something that will be called the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, which all those organisations that are not foundation trusts by that date will be accountable to that body. And that body then will be responsible for taking those organisations through to foundation trust status.” The Mid Staffordshire inquiry, which is being chaired by Robert Francis QC, is to return to the matter on Wednesday. Francis is chairing his second inquiry to discover why as many as 1,200 patients died of preventable causes at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2008. The intervention by Nicholson comes at a sensitive time for Lansley. Peers are due to debate the bill on 11 October. Ministers are saying they will have to accept further amendments to the bill in the House of Lords because a hardcore group of rebel peers, led by the veteran Liberal Democrat Lady Willliams, are determined to challenge the government. Labour will condemn the bill at its conference in Liverpool. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, has warned that David Cameron faces a “lethal” threat as increasing numbers of voters decide he is threatening the security of the NHS. Health policy Health NHS Public services policy Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Workers have said all along that U.S. trade policies were killing American jobs, and now the research is finally catching up to them. Maybe we’ll be smart enough to drop the three Bush trade agreements Obama is currently trying to push: For years, economists have told Americans worried that cheap Chinese imports will kill jobs that the benefits of trade with China far outweigh its costs. But new research suggests the damage to the U.S. has been deeper than these economists have supposed . The study, conducted by a team of three economists, doesn’t challenge the traditional view that trade is ultimately good for the economy. Workers who lose jobs do eventually find new work or retire, while the benefits from trade, such as lower prices, remain. The problem is the speed at which China has surged as an exporter—overwhelming the normal process of adaptation. The study rated every U.S. county for their manufacturers’ exposure to competition from China, and found that regions most exposed to China tended not only to lose more manufacturing jobs, but also to see overall employment decline. Areas with higher exposure also had larger increases in workers receiving unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability payments. The authors calculate that the cost to the economy from the increased government payments amounts to one- to two-thirds of the gains from trade with China. In other words, a big portion of the ways trade with China has helped the U.S.—such as by providing inexpensive Chinese goods to consumers—has been wiped out. And that estimate doesn’t include any economic losses experienced by people who lost their jobs. The theory of comparative advantage, framed two centuries ago by British economist David Ricardo, says nations prosper by focusing on what they do best and trading with other countries that have different strengths. But amid the surge in inexpensive imports over the past decade, some prominent economists have challenged that view. In a 2004 article, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson argued that while trade may benefit some Americans, it does so by “decimating” the wages of blue-collar factory workers. Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman Alan Blinder—once a champion of free trade—in recent years has argued that U.S. firms’ increased outsourcing to low-wage countries puts millions of American jobs at risk. Michael Spence, a Nobel Laureate economist at New York University, said the new finding reflects how prevailing theories of trade aren’t up to the task of dealing with the breakneck pace of China and other developing economies. Since the world has never seen such large countries grow so quickly, history isn’t much of a guide. “It’s not like we can look to the past and ask ourselves what happened last time this happened, because there wasn’t a last time,” he said. Because the surge in goods from China has swamped import growth from other low-wage countries, the researchers focused on Chinese imports. They studied 722 clusters of interrelated counties covering the entire U.S. Some communities were more exposed to China, because they produced goods such as small appliances where Chinese imports have surged. Other regions were concentrated in industries like heavy machinery where Chinese competition has been slower to build. A pattern emerged, with areas where factories were most exposed to Chinese import growth faring worse than the less exposed. Between 2000 and 2007, a community at the 75th percentile—one with a greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities—saw a manufacturing employment decline of roughly one-third more than communities at the 25th percentile .
Continue reading …Workers have said all along that U.S. trade policies were killing American jobs, and now the research is finally catching up to them. Maybe we’ll be smart enough to drop the three Bush trade agreements Obama is currently trying to push: For years, economists have told Americans worried that cheap Chinese imports will kill jobs that the benefits of trade with China far outweigh its costs. But new research suggests the damage to the U.S. has been deeper than these economists have supposed . The study, conducted by a team of three economists, doesn’t challenge the traditional view that trade is ultimately good for the economy. Workers who lose jobs do eventually find new work or retire, while the benefits from trade, such as lower prices, remain. The problem is the speed at which China has surged as an exporter—overwhelming the normal process of adaptation. The study rated every U.S. county for their manufacturers’ exposure to competition from China, and found that regions most exposed to China tended not only to lose more manufacturing jobs, but also to see overall employment decline. Areas with higher exposure also had larger increases in workers receiving unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability payments. The authors calculate that the cost to the economy from the increased government payments amounts to one- to two-thirds of the gains from trade with China. In other words, a big portion of the ways trade with China has helped the U.S.—such as by providing inexpensive Chinese goods to consumers—has been wiped out. And that estimate doesn’t include any economic losses experienced by people who lost their jobs. The theory of comparative advantage, framed two centuries ago by British economist David Ricardo, says nations prosper by focusing on what they do best and trading with other countries that have different strengths. But amid the surge in inexpensive imports over the past decade, some prominent economists have challenged that view. In a 2004 article, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson argued that while trade may benefit some Americans, it does so by “decimating” the wages of blue-collar factory workers. Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman Alan Blinder—once a champion of free trade—in recent years has argued that U.S. firms’ increased outsourcing to low-wage countries puts millions of American jobs at risk. Michael Spence, a Nobel Laureate economist at New York University, said the new finding reflects how prevailing theories of trade aren’t up to the task of dealing with the breakneck pace of China and other developing economies. Since the world has never seen such large countries grow so quickly, history isn’t much of a guide. “It’s not like we can look to the past and ask ourselves what happened last time this happened, because there wasn’t a last time,” he said. Because the surge in goods from China has swamped import growth from other low-wage countries, the researchers focused on Chinese imports. They studied 722 clusters of interrelated counties covering the entire U.S. Some communities were more exposed to China, because they produced goods such as small appliances where Chinese imports have surged. Other regions were concentrated in industries like heavy machinery where Chinese competition has been slower to build. A pattern emerged, with areas where factories were most exposed to Chinese import growth faring worse than the less exposed. Between 2000 and 2007, a community at the 75th percentile—one with a greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities—saw a manufacturing employment decline of roughly one-third more than communities at the 25th percentile .
Continue reading …Scarborough: People Shocked By Fox’s Political Agenda Ignore Democrats Used Media This Way for 30 Years
September 27, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters reported Monday, Newsweek featured an in-depth look at Fox News and chairman Roger Ailes in its most recent installment. When this subject came up on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” Tuesday, after the guests predictably carped and whined about FNC's conservative leanings, host Joe Scarborough observed, “People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Let us never forget that Roger Ailes, you know, was before he was a great television producer was a great political strategist, and was someone who was a hard bone deep partisan. MIKA BRZEZINSKI, CO-HOST: Maybe just a little too good at both. TINA BROWN, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Wow, exactly right. HEILEMANN: I mean, won the election for George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988. He's, you know, he’s played both sides of that street for a long time. BROWN: And as was just said, a little too good at both. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Just like, we got to say, just like a hell of a lot of people in the mainstream media over the past 30 years have played both sides of the street, but they’re always on the Democratic side. That's what makes it so unique. People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades. MARK HALPERIN, TIME MAGAZINE: What sets Roger apart from most of the Democrats who play both sides of this is Roger has been awesome at both jobs. BROWN: That’s exactly right. Awesome at both. That's why he’s such a fiend. SCARBOROUGH: A fiend? BROWN: Right. SCARBOROUGH: Well. BROWN: A fiend to be so good at it. HALPERIN: Fiend means something totally different in England.
Continue reading …Scarborough: People Shocked By Fox’s Political Agenda Ignore Democrats Used Media This Way for 30 Years
September 27, 2011 No CommentAs NewsBusters reported Monday, Newsweek featured an in-depth look at Fox News and chairman Roger Ailes in its most recent installment. When this subject came up on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” Tuesday, after the guests predictably carped and whined about FNC's conservative leanings, host Joe Scarborough observed, “People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Let us never forget that Roger Ailes, you know, was before he was a great television producer was a great political strategist, and was someone who was a hard bone deep partisan. MIKA BRZEZINSKI, CO-HOST: Maybe just a little too good at both. TINA BROWN, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Wow, exactly right. HEILEMANN: I mean, won the election for George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988. He's, you know, he’s played both sides of that street for a long time. BROWN: And as was just said, a little too good at both. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Just like, we got to say, just like a hell of a lot of people in the mainstream media over the past 30 years have played both sides of the street, but they’re always on the Democratic side. That's what makes it so unique. People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades. MARK HALPERIN, TIME MAGAZINE: What sets Roger apart from most of the Democrats who play both sides of this is Roger has been awesome at both jobs. BROWN: That’s exactly right. Awesome at both. That's why he’s such a fiend. SCARBOROUGH: A fiend? BROWN: Right. SCARBOROUGH: Well. BROWN: A fiend to be so good at it. HALPERIN: Fiend means something totally different in England.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Activists have identified the senior New York Police Department officer who allegedly pepper-sprayed young women at the “Occupy Wall Street” protests, and it’s not the first time he has been accused of civil rights abuses. The Guardian confirmed that the officer is Anthony Bologna, who was also accused of civil rights abuses and false arrest during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Photographs of the officer’s badge also suggested that Bologna was the person in question. A file released by the hacker group Anonymous pointed to a 2007 civil rights suit filed against Bologna. Post A. Posr, the man named as a plaintiff in that suit, was arrested during the 2004 convention although he wasn’t actively taking part in the protests. “Police contend that Posr hit the man with a rolled-up newspaper,” Posr lawyer Alan Levine told The Guardian . “He said he was just talking to the guy. Bologna ordered another officer, Camejo, to arrest Posr.” Posr was taken to a make-shift detention facility at Pier 57, where he was held until the protests were over. Officer Tulio Camejo was also named in the suit. “A bunch of us were wondering if any of the same guys were involved,” Levine recalled. Questions about Bologna appeared to go back to 2001, when the People’s Law Collective claimed that arrests he made helped to incite a Mayday riot. Chelsea Elliott, one of the pepper-sprayed activists, described her ordeal to Animal New York. “I will march again,” she said. “But I’ll wear sunglasses and a fucking bandana.”
Continue reading …
While running through his usual litany of attacks on anti-Obama conservatives, MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Tuesday included the National Rifle Association as part of the “crazy far-right” who “hate” Barack Obama. Matthews began by wondering, “What is it about Obama that inspires this kind of weird, zealous hatred?” He later added, ” Well, here's something, another strain of the crazy, far- right .” After referencing birthers and other groups, the Hardball anchor played a clip of NRA President Wayne LaPierre deriding the President's stated support of the Second Amendment as a “big, fat lie.” Talking to Republican strategist Ron Christie, Matthews bizarrely responded to LaPierre's comments: ” Ron, this- the language, 'lie,' 'conspiracy,' it's almost like, I don't know, Lincoln talking about what was going on in the Civil War below the Mason-Dixon line. I mean, this is Civil War talk about a president of the United States .” Matthews' anger at the NRA for suggesting that Obama is no friend of the Second Amendment is odd. After all, Barack Obama has appointed two United States Supreme Court justices who have supported gun control. A partial transcript of the September 27 segment, which aired at 5:05pm EDT, follows: 5:01 tease CHRIS MATTHEWS: Mayor Brown, we're going to go through a long list of these crazy accusations against the President here in the beginning of the program tonight because they are unique. It's not just calling him the anti-Christ. There's people who go said he was born in some other country. We're going to get to accusations that just go across the board. What is it about Obama that inspires this kind of weird, zealous hatred? WILLIE BROWN: Well, I think you would have to start with the fact that he is unusual in that he is an African-American. That is an unusual thing for this country. We've been looking forward, as African-Americans, to this for a very long time, but we know that there is a residual amount of racism in this country. It's there. It's going to be there for a long time, and it expresses itself in many, many ways. … 5:01 MATTHEWS: Well, here's something, another strain of the crazy, far right. Here's the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre, and I've known this guy a long time. I'm astounded by this new accusation that the President is leading some conspiracy. Anyway, here he is, Wayne LaPierre, head of the national- not National Public Radio- National Rifle Association, at the conservative conference if Florida last week. Let's listen to Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association. WAYNE LAPIERRE: The President will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment. But it's a big, fat, stinking lie. It's all part, it's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country. Before the President was even sworn into office, they met and they hatched a conspiracy of public deception to try to guarantee his re-election in 2012. MATTHEWS: You know, I got to tell you, again, Ron, this- the language, “lie,” “conspiracy,” it's almost like, I don't know, Lincoln talking about what was going on in the Civil War below the Mason-Dixon line. I mean, this is Civil War talk about a president of the United States.
Continue reading …Pakistan’s foreign minister defends country’s record on fighting terror
September 27, 2011 No Comment
Hina Rabbani Khar calls for unity in combating terrorism in wake of US claims Islamabad is supporting Afghan insurgents Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, has robustly defended Islamabad’s record in fighting terrorism in the wake of US allegations that the Pakistani intelligence service is closely linked to Afghan extremists and has facilitated attacks on American forces. Khar made only passing references to the US in an address to the UN general assembly. But her calls for unity in fighting terrorism, and for there to be no recriminations, was prompted by deepening suspicion in Washington at what are seen as double dealings by the Pakistani intelligence service and military in Afghanistan, particularly since Osama bin Laden was found to be hiding in Pakistan. “Given the volatility of the situation, it is perhaps understandable that there is a high level of anxiety and emotion. But we must not lose sight of the goals,” said Khar. “We must work closely and as responsible partners together in a cooperative manner and not rush to judgements or question each others intentions.” There is deep scepticism in Washington that the Pakistani military and intelligence service did not know Bin Laden’s whereabouts for years while he lived in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where he was killed in an American raid in May. Last week, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, told Congress that the Haqqani network, a Taliban faction responsible for numerous attacks on American and Nato targets in Afghanistan, is a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service. He accused Pakistan of providing support for the group attack on the US embassy in Kabul two weeks ago that killed 16 Afghans, and for the bombing of a Nato post earlier this month that killed five people and wounded 77 coalition soldiers. “With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” Mullen told the armed services committee. Khan defended the ISI’s record, saying it had been instrumental in the capture of members of the Taliban and al-Qaida, sometimes in co-operation with the CIA. Khan said Pakistan has paid a high price in blood fighting terrorism. “Thirty thousand innocent Pakistanis have been killed: men, women and children. The ever-ready Pakistani armed forces have defended Pakistan and the rest of the world at the highest cost,” she said. “Numerous politicians have lost sons, brothers and fathers at the hands of terrorists. Our streets are filled with armed police. Terrorists have attacked our military installations, attacked the grave sites of our spiritual leaders, attacked our minorities and attacked the very idea of Pakistan. If I began recounting Pakistan’s sacrifices and Pakistan’s suffering I would keep you here until next September. “We do not take terrorism lightly. We cannot afford to take terrorism lightly. We have suffered far too much at its hands.” Khan said that Pakistan has an “irrevocable commitment to fighting terror” and will not permit its territory to be used by “militants and terrorists”. “We must demonstrate complete unity in ranks, avoid any recrimination, build greater trust,” she said. “Otherwise, I’m afraid, the terrorists are the only ones who are going to win.” Pakistan United States Afghanistan US foreign policy Global terrorism Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …