Veteran leader damaged Labor party’s standings by opposing extradition of drug lord Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke to the US Bruce Golding, the Jamaican prime minister, will step down as leader in the coming weeks – averting a possible party rebellion that could have led to his ouster. Golding will resign once a new leader of the Jamaica Labor party is elected. The party’s leader automatically becomes prime minister. The announcement was made in a brief statement from the party, which said Golding informed its central executive committee of his decision at a quarterly meeting in Kingston, the capital. Golding, 63, is a veteran parliamentarian who had been expected to lead his party into the 2012 general elections. “[Golding] said the challenges of the last four years have taken their toll and it was appropriate now to make way for new leadership to continue the programmes of economic recovery and transformation while mobilising the party for victory in the next general elections,” the party statement said. Dennis Meadows, a senator and member of the Jamaica Labor party’s executive committee, said there had been an “overwhelming response” for Golding to stay on as party leader. “[But] he feels the chances of the party winning the next elections are at a disadvantage with him at the head, but there’s no questioning of his competence,” Meadows said. The education minister, Andrew Holness, also from the Labor party, dominated a poll conducted this year asking islanders who should lead if Golding were to step down. Golding’s career has been in jeopardy since 2009 because of his handling of the extradition of the Jamaican drug kingpin Christopher “Dudus” Coke to the United States. Critics have slammed Golding for allowing the contracting of a law firm to lobby Washington to drop its request for extradition. Golding resisted Coke’s extradition for nine months, arguing the US indictment on gun and drug trafficking charges relied on illegal wiretap evidence. Golding’s parliament district included Coke’s West Kingston slum stronghold. The stance strained relations with Washington, which questioned Jamaica’s reliability as an ally in the fight against drug trafficking. When Golding finally agreed to send Coke to the US, a hunt for the fugitive led to days of fighting in May 2010 that killed at least 73 civilians and three security officers. Coke was captured about a month later and extradited. Last month Coke pleaded guilty to racketeering and assault charges, admitting his leadership of the brutal Shower Posse gang. He is due to be sentenced in December. The Coke controversy prompted Golding to offer his resignation last year but it was rejected by his party. Peter Phillips, a spokesman for the main opposition People’s National party, said the Coke saga had been one of the bloodiest episodes in Jamaica’s recent history. The government’s inability to fix the island’s poor economy had also contributed to Golding leaving. “I think it is reflective of the low standing the prime minister has amongst the Jamaican people. His credibility was destroyed in the Christopher Coke fiasco,” Phillips said. From its national executive council gathering in the northern city of Montego Bay, the People’s National party called on Golding to immediately call general elections “to resolve the crisis of governance in the country.” It said the entire government’s immediate resignation was needed since Golding’s announcement “will not restore the country’s stability nor salvage the reputation of the (Jamaica Labor party) with respect to the poor quality of governance”. Golding, the son of a successful businessman who also served in parliament, returned his party to power in 2007 after 18 years in opposition. When he was elected as prime minister he pledged to create jobs, fight jobs and repair the streets. Last year he vowed to crush street gangs and replace their strong-armed rule with social programmes for the poor. While security forces have since launched a sustained crackdown on gangs that has resulted in decreases in murder and other crimes, Jamaica’s sprawling underclass is still struggling. Golding has repeatedly denied any ties to Coke and even resigned from the Labor party in the mid-1990s to form a new party that would be free of gang links. He rejoined Labor in 2002. Political observers say Golding could not have been elected to his parliament seat without the support of Coke, the former don of Tivoli Gardens, which has a longstanding reputation as a vote-rich stronghold for the Jamaica Labor party. Coke also thrived under the People’s National party, which led the island for nearly two decades before Labor’s 2007 win. Jamaica US foreign policy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe) When Sen. Lamar Alexander resigned his leadership position in the GOP , I had a faint hope that Alexander was protesting the caricature his party has become with the increasing but clueless influence of the tea party. But no, that was for naught, as his very first Sunday show appearance after his Good Bye Cruel GOP letter of resignation was to blame Senate Leader Harry Reid for “manufacturing a crisis” in terms of the potential for another government shutdown over funding disaster relief for Hurricane Irene : CROWLEY: Senator Alexander, let me ask you if you buy into Senator Warner’s premise, which is that tea party folks are basically at fault, I think I’m — that’s not a direct quote, but that the tea party-backed folks in the House are the ones behind this stalemate that is now threatening yet another government shutdown. Do you agree with that? SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), TENNESSEE: No, I don’t. You know, I’ll give the Senate Democratic leader most of the credit. He manufactured a crisis all week about disaster when there’s no crisis. Everybody knows we’re going to pay for every single penny of disaster aid that the president declares and that FEMA certifies. And the House sent over a bill that does that and the Senate should have approved it. What it did was take $1.5 billion of unobligated funds and say, we’re going to — instead of adding to the debt we’re going to not add to the debt when we do this. No crisis? Our third approach to a government shutdown in a year due to the ridiculous hostage taking of the Republican Party and it’s Harry Reid that is manufacturing the crisis? We are well and truly in Bizarro-land. But of course, it’s not for Candy Crowley to point out that every little thing is being held up by the Republicans in congress, making this one of the least productive congressional sessions in history . And if “everybody knows” that Congress will approve the disaster aid, then what is the kabuki theater that the tea party Republicans insist upon? Why are Republicans suddenly now looking for budgetary offsets when they approved trillions of off-budget expenditures while they held the majority? Of course, none of this was raised by Crowley in response. Why give her viewers any context or facts to assess Alexander’s statement?
Continue reading …Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe) When Sen. Lamar Alexander resigned his leadership position in the GOP , I had a faint hope that Alexander was protesting the caricature his party has become with the increasing but clueless influence of the tea party. But no, that was for naught, as his very first Sunday show appearance after his Good Bye Cruel GOP letter of resignation was to blame Senate Leader Harry Reid for “manufacturing a crisis” in terms of the potential for another government shutdown over funding disaster relief for Hurricane Irene : CROWLEY: Senator Alexander, let me ask you if you buy into Senator Warner’s premise, which is that tea party folks are basically at fault, I think I’m — that’s not a direct quote, but that the tea party-backed folks in the House are the ones behind this stalemate that is now threatening yet another government shutdown. Do you agree with that? SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R), TENNESSEE: No, I don’t. You know, I’ll give the Senate Democratic leader most of the credit. He manufactured a crisis all week about disaster when there’s no crisis. Everybody knows we’re going to pay for every single penny of disaster aid that the president declares and that FEMA certifies. And the House sent over a bill that does that and the Senate should have approved it. What it did was take $1.5 billion of unobligated funds and say, we’re going to — instead of adding to the debt we’re going to not add to the debt when we do this. No crisis? Our third approach to a government shutdown in a year due to the ridiculous hostage taking of the Republican Party and it’s Harry Reid that is manufacturing the crisis? We are well and truly in Bizarro-land. But of course, it’s not for Candy Crowley to point out that every little thing is being held up by the Republicans in congress, making this one of the least productive congressional sessions in history . And if “everybody knows” that Congress will approve the disaster aid, then what is the kabuki theater that the tea party Republicans insist upon? Why are Republicans suddenly now looking for budgetary offsets when they approved trillions of off-budget expenditures while they held the majority? Of course, none of this was raised by Crowley in response. Why give her viewers any context or facts to assess Alexander’s statement?
Continue reading …Friday at the UN (text here ), Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of engaging in “ethnic cleansing.” Earlier, in a speech to 200 supposed “senior representatives of the Palestinian community in the U.S.” (would that include Gaza flotilla organizers and Barack Obama pals Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? Just askin'), Abbas declared, as relayed by Ynetnews.com, that “They talk to us about the Jewish state, but I respond to them with a final answer: We shall not recognize a Jewish state.” Given that there would hardly be a point to covering Abbas's speech if readers knew of the just-cited statements, it's hardly surprising that the press is also in a non-recognition mode: A search at the Associated Press's national site on “ethnic cleansing” (not in quotes) returns nothing relevant . In a review of several AP stories, I found no reference to Abbas's non-recognition statement. In one instance , the AP brought up Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's mention of it: “[h]e reiterated in interviews with Israeli TV stations that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state and that talks would first have to address security arrangements.” Based on a search on “ethnic cleansing” (in quotes) at the New York Times, the last time the term was used in connection with anything was September 16 . A Google News September 22-25 search on “ethnic cleansing” (in quotes, sorted by date) returned 56 items (it looks like 108 , but it's really 56 ). None are original source, U.S.-based establishment media outlets. Yes, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Palestinian terrorists of engaging in ethnic cleansing, but only after Abbas weighed in, and with an accuracy Abbas did not have: For his part, Netanyahu accused the Palestinians of racism and ethnic cleansing in their call for a state with no Jewish settlers — “Judenrein,” in Netanyahu's words, using the Nazi-era term. “That's ethnic cleansing,” he said. He accused the Palestinians of wanting statehood but not peace. “The truth is, so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate,” he said. “The truth is the Palestinians want a state without peace.” We're where we've always been, namely that meaningful talks can't start until the Palestinians recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. They never have. Frankly it all seems like a such a waste of media and diplomatic time and effort — unless the long-term goal is, through a long-term campaign of disparate treatment, to make Israel look like the obstacle to peace, when it isn't and never has been. That's seemingly what's it's been all about for at least 44 years since the 1967 war. In case you're wondering where all of this might be headed, an AP story's headline this afternoon should give you an idea: “With UN bid, Abbas rises out of Arafat's shadow.” Marvelous. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer tell press conference of difficult prison conditions and surprise of sudden release Declaring that they were detained because of their nationality, not their actions, two American hikers held for more than two years in an Iranian prison came home on Sunday, ending a diplomatic and personal ordeal with a sharp rebuke of the country that accused them of crossing the border from Iraq. Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer, both 29, were freed last week under a $1m (£640,000) bail deal and arrived on Wednesday in Oman, greeted by relatives and fellow hiker Sarah Shourd, who was released last year . Their saga began in July 2009 with what they called ‘a wrong turn into the wrong country.’ The three say they were hiking together in Iraq’s relatively peaceful Kurdish region along the border with Iran when Iranian guards detained them. They always maintained their innocence, saying they might have accidentally wandered into Iran. The two men were convicted of spying last month. Shourd, to whom Bauer proposed marriage while they were imprisoned, was charged but freed before any trial. The men took turns reading statements at a news conference on Sunday in New York, surrounded by relatives and with Shourd at their side. Fattal said he wanted to make clear that while he and Bauer “applaud Iranian authorities for finally making the right decision”, they do not deserve undue credit for ending what they had “no right and no justification to start in the first place.” “From the very start, the only reason we have been held hostage is because we are American,” he said, adding that “Iran has always tied our case to its political disputes with the US” The two countries severed diplomatic ties three decades ago during the hostage crisis . Since then, both have tried to limit the other’s influence in the Middle East, and the US sees Iran as the greatest nuclear threat in the region. The hikers’ detention, Bauer said, was “never about crossing the unmarked border between Iran and Iraq. We were held because of our nationality.” He said they did not know whether they actually had crossed the border. The irony of it all, he said, “is that Sarah, Josh and I oppose the US policies towards Iran which perpetuate this hostility.” The two also told of difficult prison conditions, where they were held in near isolation. “Many times, too many times, we heard the screams of other prisoners being beaten and there was nothing we could do to help them,” said Fattal. Bauer added: “How can we forgive the Iranian government when it continues to imprison so many other innocent people and prisoners of conscience?” They said their phone calls with family members amounted to a total of 15 minutes over two years, and they had to go on repeated hunger strikes to receive letters. Eventually, they were told – falsely – that their families had stopped writing them letters. “We lived in a world of lies and false hope,” Fattal said. Fattal called their release a ‘total surprise’. On Wednesday, he said, they had just finished their brief daily open-air exercise and expected, as on other days, to be blindfolded and led back to their 2.5m by 4m cell. Instead, the prison guards took them downstairs, took their fingerprints and gave them civilian clothes. They were not told where they were going. The guards then led them to another part of the prison, where they met a diplomatic envoy from Oman, whose first words to the pair were “Let’s go home.” Hours later, the Americans were driven to the airport, then flown to Oman. Shourd was with the families to greet them on the tarmac at a royal airfield in Oman’s capital, Muscat. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Fattal and Bauer bounded down the steps from the blue-and-white plane. The men appeared very thin and pale, but in good health. The first hint of change in the case came last week when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Fattal and Bauer could be released within days, but wrangling within the country’s leadership delayed the efforts. On Wednesday, Iranian lawyer Masoud Shafiei secured the necessary judicial approval for the bail – $500,000 for each man. Iran’s foreign ministry called their release a gesture of Islamic mercy. Iran United States Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Senior White House adviser David Plouffe was out there making the rounds this Sunday, defending President Obama’s deficit reduction plan which has Republicans up in arms because he’s dared to suggest that the rich should be paying more in taxes. During Plouffe’s interview on Fox News Sunday, Wallace did his best to play concern troll for the wealthiest among us, trotting out some of the same tired talking points we’ve been hearing from Republicans, and repeated constantly on Fox, for some time now. Chris Hayes debunked one of them this weekend on his show that Nicole wrote about here — Chris Hayes: Welcome To Inequalistan! : No sophomore slump for the second weekend of Up with Chris Hayes . On Saturday, Hayes took on the ever-present, but disingenuous, conservative talking point that the top ten percent of income earners pay seventy percent of income taxes. Nothing says “patriotic American” more than defending the super-rich from a three percent hike to pre-Bush tax levels : You have to hand it to Brooks–he has a flair for turning reality upside down that George Orwell would admire. The wealthiest 10 percent pay nearly 70 percent of all income taxes in this country because they make more than 70 percent of all the income! Check out Mother Jones charts on skyrocketing income inequality in America. Over the last decade, as incomes for the very wealthy have soared, their tax rates have fallen. That 31 percent Brooks grouses about is considerably lower than the 37 percent they paid when they controlled less of the nation’s money than they do now. And Paul Krugman debunked the other as Susie noted in her post here –
Continue reading …To win back voters shadow chancellor says party must have the ‘discipline and strength’ to tackle deepening financial crisis Shadow chancellor Ed Balls will attempt to begin restoring Labour’s credibility on the economy by promising that before the next election he will set out demanding and independently scrutinised fiscal rules for cutting the deficit. He will also tell his party conference in Liverpool that if there is any windfall from the sale of state-owned bank shares such as RBS, the cash will be used exclusively to pay down the deficit and not boost state spending. Adopting a more hawkish stance on the economy, Balls will say: “We will never have credibility unless we have the discipline and the strength to take tough decisions.” Labour is still trailing the Conservatives heavily in the polls on economic management, especially in the south, despite growing public concerns over low growth and the government’s austerity package. The tone of the speech by Balls implies an admission by Labour high command that its repeated calls for extra spending in the short term to produce growth need to be balanced more clearly by a credible emphasis on a longer-term programme to bring the deficit under control. Labour officials recognise that the party leader, Ed Miliband, must use the next few days to shift perceptions on Labour and the economy. Miliband’s pre-conference emphasis has been fixed on helping the squeezed middle, targeting energy and train prices, as well as reducing university tuition fees. But shifting the ground on to the chief electoral battleground on the economy, Balls will warn in stark terms: “The country and the whole world is facing the threat of a lost decade of economic stagnation.” He will also challenge the Tories head on over their central claim that the economic crisis is simply one of excessive public debt, and instead warn of a global growth crisis, which is deepening and becoming more dangerous by the day. In a key passage of his speech, he will embrace the two fiscal goals set out by the coalition government – bringing the country’s current budget back into balance, and ensuring the national debt is on a downward curve as a proportion of GDP. He will also promise the route to achieving these aims will be monitored by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR was set up after claims that Labour politicians – including Balls – put improper political pressure on Treasury officials to produce over-optimistic forecasts. But Balls will not spell out on Monday the speed with which he would bring the deficit into balance, arguing that it is too early to give such a detailed timetable. Before the election, then-chancellor Alistair Darling promised to halve public sector net borrowing as a share of GDP over four years. He enshrined this commitment in law, but the effort to reassure the bond markets and the electorate foundered as the party went down to its worst post-war defeat. Despite some pressure from inside the shadow cabinet, Balls is not expected to offer any new apologies for Labour’s stewardship of the economy in government, such as over-spending prior to the advent of the banking crash. He has already apologised for Labour’s failure to regulate the City more effectively, and Miliband has admitted that Gordon Brown was wrong to suggest Labour had abolished boom or bust. Balls insists Labour went into the 1998 recession with a lower debt-GDP ratio than France, Germany, Italy and Japan so there is no need for further contrition. Some Labour backbenchers such as Stella Creasy are urging Balls to go further, by giving the OBR powers to tell the Treasury to change course if it is to meet its spending and deficit mandates. She has also proposed the Treasury select committee be given powers to instruct the OBR to mount specific inquiries. Neither of these proposals has been rejected by the Miliband team. Balls will try to counter claims that his commitment to growth stimulus leaves him blind to the deficit, saying “growth will not magic the deficit away”. He will say: “A steadier, more balanced medium-term plan to get the deficit down will still mean difficult decisions and tough choices in the years ahead that will face any government. Tough choices on tax and spending – like the cuts to welfare, education and Home Office budgets that we set out before the election.” He will also call for discipline in public and private sector pay. “It will not be enough to expose that David Cameron and George Osborne have got the economy badly wrong. We still know today what we recognised in 1994 – we will never have credibility unless we have the discipline and the strength to take tough decisions.” On a one-day visit to the conference David Miliband dismissed reports of tensions between the brothers: “My best advice, being in politics for 15 to 20 years, is that one year into a parliament don’t look at the opinion polls.” But the former home secretary David Blunkett urged Miliband to do more to win over the country, saying “There’s no questions whatsoever that he has to lift his profile, that we have to have seminal announcements and moments when he can reach the electorate, when he’s talking about things that really matter to people on the ground.” Labour conference 2011 Ed Balls Economic policy European debt crisis Labour Public finance Economic growth (GDP) European banks Labour conference Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Forget those polls.
Continue reading …