Two manage to escape blaze in Neasden, but five children among victims all thought to be from Palestine A mother and five children have died following an “unexplained” house fire in north-west London. Thirty firefighters were called to the semi-detached property in Sonia Gardens, Neasden, during the early hours of Saturday morning after a blaze
Continue reading …Click here to view this media If anyone didn’t already think that the GOP’s union busting at the state level wasn’t bad enough already with making sure the last of what we’ve got left with workers in any sector of the American workforce having the right to negotiate for their wages and benefits, apparently presidential candidate Rick Santorum thinks that those public sector unions should just be eliminated all together with these comments during the Fox GOP debate in Florida this week. KELLY: That’s for you, Senator Santorum. SANTORUM: I — I think the most important area that we have to focus in on when it comes to unions is public employee unions. That’s the area of unionization that’s growing the fastest and it’s costing us the most money. We’ve seen these battles on the state level, where unions have — have really bankrupted states from pension plans to here on the federal level, for example, 30 percent to 40 percent union — union employees make above their private-sector equivalents. I do not believe that — that state, federal or local workers, unions, should be involved in unions. And I would actually support a bill that says that we should not have public employee unions for the purposes of wages and benefits to be negotiated. It’s bad enough that we’ve got record income disparity in the United States with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but Santorum and his buddies in the GOP would like to assure that one of the last institutions we’ve got out there trying to do anything to bring some balance back to that equation is eliminated. Santorum may be considered on the fringe of these Republican nominees for the 2012 presidential race, but his hatred of unions is shared by all of them. There’s not a single one of them that were on that stage during this debate that don’t want to assure that the race to the bottom we’re seeing on wages, income disparity and workers’ rights aren’t made worse by the policies they’re promoting. And if you needed any more proof that the so-called front runners are just as far off the charts when it comes to union busting and attacking union members, here’s Rick Perry advocating for school “choice”, which is nothing more than making sure we bankrupt the public school systems in America, and Mitt Romney claiming that advocating for smaller classrooms is just some evil ploy by the teachers’ unions to make sure more of them are hired. Video below the fold. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …Forget the birther theories that Obama was born in Kenya. Chris Hayes wants you to believe the president was born on Krypton. How else to explain his over-the-top gushing for Dear Leader during an appearance on MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow's show on Thursday (video after page break) — There's a tendency in commentary in politics to be what we would call in economics pro-cyclical, which is that when the president is doing poorly everyone rushes to talk about how he's terrible and listless and has no leadership qualities and the Ron Suskind book comes out saying the same and everyone piles on and then you forget, you get this weird induced amnesia, this is an extremely able, deft, confident, exceptional politician. (laughs) And, and what happens is the cycle sort of gets on this internal logic, his approval ratings are down, the economy is bad. And everyone is like, well what happened to? You know, he's right there. I mean, that is a very good, able, amazingly powerful politician and I think in some ways he has been not using his superpowers (laughs) for lot of his time in office. I think as, I don't know why frankly, I'm not inside the president's head. Ah, that explains it. The greatest challenge confronting Obama is that his opposition is comprised mainly of mere mortals, and everyone knows what fools these mere mortals be. Hayes' cheerleading came in response to Obama speaking in the shadow of the Brent Spence Bridge linking Ohio and Kentucky, Boehner symbolically on one end and McConnell on the other, calling on Republicans to end their opposition to his so-called jobs bill — “Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, help us rebuild this bridge!” — even though his legislation doesn't provide a dime for any work on the overloaded structure. Hayes is partially right, though not in the way he intended. Obama isn't using his “superpowers” when he makes bogus claims like that.
Continue reading …The Oscar-winning actress discusses her Russian roots, her Oscar-winning role as the Queen, why she never had children and her latest brace of movies ‘I learned quite early on in life,” Helen Mirren is telling me over tea at the Dorchester hotel, “that we are all two people. And one of those people none of us will ever know. You, Tim, for example, will never know how I perceive you. What my ideas are about the way you are sitting and your hair or your cheeks or whatever. You will never know.” It’s true. And, I have to confess, sitting there, suddenly aware of my hair – of my cheeks? – I’m quite happy to keep it that way. Mirren is frank and warm as an interviewee but you do have the sense, all the time you are posing your artless little list of questions, that she effortlessly sees right through you. The actress gives the constant impression of quite severe self-knowledge but also a withering understanding of human motivation in more general terms. After a lifetime of enduring the male gaze, for better and worse, there is not much she doesn’t know about looking. “Acting,” she goes on, “is a great deal to do with accepting that other person and coming to terms with her. You can’t control how other people see you or think of you. But you have to be comfortable with that.” The previous night, I had found myself watching the compulsive YouTube clip of Mirren being interviewed by Michael Parkinson in 1975. If you had to provide a single piece of footage that conveyed the idea of sexual politics in the 70s, then that interview achieves in seven minutes what it took a whole series of Life on Mars to dramatise. Parkinson introduces Mirren as “sluttishly erotic”. He kicks off by asking: “You are, in quotes, a ‘serious actress’; do you find what might best be described as your equipment hinders you in that pursuit?” Mirren, then 30, and the leading lady of the RSC, toys with a long feather she has bought with her on to the set and, at a stroke, makes Parky look the leering schoolboy. “How dare you?” she murmurs. And then: “Describe in detail what you mean by my equipment.” In person, Mirren offers only glimpses of the power she can draw to herself on screen. Sitting quietly at the Dorchester, with her ankles demurely crossed, she seems both her age – 66 – and dramatically not her age. I wonder what she makes now of that former self on Parky? “I watched it recently on the internet,” she says. “I didn’t know it was there. And actually I was really proud of myself. It was the first chat-showy thing I had done. I was incredibly nervous. I was holding that feather. And I have to say I thought I handled it well. I was always an instinctive feminist, without being overly political, just in my feelings about myself. Parkinson, of course, just didn’t get it at all.” She seemed, I say, properly angry about the type in which she was cast. Was that her normal state at the time? “You didn’t encounter that sexism so much in the theatre,” she says, “but it was a norm of everyday life. I was insulted. But I was also my own worst enemy to a certain extent. I was into girlie things and also what I would call eroticism as art; I had a relationship with a photographer [James Wedge] and explored that. I never saw a conflict in those things. Your personal dignity seems a separate thing from that to me. And it is a question of taste. To this day, I still can’t quite explain why one thing is vulgar and one thing is not, but I know for sure which is which.” Mirren was famous early in her film career for her apparently relaxed attitude to nudity. That defining “other self” has stayed with her, somewhat to her amusement. Her “equipment”, as Parky had it, still has a life of its own, at least in some eyes. Key “Helen Mirren” into Google and the predicted searches come up with “Helen Mirren bikini”, “Helen Mirren Hot”, “Helen Mirren best body” and “Helen Mirren tattoo”. Few actresses have ever commanded her mix of allure and aloof for so long. She knows her way round every aspect of that appeal and uses all of it to her advantage on screen and on stage. As Stephen Frears remarked when casting her as the Queen: “It seemed essential to have someone who made you nervous…” Talking further of how self-knowledge is only one small part of who we are, Mirren suggests she remains intrigued by how her filmed self rarely feels like her at all. She can only really watch her movies “when they are seven or 10 years old” she says, because the disjunction between her own perception and the magnified film version is by then less shocking. “If I catch a glimpse of myself in Age of Consent , with James Mason, the first film I did, it is a bit, ‘Wow! Who is that funny little hairy fat girl?’ It is a different person. Every cell in your body is different. It’s not really you at all.” One way of reading Mirren’s stellar career is as a determined and brilliant progression toward a different kind of nudity. Though her body still has its admirers, her emotional honesty has long since eclipsed it. She bared all as Jane Tennison in the seven series of Prime Suspect , without ever removing a stitch. As the Queen, her tweeds only served to highlight the remarkably candid exposure of the person within. Two forthcoming films will peel away further layers. The Debt , an enormously watchable thriller directed by John Madden ( Shakespeare in Love ), casts her as a Mossad agent who is forced to confront the realities of her past as a Nazi hunter. In The Door , based on the brilliant novel by Magda Szabó , she plays a Hungarian housekeeper who takes over the life of a female writer. The Debt has already opened in the States to excited reviews. Mirren had worked with Madden before on series 4 of Prime Suspect and she relished the prospect of doing so again. “Structurally,” she says, “the film was a hard thing to pull off. But John is rather like Hitchcock in that you are aware that he has every rhythm and timing and tone constructed in his mind for every scene before he starts shooting.” The Debt is a reworking of an Israeli film, which Mirren decided to see after she took the role. “I watched in trepidation because you really want to come to something fresh and free. But I was glad I saw it because it taught me the amount of feeling that the character has to inhabit. The role was so full of import and passion and seriousness. You couldn’t be British about it, cool or ironic; it had to be a different kind of emotional register.” Mirren’s younger self in the film is played, beautifully, by Jessica Chastain, the current woman to watch in Hollywood. The film loops between their two time frames. Chastain is the young Mossad officer in cold war Berlin who is part of a group sent to capture a former concentration camp torturer now working as a gynaecologist. The kidnap operation subsequently becomes a heroic legend in Israel, but as the film unfolds, and becomes more rooted in Mirren’s story, we come to realise that the history is not all to be trusted. Mirren says she hardly overlapped with Chastain on set, but “in a sense she created the character which I could then surf on”. The younger actress had, she says, done a lot of work studying her own mannerisms, so the transition between the two seems more seamless. “She was good at pointing out things about me of which I was completely unaware,” Mirren says. “And I was never as beautiful as she is now. So I lucked out on that level, too.” The film culminates in an extraordinary fight scene between Mirren and her nemesis in an old people’s home, which took two days to film. Mirren keeps coming back for more, though she is characteristically modest about the scene: “I call it the geriatric fight,” she says. “We were both struggling to get up off the floor as much as anything…” That conclusion of the film takes place in Russia, and sees Mirren speaking in Russian, which makes it a return to roots of sorts. Her grandfather, a senior officer in the Tsarist army, became a reluctant emigre to England after being stranded in London during the Revolution, while on a mission to buy arms. He subsequently lived with Mirren’s family in Leigh-on-Sea in Essex until his death in 1955, telling Tolstoyan stories of the family estate and the lives they had lost. As a young girl, Helen was called Ilyena, but once her grandfather had passed away her father anglicised their names. The Mironoffs became the Mirrens. Does she feel, as she gets older, and in her choice of roles, I wonder, a sense that her Russian roots are reasserting themselves? She suggests that she does, in a way. “Working on these two films – The Debt and The Door – it is certainly worth remarking on,” she says. “In one sense, it is terrifying. For The Door , the costume people came to see me while I was in Venice at the film festival. I was in this gorgeous palatial room and they arrived with all these Hungarian peasant clothes. I put them on and looked in the mirror and thought I just looked so completely right. I mean, it was terrifyingly believable: me as an eastern European peasant woman. My roots just came blasting through.” Does she feel anything like that Russian-ness inside? “It’s hard to extricate what’s what inside you,” she says. “My father very much wanted to assimilate. He wanted a British family and not to live in the past as his father had done. But however hard he tried, my father was Russian in his heart. He spoke Russian but he didn’t want to. And he certainly didn’t want us to. He was a socialist.” Does she still have family in Russia? It’s odd, she says, but until a few years ago that world was quite closed to her. “I didn’t think I had anyone over there. But then I had this series of Who Do You Think You Are ? type moments.” Mirren had always kept a stash of letters given to her by her grandfather, which were written by his six sisters who had stayed behind in Russia after the Revolution. When she was working on one of the last episodes of Prime Suspect , there was a Russian actor in the cast and a translator on set. She brought the letters in for him to look at, along with an incomplete memoir that her grandfather had written. “I discovered where my grandmother was buried and the names of my great aunts and so forth. Subsequently, I went on a British Council thing out to Russia and I visited the cemetery where my great grandmother was buried. Which was extremely poignant. After that was reported, a research journalist who lived in Moscow heard the story and found all our old estates that we had lost and still living members of the family. Mironoffs.” The awareness of this past changed her sense of where she had come from, to a degree. And maybe helped her understand her acting a little more. Though she was a convent school girl, Mirren suggests that she has always had “a bit of propensity to the grand and operatic kind of emotion. I loved doing Phèdre [at the National theatre, two years ago], for example, and the Tolstoy piece I did [the film, The Last Station ], where you can really let yourself go into these bigger emotions.” It is probably in part that divide – between a certain kind of British coolness and a grander hinterland of tragic possibility – that gives Mirren’s screen presence its particular charge. She can seem both open and shut at one and the same time. When she first auditioned for the RSC, Trevor Nunn called her “his Russian princess”. Perhaps in some deep seated reference to her great-grandmother, the Russian countess, she always joked about having a thing for playing royalty. “I don’t mind if I don’t have any lines as long as I get to wear a crown,” she once observed. She has played Cleopatra three times. Her halcyon period in this respect were the years 2005 and 2006 when she played both Elizabeth I (in an Emmy-winning TV series) and Elizabeth II in Frears’s film. In interviews at the time, Mirren wondered if her work might be done, at that point, as if things might not get any better. But, looking back, the Oscar for her performance as the Queen proved a further liberation for her. As a younger actress, like most great talents, she had a reputation as an intensely competitive force, wanting leads when finding herself in peripheral roles (“Like a racehorse being asked to pull the cart,” as she once put it). There is, she says, a lot less of that now. “Though I think that drive – ‘Why am I stuck doing this? Why aren’t I doing that?’ – never goes away. All that ‘What on earth am I doing with my life?’ is a constant.” The Academy Award at least served to make those internal voices less insistent. “In the full knowledge that awards mean nothing, winning the Oscar for The Queen was fabulous in that I felt I didn’t have to worry any more,” she explains. “All those ungenerous feelings – ‘Why did she get it and not me?’ – just disappeared overnight. It’s horrible and unpleasant and disturbing, all of that, but it doesn’t stop you feeling it. I feel very much I can now do exactly what I want.” That in itself is not an exact science and, contrary to popular imagination, “offers never flood in. People think I sit there and there is a proposal from Tarantino and a script to star opposite Robert Redford. Good scripts remain incredibly rare, though, and often I’m too old or just occasionally too young.” The roles she has chosen to take on fulfil her long-stated ambition “to be prepared to age on screen”. For The Door , she wore no make-up at all, a fact the ever-generous Daily Mail found quite sensational when it ran pictures of her from the set, suggesting, bizarrely, that it was a nakedness too far. She laughs at the thought. “It is actually incredibly rare on film to have nothing on your face at all,” she says. “Even when you are playing a character who wears no make-up, you wear make-up otherwise your eyes tend to disappear and look like two piss-holes in the snow. But on this occasion I really did wear no make-up. It was great because I could just prance in five minutes before I was due on. And also, once you let go of that, it’s gone. You just look the way you look.” Mirren, in this great lateish period as an actress, seems able to find new ways of challenging herself and bringing herself up against the edge of what she knows. When she doesn’t get something instinctively, she does her research, she suggests. For The Queen , she studied as many portraits as she could find – artist’s impressions were closer to what she wanted than filmed footage. For The Debt , she immersed herself in Holocaust literature. Though she has often played mothers, as in these two films, it is one role that she has not known in life (though she has strong relationships with her husband Taylor Hackford’s two grown-up sons). She has always been frank about not having maternal feelings: is it, I wonder, an aspect of human experience she finds hard to imagine? She says not. “It’s not that I don’t love children. They are funny, and I just love them, but I never wanted to have them. I really tried to want it at one point… I thought maybe I should. But I never convinced myself.” I guess she was – as “an instinctive feminist” – also firmly of the first generation where it was fine to acknowledge that fact? “I guess so and I think still it is very fine not to want children. There are far too many people in the world. It is my contribution to ecology.” Would she say her career was more important to her? “No, not at all. I think some men and women just don’t have a deep urge to procreate. It’s funny, I was watching this programme on TV last night, Two Greedy Italians , and one of them announced: ‘The most important things in life are food and procreation.’ Well for me, neither of those things is centrally important.” The things that are, she gives you to understand, just as she eventually gave Parky to understand all those years ago, are personal freedom and a sense of creative adventure. She married Hackford (director of An Officer and a Gentleman and Ray ) at the age of 52, but neither of them has subsequently compromised their working commitments. Looking back, does she feel that her determinedly unplanned life established a narrative after all? “You write your life story by the choices you make,” she says. “You never know if they have been a mistake. Those moments of decision are so difficult. I went through a phase of consulting the I Ching , which was useful in that it freed you up to listen to your instinct. Though often it would say things such as, ‘The water will pour down from the mountain and the sea will churn’ and you had to make of it what you wanted to.” If there is a pattern to what she has done, however, she believes it lies in the fact that she has constantly been prepared to “throw things up in the air and see where they landed. I still have a Gypsy sense of adventure,” she insists. “I don’t think I have slept in the same bed for more than three or four months my whole life. I am always planting vegetables that I never get to eat and flowers that I never see flower. I have always moved around the world.” She and Hackford divide their time between an estate in the hills above LA and a riverside place in Wapping on the Thames. They also have homes in New York and Provence. Mirren’s restlessness is creative as much as physical, though; her heroes tend to be painters, not actors. And she is inspired by the liberation that comes after the constraining perfectionism of youth. “What I have learned is that you come more to accept that you are never going to get it right,” she says with a smile before she goes. “For any kind of artist, your whole life is a struggle to be free in your artform. I know now that you never get there. But you do get as close as you can.” Helen Mirren Jessica Chastain Tim Adams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Napo, the probation officers’ union, says courts do not protect those harassed and sentences are too soft Victims of stalking are being failed by the law, according to the first study of its kind, which has resulted in calls for new ways to tackle the crime. A study of 80 cases by Napo, the probation union, concludes that sentences handed down for stalking offences are often too lenient and that the law must be reformed. The publication of the study, which is to be presented to a parliamentary inquiry examining proposals to tackle the crime, comes after the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told yesterday’s Labour conference that the law on stalking needed to be toughened up. Last year there were 120,000 victims of stalking in the UK, 53,000 of those incidences recorded as crimes by the police. Of these, 2% resulted in a custodial sentence, while 10% of cases ended with a community sentence or fine. The remaining cases, according to Napo, appeared to have resulted in no further action being taken. The union said its study, which found that all but one of the 80 perpetrators studied for the report were male and all but one of the victims were female, showed there was a need for the courts to take stalking more seriously. An analysis of the cases revealed that stalking sometimes rapidly escalated from unwanted texting and making telephone calls to victims being followed, wounded or even murdered. Many of the victims featured in the study, which was carried out with the support of the charity Protection Against Stalking (PAS), endured years of abuse as a result of menacing behaviour conducted both in person and online. Significantly, the study found that more than half of the stalking cases followed the breakdown of a relationship that had featured domestic violence. But fewer than 10% of those convicted for stalking offences received any treatment. Those who did were usually counselled for domestic violence, which Napo claimed was an inappropriate response. “The report shows that stalking is a prevalent and very serious crime,” said Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo. “It can result in women being wounded and murdered. There is ample evidence that behaviour can escalate as perpetrators become more obsessed and dangerous.” Examples in the study included a 52-year-old man who was charged with attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The offender, who had more than 20 previous convictions and had stalked a woman for 10 years, had made threats to kill, announced a “countdown” to a victim’s death and had attempted to pay for her husband’s murder. Last week, 22 year-old Shane Webber pleaded guilty to causing his girlfriend, Ruth Jeffery, harassment, alarm and distress. Southampton magistrates court heard that Webber had stalked Jeffery over the internet and had distributed naked images of her to her friends and family. “Stalking is where domestic abuse was 20 years ago and we know first-hand that failure to deal adequately with stalking can result in high-profile tragedies: this is about homicide prevention,” said Laura Richards, a criminal behavioural psychologist who is advising the inquiry, and is a spokeswoman for PAS. “Too often PAS hears from victims who have been continually let down and rendered further vulnerable by the criminal justice system. This must change. Not only do stalkers steal lives – they take lives.” Napo warned that prison staff were finding it difficult to treat stalking behaviour because jail sentences were often too short. The union also said courts were failing to request psychiatric assessments, often on the grounds of avoiding cost and delay. “There is urgent need for training programmes to be available generally for perpetrators and for training for criminal justice staff,” Fletcher said. “Courts should routinely request risk assessments on victims before bail and sentencing decisions are made. Unless stalking laws are reformed and therefore treated seriously, women will continue to be assaulted, psychologically harmed and even murdered.” The study found that only 10 of the 80 stalkers had no previous convictions. Eleven, however, had been convicted of threats to kill, attempted murder, wounding or homicide, and a further 18 had been charged with assault on female victims. In all 47 of the stalkers had three or more convictions. Typical previous offences included breaches of restraining orders, assault, harassment and criminal damage. The study found those convicted of stalking tended to be older than the average offender, with 55% aged over 40, compared with just 20% of all those on probation. Napo called on MPs to create a specific offence of stalking and said harassment charges should be tried in crown courts as well as magistrates courts. Crime Sentencing Prisons and probation Domestic violence Women Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …You know, for all of the blustery promises made at these crazy Republican debates about how they will kill “Obamacare” with an executive order once elected, there aren’t really that many times where an executive order will actually work that way. The best they could do with the ACA would be to give states waivers, which would allow them to opt out of exchanges but wouldn’t change the consumer protections or statutory requirements insurers would have to abide by. However, today is one time where an executive order is a terrific way to kill a bad law, and President Obama exercised that discretion today. Via CBS : President Obama unveiled the most significant changes to U.S. education policy in a decade, using his executive authority to give states more flexibility to opt of some provisions of the controversial No Child Left Behind program that was a signature initiative of President George W. Bush. “We can’t let another generation of young people fall behind,” Mr. Obama told an audience of education leaders in the East Room of the White House. Mr. Obama expressed frustration with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, who have bickered about the best way to improve the increasingly unpopular program championed 10 years ago by Bush and liberal Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Mr. Bush signed the law in early 2002 at an Ohio high school in the congressional district of House Speaker John Boehner, who was then chairman of the House panel overseeing responsible for education. “Our kids only get one shot at a decent education. They cannot afford to wait any longer. So, given that Congress cannot act, I am acting,” Mr. Obama said. The Wall Street Journal has more details on the waiver requirements (Note: article behind a paywall): To qualify, states must meet three tests. First is the rigorous evaluation system for teachers and principals. Second, they must set high achievement standards. Under existing law, states can set their own standards, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said many set the bar too low. Under the new waiver program, students who meet standards must be considered ready for college or a career. Third, states must develop strategies targeted to the worst-performing schools. For the bottom 5% of schools, that means turnaround plans akin to those under the existing rules. Other interventions must be targeted to another 10% of schools deemed low-performing. Obama’s plan will basically throw out the requirement that every student pass state tests by the 2013-2014 school year, and let states draft their own plans to improve the performance of struggling students in troubled schools. Schools will not necessarily get failing grades for missing particular goals on state achievement tests, and states will be eligible for more flexibility in how they spend federal money previously marked for special tutoring programs. To me, this is a very big, very huge, BFD in a bittersweet kind of way. My youngest child will graduate in June of this year. She entered the school system the same year as NCLB, and she’ll leave it in the last year these stupid idiotic test standards are required. Fortunately, she has been a terrific student with the ability to learn in spite of it, but it has sorely tested her ability to love learning, which is my ultimate goal. Her school is an under-performing school, largely due to the number of non-English speaking students, the number of students who live in poverty and less-than-optimal conditions for learning, and the fact that her school is the one where they send the kids who aren’t disruptive but face learning and life challenges causing them to underachieve. As a result, funds have diminished steadily year after year. When that happens, the school refocuses on their underachievers, not the students who achieve. The net result for my daughter has been an erosion of resources, instructors, and time for her classes. It’s true that she’ll overcome it, and we hope she’ll be able to go to the college of her choice (and that we can pay for it without loans). But it never had to be that way. There was no reason for it to be that way, and I can’t see where any discernible benefit came from hammering on these kids year after year to step up and make a showing “for their school” on the standardized tests. So thank you, Mr. President. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a true effort to reform education in meaningful ways, at least, after we win back the House in 2012 and keep the Senate. [h/t Daily Kos ]
Continue reading …Florida straw poll voters decided they hate everyone and voted for the only candidate who’s never held public office, Herman Cain. Results: Cain (37 percent), Perry (15 percent), Romney (14 percent), Santorum (11 percent), Paul (10 percent), Gingrich (8 percent), Huntsman (2.3 percent), Bachmann (1.5 percent) Ouch. Perry is third after he was on the ground for this contest . Maybe he’ll do a Pawlenty and work in the Romney campaign now. FoxNews set this straw poll up to be important : Just days ahead of Florida’s straw poll, Florida’s Republican Party Communications Director Brian Hughes explained to “Power Play Live” host Chris Stirewalt just how big the sunshine state showdown really is. “The winner of the Presidency 5 straw poll is going to be the Republican nominee,” Hughes said. Uh huh.
Continue reading …Florida straw poll voters decided they hate everyone and voted for the only candidate who’s never held public office, Herman Cain. Results: Cain (37 percent), Perry (15 percent), Romney (14 percent), Santorum (11 percent), Paul (10 percent), Gingrich (8 percent), Huntsman (2.3 percent), Bachmann (1.5 percent) Ouch. Perry is third after he was on the ground for this contest . Maybe he’ll do a Pawlenty and work in the Romney campaign now. FoxNews set this straw poll up to be important : Just days ahead of Florida’s straw poll, Florida’s Republican Party Communications Director Brian Hughes explained to “Power Play Live” host Chris Stirewalt just how big the sunshine state showdown really is. “The winner of the Presidency 5 straw poll is going to be the Republican nominee,” Hughes said. Uh huh.
Continue reading …Defence giant says it is ‘reviewing operations across various businesses’ after reports that 3,000 posts will go Defence giant BAE Systems is to announce thousands more job losses, it has been reported. The firm has previously warned that it expected to further cut staffing levels and Sky News said up to 3,000 posts would go. A BAE spokeswoman said: “BAE Systems has informed staff that we are reviewing our operations across various businesses to make sure the company is performing as effectively and efficiently as possible, both in delivering our commitments to existing customers and ensuring the company is best placed to secure future business. “As the outcome of this review becomes clear, we will, as always, communicate to our employees as a priority.” Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the news was “a devastating blow for Lancashire and Yorkshire and a real knock for UK manufacturing”. The facilities expected to be worst affected are BAE’s military aircraft division in Warton, Lancashire, and Brough, East Riding of Yorkshire. “We need a fast response from ministers with a clear plan of action,” Murphy said. “At a time when it is so hard to find a new job this is a dreadful moment to lose the one you have,” he said. “The defence industry is vital to the UK, supporting both our forces on the frontline and the wider UK economy. “Labour’s industrial strategy has been replaced with this government’s deficit reduction plan and as a result both our industrial base and our equipment programme are being hit.” BAE Systems Job losses guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …