Ed Miliband targets initiative at squeezed households with plan to reset terms of privatisation for power and train companies In a populist eve-of-conference appeal, Ed Miliband plans to turn Labour’s fire on privatised industries – proposing a national system of purchasing energy and a ban on train companies that rig prices. The Labour leader hopes to reset the terms of privatisation for industries contributing most to a squeeze of living standards. Miliband pledges that train companies currently rigging fares will be disqualified from renewing their franchise by a Labour government. He also vows to act against price-fixing by the six energy companies by requiring them to pool all energy centrally, a move that he claims would cut energy prices for 80% of users. Any company would then be able to buy and supply energy from the pool at a clear and transparent price. The initiatives are being billed by Miliband’s aides as a sign of his desire to speak out about “a quiet crisis” gripping households because of higher bills, squeezed wages and irresponsible profiteering. In a Guardian interview, the shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, says: “The focus of conversation around many kitchen tables is rising train fares and energy bills. People believe the government simply do not understand the pressures.” The coalition government has lifted the cap on rail fares, meaning tickets are to rise by as much as 8%, with some individual routes seeing increases as high as 13% next year. Under plans being drawn up by Labour, train-operating companies would be barred from competing for the renewal of their licence if they failed to meet a set of conduct standards over the previous five years, rather than just “a narrow bottom line test”. A Labour source said: “We are allowing these companies to get away with practices which would be barred in any other industry and then we are allowing them to bid for contracts as if the past never happened. There are legal complexities here but there has got to be a basic ‘something for something’ deal with the train companies and there has got to be more pressure brought to bear on price hikes.” Significantly, Labour said: “The assessment of what the train companies are doing will be retrospective so that price rises and irresponsible conduct now or in the past could be used to disqualify companies from the bidding process in the next round of renewal franchises.” Labour is targeting the way in which train companies walk away from delivering services if they are no longer profitable or handing back franchises to avoid making payments back to the taxpayer. The transport secretary Philip Hammond is planning to offer rail franchises as for as long as 15 years. Many train companies would demand compensation or accuse Labour of confiscation if franchises were taken prematurely. Miliband’s move comes as a Guardian-ICM poll showed his personal appeal remains low but voters are also increasingly opposed to government economic policy . The poll finds only 30% of voters – and just 49% of Labour supporters – agree with the statement “the party has the right leader in Ed Miliband”. His net approval ratiing is -14, up from -16 but is now worse than both David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Ed Balls, included for the first time, is on -18. But support for government’s economic policy is perilously low. Only 32% agree with the statement “the government’s tax increases and public spending cuts are essential to protect Britain’s economy”. Almost twice as many, 62%, agree “the cuts are too deep and too fast, they will harm Britain’s economy more than they help it”. Alexander accepts the public bought the Conservative, rather than Labour, explanation for the crash in 2008. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis and that helps explain the election defeat”. But he said: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of politics is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation means now is such a moment.” The terms of trade for British politics are shifting and there is a growing anxiety in the country that the government has got it wrong at a quite fundamentlal level. He says “The task for Labour now is to explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will pursue social justice with less money around”. Writing in the Guardian today, shadow chancellor Ed Balls admits the party has work to do to win credibility on the economy, and that will require being honest that Labour would have faced tough choices on tax and spending if re-elected. But he rejects advice that Labour could neutralise the economy “by going along with the Tory false claim that Labour profligacy caused the crisis”. He writes: “Credibility is certainly not won simply by agreeing with everything the government does. Of course a credible economic policy needs a plan to get the deficit down. But an economic policy can only be credible if it works. And – aAs 1992 showed – the only thing less credible than a government getting it catastrophically wrong on the economy is an Opposition hanging onto their coat-tails.”The Labour conference formally opens on Sunday, but at a meeting of the Labour national executive Miliband will finalise his plans to redraw the Labour constitution, including introducing a new right for registered supporters to have a vote in future leadership elections. The conference may be be overshadowed by the economic crisis, but is still seen by Miliband’s aides as a vital chance to project a clearer vision of where he stands. Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Ed Miliband Household bills Energy bills Consumer affairs Rail transport Energy industry Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A group of activists associated with the OccupyWallStreet movement disrupted a Sotheby’s auction in New York yesterday in support of workers in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Art Handlers Union who have been pushed by the company to make major concessions despite profits of $680 million last year. CEO Bill Rupprecht received a 125 percent raise while the company called for more than 100 concessions by the union in its current contract. #OCCUPYWALLSTREET supporters are appalled at the persistent attack on workers rights. We support the right of the workers to collectively bargain. Sotheby’s wants all new hires to have no collective bargaining rights, no health benefits and no job security. After locking out their unionized work force, Sotheby’s continues to operate using scabs and a non-union subcontractor. Sotheby’s Art Auctions epitomize the disconnect of the extremely wealthy from the rest of us. Sotheby’s Art Auctions are a sanctuary for the financial elite; where hedge fund managers & wealthy bankers bid millions of dollars for art objects; while the rest of us struggle to put food on the table because of their actions. These are the same financial elite who were bailed out in their moment of need and now refuse to pay their fair share in taxes. Many of these Hedge Fund Managers still pay a nominal tax rate compared with the average worker. That is our money! End the greed & expose the disconnect!
Continue reading …
He’s been called the most influential voice in British politics, the Dalai Lama of satire, a fogey, a moralist, a troublemaker and a cynic. Meet Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye Ian Hislop bustles. There’s no other word for it. He
Continue reading …Spending cuts causing public backlash against coalition, says opinion poll
September 23, 2011 No Comment
• Guardian/ICM poll: 62% say austerity measures harm economy • Half of voters unimpressed by coalition’s record • Only half Labour voters think Ed Miliband would be good PM The tide of public opinion has turned against coalition spending cuts, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which shows a majority of voters now believe excessive austerity is doing more harm than good to the economy. The research – carried out this week before Labour’s annual conference – finds overwhelming public concern about the speed and pace of cuts in the face of the return to economic crisis and fears of a double-dip recession. Only 32% agree with the statement “the government’s tax increases and public spending cuts are essential to protect Britain’s economy”. Almost twice as many, 62%, now agree ‘the cuts are too deep and too fast, they will harm Britain’s economy more than they help it”. Among voters only Conservatives are largely in favour of the coalition’s programme – with 67% of definite Lib Dem and 87% of Labour supporters opposed. The results suggest fear of cuts is rising fast. In March 2011 , in answer to a differently worded question which allowed people also to suggest cuts should go further, only 35% said cuts were going too far, against 28% who agreed with their scope and 29% who wanted more. In October 2010, the results were 48% too far, 36% right and 8% further. Despite this, a year after he won the leadership, voters, including Labour supporters, express doubt about Ed Miliband’s suitability for the job. Only 30% of all voters – and crucially just 49% of Labour supporters – agree with the statement ‘the party has the right leader in Ed Miliband’. In a further question, only 28% say he has “the right qualities to make an effective prime minister” – while 60% disagree. Only 51% of definite Labour supporters think he has the right qualities to run Britain. However, the poll shows that the public is also cooling on the coalition, with only 39% saying it is doing a good job, against 51% who say bad – a net negative rating of 12 points. In March this year, on the same question, the score was -5. This is the first ICM poll to find a majority of voters disapprove of the coalition’s record. Asked whether they think leading political figures are doing a good or bad job, David Cameron scores a net positive rating of four points, up from -5 in July. George Osborne is on -6, up from -10. Nick Clegg – perhaps benefiting from exposure during the Liberal Democrats’ conference week – is on -8, up from -21. Among Labour figures, Ed Miliband is on -14, up from -16. Ed Balls, included for the first time, is on -18. Even among Labour voters he scores -4. This month’s poll finds little variation in support for the main parties, with a small increase in Labour support pushing the party back into a one-point lead. This month, Labour is on 38%, up two on August’s Guardian/ICM poll , the Conservatives are unchanged on 37% and the Lib Dems down three to 14%. Support for other smaller parties is a collective 12%. A year ago this month – immediately after Ed Miliband’s election to the leadership– Labour was one point lower than today, the Conservatives two points lower and the Lib Dems four points higher. • ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 20-21 September 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Economic policy Opinion polls Liberal-Conservative coalition Ed Miliband Labour Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron George Osborne Conservatives Economic growth (GDP) Economics Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Douglas Alexander: time for Labour to stop losing the economic argument
September 23, 2011 No Comment
Tories won the initial exchanges on economy, but the political terms of trade are shifting, says shadow foreign secretary With Labour at least three years from power and the eyes of the world trained on tumbling global markets, Labour’s conference in Liverpool, the first in two decades without the imposing presence of either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, might seem a moment of political irrelevance. Douglas Alexander , the shadow foreign secretary, admits that for 18 months the electorate has sought only two qualities from Labour: silence and humility. But now he sees the political framework for this parliament fracturing, and the conference, as a consequence, as a moment of heavy responsibility. “The economy is more fluid so the politics is more fluid. The terms of trade for British politics are shifting … and it is not yet clear whether [George] Osborne will be able to reframe his argument more effectively than Labour.” Alexander, long admired for his strategic analysis, has travelled from archetypal backroom boy for Brown to increasingly vociferous critic of the style of politics championed by Blair and Brown. Most recently, a book by Alistair Darling lays bare the extent to which Alexander too saw Brown’s failings, and also the case for a coup. But speaking for the first time about whether he shared Darling’s regret that they had not moved against Brown, he says not: “My judgment was that even in the most difficult days, you can make a bad situation worse.” The economic crisis, he argues, is making voters revise their assumptions about the causes of the turmoil. Voters may be prepared to rethink some now hardwired assumptions about Labour’s responsibility for the crisis, but only if Labour shows it too is rethinking and reflecting, including about what it did wrong. He explains: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of the time is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation here in Britain, in Europe and globally means now is such a moment. To seize that moment this week coming in Liverpool we don’t need to shout louder, but explain more. Explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will deal with social justice with less money around.” He is remarkably open that Labour has been losing the argument on the economy for three years. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis, and that helps explain the election defeat. I think we got the policy response right to recession, but the politics wrong in allowing our opponents to suggest that we were in denial about the consequences of the crisis. Taxpayers and voters were worried that we did not get it.” But now the likelihood of flat growth in the foreseeable future, caused by an international crisis, is gnawing at that three-year Tory supremacy. “[Osborne's] political strategy is being undone by his economic judgment. He hoped to argue that somehow it is all Labour’s fault, that somehow the crash of Lehman’s was due to the fact that we built too many schools and hospitals. He then wanted to deliver sustained economic growth, a falling share of GDP taken by the state and then produce tax cuts.” Alexander predicts a change of tack from the Tories: “We got a sign of that last week when for the first time [Osborne] referred to the falling growth by reference to what is happening in the world economy. That is a pretty different account to the one he was offering in 2008, when as shadow chancellor he said growth was falling due to Labour policies. So the political frame for the parliament is fracturing sooner than we thought.” He pauses to stress that the shift in the conversation should not create complacency inside Labour. “We will be making a big error if we believe deteriorating economic numbers for the Conservatives guarantees rising political numbers for Labour.” The party, he says, needs to show it can produce a credible alternative. Nothing is going to fall into its lap. It may still be in thrall to a deep-seated misjudgment. “After two decades in which the centre-left was beating the right, the centre-right is beating the left because the left made a historic misjudgment. We thought after the crisis that the collapse of confidence in the market was matched by, and leads to, a rising confidence in the state. That has been disproved in voting patterns in country after country. We are not entitled to succeed the Conservatives, we have to earn that right. “Labour has to offer both a convincing account of where growth will come from and to confirm the seriousness with which we recognise the challenge of deficit reduction. They will be the central, defining arguments about political economy in the year ahead.” Rehearsing arguments he has doubtless made more bluntly in the shadow cabinet, he says: “We have a big responsibility to show we get it – in our understanding of the need for the state to be efficient in the spending of public money; in terms of how we talk about taxation, and the need for fiscal balance; to confirm that we understand the aspirations people have for themselves and for their communities. “There is not going to be a Treasury overflowing with cash, so we have to reimagine what social democracy looks like in a post-recession state.” Labour, as an advocate of the necessity of the state, has a special duty to prevent waste, he says. With no model of a progressive government in an age of austerity, he asks: “How do you define a role for a welfare state or an active industrial state, and how do you continue to offer a credible politics of hope when the dominant public sentiment is anxiety and pessimism?” The conversation turns, as it will all week, to Ed Miliband’s leadership. Alexander says Miliband has made a very good start but, pointedly, he says it is important that his most important shadow colleagues do more. “My feeling is that politics is a team sport and so while people will look to Ed this week, I’ve got a responsibility, Ed Balls has a responsibility, Yvette Cooper has a responsibility. This is the first conference in 20 years that isn’t dominated by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and we – as a new generation of politicians leading the economy – have shown that we’re united.” “In one recent poll 35% of people thought I was Andy Burnham. I was very chuffed about that, but it does reinforce the point that we’ve all got a part to play.” Douglas Alexander Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Douglas Alexander: time for Labour to stop losing the economic argument
September 23, 2011 No Comment
Tories won the initial exchanges on economy, but the political terms of trade are shifting, says shadow foreign secretary With Labour at least three years from power and the eyes of the world trained on tumbling global markets, Labour’s conference in Liverpool, the first in two decades without the imposing presence of either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, might seem a moment of political irrelevance. Douglas Alexander , the shadow foreign secretary, admits that for 18 months the electorate has sought only two qualities from Labour: silence and humility. But now he sees the political framework for this parliament fracturing, and the conference, as a consequence, as a moment of heavy responsibility. “The economy is more fluid so the politics is more fluid. The terms of trade for British politics are shifting … and it is not yet clear whether [George] Osborne will be able to reframe his argument more effectively than Labour.” Alexander, long admired for his strategic analysis, has travelled from archetypal backroom boy for Brown to increasingly vociferous critic of the style of politics championed by Blair and Brown. Most recently, a book by Alistair Darling lays bare the extent to which Alexander too saw Brown’s failings, and also the case for a coup. But speaking for the first time about whether he shared Darling’s regret that they had not moved against Brown, he says not: “My judgment was that even in the most difficult days, you can make a bad situation worse.” The economic crisis, he argues, is making voters revise their assumptions about the causes of the turmoil. Voters may be prepared to rethink some now hardwired assumptions about Labour’s responsibility for the crisis, but only if Labour shows it too is rethinking and reflecting, including about what it did wrong. He explains: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of the time is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation here in Britain, in Europe and globally means now is such a moment. To seize that moment this week coming in Liverpool we don’t need to shout louder, but explain more. Explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will deal with social justice with less money around.” He is remarkably open that Labour has been losing the argument on the economy for three years. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis, and that helps explain the election defeat. I think we got the policy response right to recession, but the politics wrong in allowing our opponents to suggest that we were in denial about the consequences of the crisis. Taxpayers and voters were worried that we did not get it.” But now the likelihood of flat growth in the foreseeable future, caused by an international crisis, is gnawing at that three-year Tory supremacy. “[Osborne's] political strategy is being undone by his economic judgment. He hoped to argue that somehow it is all Labour’s fault, that somehow the crash of Lehman’s was due to the fact that we built too many schools and hospitals. He then wanted to deliver sustained economic growth, a falling share of GDP taken by the state and then produce tax cuts.” Alexander predicts a change of tack from the Tories: “We got a sign of that last week when for the first time [Osborne] referred to the falling growth by reference to what is happening in the world economy. That is a pretty different account to the one he was offering in 2008, when as shadow chancellor he said growth was falling due to Labour policies. So the political frame for the parliament is fracturing sooner than we thought.” He pauses to stress that the shift in the conversation should not create complacency inside Labour. “We will be making a big error if we believe deteriorating economic numbers for the Conservatives guarantees rising political numbers for Labour.” The party, he says, needs to show it can produce a credible alternative. Nothing is going to fall into its lap. It may still be in thrall to a deep-seated misjudgment. “After two decades in which the centre-left was beating the right, the centre-right is beating the left because the left made a historic misjudgment. We thought after the crisis that the collapse of confidence in the market was matched by, and leads to, a rising confidence in the state. That has been disproved in voting patterns in country after country. We are not entitled to succeed the Conservatives, we have to earn that right. “Labour has to offer both a convincing account of where growth will come from and to confirm the seriousness with which we recognise the challenge of deficit reduction. They will be the central, defining arguments about political economy in the year ahead.” Rehearsing arguments he has doubtless made more bluntly in the shadow cabinet, he says: “We have a big responsibility to show we get it – in our understanding of the need for the state to be efficient in the spending of public money; in terms of how we talk about taxation, and the need for fiscal balance; to confirm that we understand the aspirations people have for themselves and for their communities. “There is not going to be a Treasury overflowing with cash, so we have to reimagine what social democracy looks like in a post-recession state.” Labour, as an advocate of the necessity of the state, has a special duty to prevent waste, he says. With no model of a progressive government in an age of austerity, he asks: “How do you define a role for a welfare state or an active industrial state, and how do you continue to offer a credible politics of hope when the dominant public sentiment is anxiety and pessimism?” The conversation turns, as it will all week, to Ed Miliband’s leadership. Alexander says Miliband has made a very good start but, pointedly, he says it is important that his most important shadow colleagues do more. “My feeling is that politics is a team sport and so while people will look to Ed this week, I’ve got a responsibility, Ed Balls has a responsibility, Yvette Cooper has a responsibility. This is the first conference in 20 years that isn’t dominated by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and we – as a new generation of politicians leading the economy – have shown that we’re united.” “In one recent poll 35% of people thought I was Andy Burnham. I was very chuffed about that, but it does reinforce the point that we’ve all got a part to play.” Douglas Alexander Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Douglas Alexander: time for Labour to stop losing the economic argument
September 23, 2011 No CommentTories won the initial exchanges on economy, but the political terms of trade are shifting, says shadow foreign secretary With Labour at least three years from power and the eyes of the world trained on tumbling global markets, Labour’s conference in Liverpool, the first in two decades without the imposing presence of either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, might seem a moment of political irrelevance. Douglas Alexander , the shadow foreign secretary, admits that for 18 months the electorate has sought only two qualities from Labour: silence and humility. But now he sees the political framework for this parliament fracturing, and the conference, as a consequence, as a moment of heavy responsibility. “The economy is more fluid so the politics is more fluid. The terms of trade for British politics are shifting … and it is not yet clear whether [George] Osborne will be able to reframe his argument more effectively than Labour.” Alexander, long admired for his strategic analysis, has travelled from archetypal backroom boy for Brown to increasingly vociferous critic of the style of politics championed by Blair and Brown. Most recently, a book by Alistair Darling lays bare the extent to which Alexander too saw Brown’s failings, and also the case for a coup. But speaking for the first time about whether he shared Darling’s regret that they had not moved against Brown, he says not: “My judgment was that even in the most difficult days, you can make a bad situation worse.” The economic crisis, he argues, is making voters revise their assumptions about the causes of the turmoil. Voters may be prepared to rethink some now hardwired assumptions about Labour’s responsibility for the crisis, but only if Labour shows it too is rethinking and reflecting, including about what it did wrong. He explains: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of the time is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation here in Britain, in Europe and globally means now is such a moment. To seize that moment this week coming in Liverpool we don’t need to shout louder, but explain more. Explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will deal with social justice with less money around.” He is remarkably open that Labour has been losing the argument on the economy for three years. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis, and that helps explain the election defeat. I think we got the policy response right to recession, but the politics wrong in allowing our opponents to suggest that we were in denial about the consequences of the crisis. Taxpayers and voters were worried that we did not get it.” But now the likelihood of flat growth in the foreseeable future, caused by an international crisis, is gnawing at that three-year Tory supremacy. “[Osborne's] political strategy is being undone by his economic judgment. He hoped to argue that somehow it is all Labour’s fault, that somehow the crash of Lehman’s was due to the fact that we built too many schools and hospitals. He then wanted to deliver sustained economic growth, a falling share of GDP taken by the state and then produce tax cuts.” Alexander predicts a change of tack from the Tories: “We got a sign of that last week when for the first time [Osborne] referred to the falling growth by reference to what is happening in the world economy. That is a pretty different account to the one he was offering in 2008, when as shadow chancellor he said growth was falling due to Labour policies. So the political frame for the parliament is fracturing sooner than we thought.” He pauses to stress that the shift in the conversation should not create complacency inside Labour. “We will be making a big error if we believe deteriorating economic numbers for the Conservatives guarantees rising political numbers for Labour.” The party, he says, needs to show it can produce a credible alternative. Nothing is going to fall into its lap. It may still be in thrall to a deep-seated misjudgment. “After two decades in which the centre-left was beating the right, the centre-right is beating the left because the left made a historic misjudgment. We thought after the crisis that the collapse of confidence in the market was matched by, and leads to, a rising confidence in the state. That has been disproved in voting patterns in country after country. We are not entitled to succeed the Conservatives, we have to earn that right. “Labour has to offer both a convincing account of where growth will come from and to confirm the seriousness with which we recognise the challenge of deficit reduction. They will be the central, defining arguments about political economy in the year ahead.” Rehearsing arguments he has doubtless made more bluntly in the shadow cabinet, he says: “We have a big responsibility to show we get it – in our understanding of the need for the state to be efficient in the spending of public money; in terms of how we talk about taxation, and the need for fiscal balance; to confirm that we understand the aspirations people have for themselves and for their communities. “There is not going to be a Treasury overflowing with cash, so we have to reimagine what social democracy looks like in a post-recession state.” Labour, as an advocate of the necessity of the state, has a special duty to prevent waste, he says. With no model of a progressive government in an age of austerity, he asks: “How do you define a role for a welfare state or an active industrial state, and how do you continue to offer a credible politics of hope when the dominant public sentiment is anxiety and pessimism?” The conversation turns, as it will all week, to Ed Miliband’s leadership. Alexander says Miliband has made a very good start but, pointedly, he says it is important that his most important shadow colleagues do more. “My feeling is that politics is a team sport and so while people will look to Ed this week, I’ve got a responsibility, Ed Balls has a responsibility, Yvette Cooper has a responsibility. This is the first conference in 20 years that isn’t dominated by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and we – as a new generation of politicians leading the economy – have shown that we’re united.” “In one recent poll 35% of people thought I was Andy Burnham. I was very chuffed about that, but it does reinforce the point that we’ve all got a part to play.” Douglas Alexander Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Army chief tells America to stop playing the ‘blame game’ as he hit back against claims his country is secretly supporting Taliban The bloodstained theatrics of Afghanistan’s power game continued to play out as Hamid Karzai’s government buried its main peace envoy while Pakistan’s army chief hit back at American accusations that his country is secretly supporting the Taliban. In Kabul, shots rang out over the coffin of Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former president who was assassinated by a suicide bomber on Tuesday , during an emotional and sometimes rowdy funeral on a city hillside. Angry mourners shouted “death to Karzai” and “death to the ISI”, highlighting the growing isolation of the president who appointed Rabbani, and public anger towards the Pakistani spy agency many Afghans blame for his death. Amrullah Saleh, a former spy chief and rising political star, made a fiery speech to supporters outside the graveyard. “The government doesn’t have the right to talk with enemies any more. Nothing will come of so much talking,” he said. “Just wait for a call. Very soon we will come to the streets.” Hours later, Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, denied allegations that he was waging a “proxy war” in Afghanistan through the Haqqani network, a ruthless militant outfit which the US military chief, Admiral Mike Mullen, described as a “veritable arm” of the ISI . “Admiral Mullen knows fully well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive,” Kayani said in a terse statement issued 24 hours after Mullen’s stinging comments to the US Congress. Kayani called on the US to stop the “blame game” and “give way to a constructive and meaningful engagement for a stable and peaceful Afghanistan”. Senior American officials have issued an extraordinary series of verbal assaults on the Pakistani military since Haqqani militants carried out an audacious attack on the US embassy in Kabul on 13 September. Citing phone intercepts, US officials said they had linked fighters at the scene of the 20-hour battle to ISI officials in Pakistan, a senior Pakistani official said. The US also accuses the ISI of orchestrating a truck bomb attack on a US base near Kabul on 10 September that wounded 77 US soldiers – one of the highest casualty tolls against western forces in the 10-year conflict. The defence secretary, Leon Panetta, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the CIA chief, David Petraeus, have all called on Pakistan to cut its links to the Haqqanis. Pakistan denies the links exist. But it was Mullen’s harsh comments on Thursday that sent ripples through political circles in Islamabad, where some worry the frayed relationship is edging towards violent confrontation. “This is very serious and I’m extremely worried,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and veteran commentator. “One side has to pull back or change course. If they continue
Continue reading …
Palestinian leader appeals to conscience of world as Netanyahu rejects claim problem lies with Israel Mahmoud Abbas has formally asked the United Nations to recognise a Palestinian state, defying intense US pressure to abandon the move with a powerful appeal to the conscience of the world to recognise that the Palestinian people are entitled to their own “Arab spring”. Abbas said in a speech to the UN general assembly on Friday, greeted with extended clapping and cheers, that his request for recognition of a Palestinian state on land occupied by Israel since 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital came because of the failure of nearly two decades of peace talks. He blamed that failure on Israel, particularly its continued expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territory. “I do not believe that anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for a full membership of the United Nations and our admission as a full member state,” he said. “At a time when the Arab people affirm their quest for democracy – the Arab spring – the time is now for the Palestinian spring, the time for independence. “It is a moment of truth and my people are waiting to hear the answer of the world. Will it allow Israel to continue its occupation, the only occupation in the world?” The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, responded in his speech by saying he sought a “just and lasting peace” with the Palestinians. He attacked the UN as the “theatre of the absurd”. “Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon chairs the UN security council. A terror organisation presides over the body entrusted with world security. You couldn’t make this stuff up,” he said. Netanyahu dismissed Abbas’s assertion that he is desperate for a negotiated settlement. “The Palestinians want a state without peace,” he said. “You shouldn’t let that happen.” Abbas submitted the request for the security council to admit Palestine as a full member state to the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, shortly before his speech. But the security council is unlikely to act soon, in part because the Palestinian leader has privately agreed for a vote to be deferred while fresh attempts are made to revive the peace process. Abbas resisted intense pressure by the US, which said it would veto the application, not to submit the request. Washington, Paris and London were keen to avoid a vote that would embarrass them in the rest of the Middle East. But the Palestinian leader said he had come to the UN because the existing American-dominated peace process to end the “colonial military occupation” had failed and a new approach was required. “It is neither possible, nor practical, nor acceptable to return to conducting business as usual, as if everything is fine,” he said. Abbas said that Palestinian efforts to reach an agreement had been “repeatedly smashed against the rock of the positions of the Israeli government”. In particular, he blamed the continued construction of Jewish settlements, which have doubled in size since the 1993 Oslo peace accords. “The occupation is racing against time to redraw the borders on our land according to what it wants and to impose a fait accompli on the ground that changes the realities and that is undermining the realistic potential for the existence of the state of Palestine,” he said. “This policy will destroy the chances of achieving a two-state solution upon which there is international consensus, and here I caution aloud: this settlement policy threatens to also undermine the structures of the Palestinian Authority and even end its existence.” Abbas said he was committed to a negotiated solution and prepared to return to the negotiating table immediately if settlement construction is halted. He called for new talks with “clear parameters” and a specific timetable. “When we bring our plight and our case to this influential podium, it is a confirmation of our reliance on the political and diplomatic option,” he said. “Our efforts are not aimed at isolating Israel or delegitimising it; rather we want to gain legitimacy for the cause of the people of Palestine.” In an uncompromising speech, Netanyahu rejected Abbas’s assertion that the problem lies with Israel. He said calls for the Jewish state to make a sweeping peace offer had been answered, only to be met with rejection and terrorist attacks by the Palestinians. He said that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, and the closure of its settlements there, had brought not peace but war. “The Palestinians should first make peace with Israel and then get their state.” Abbas’s request for statehood came at the end of a week that has seen a dramatic shift in the diplomatic ground in the Palestinians’ favour even though their request to the security council is likely to fail. While Abbas has climbed down from an immediate confrontation by agreeing not to press hard for a swift vote, some senior Palestinian officials and European diplomats believe he may have won a significant victory because the US grip on the oversight of the peace process, which has been decidedly in Israel’s favour, has been weakened and other countries are now pressing to force the pace of peace negotiations. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, pressed the Palestinians to take their request to the UN general assembly, which has the power to grant observer status. Other figures, including the former US president Jimmy Carter, have also urged Abbas to follow that route. But the Palestinian leadership has said it will hold back from the general assembly for now because it does not want anyone to think it is not serious about seeking full UN membership through the security council, even though it is far from certain to win the necessary nine votes even without facing a US veto. The Palestinian leader privately retreated from his pledge to seek an immediate security council vote in part because he is no longer sure of winning the necessary majority, which would have given the Palestinians a moral victory even if the US used its veto. Palestinian sources say they believe Washington has bullied several security council members into withdrawing their support for the Palestinian move, including Portugal, by threatening to withhold support for its stricken economy, and Bosnia, over its opposition to Kosovo being admitted to the UN. Palestinian officials also believe Nigeria is no longer certain to vote in their favour. There are also questions about the position of Gabon and Colombia. One senior Palestinian official described the Americans as “playing a really nasty game”. Palestinian territories Mahmoud Abbas Israel US foreign policy United Nations Binyamin Netanyahu Middle East Chris McGreal guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Bachmann Equates Today’s Social Conservatives with the Civil Rights Movement
September 23, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann Thursday likened the conservative movement to the Civil Rights movement, a comparison that some may find offensive . “Of any election, this is the one where conservatives don’t have to settle,” the candidate said at an Orlando rally organized by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition. “President Obama’s approval numbers are the lowest they’ve ever been, and I am here to tell you, they are going lower further,” she added. “So we don’t have to go to the side, we don’t have to sit on the back of the bus in this election. We need to stand up and be counted and have a candidate who is truly a social conservative who will stand for our issues.” The phrase “back of the bus” is associated with African Americans’ struggle for equal rights. In the 1950s, Montgomery, Alabama reserved the front of public busses for white riders, while blacks had to move to the rear. Rosa Parks sparked a bus boycott when she refused to give up her seat for a white passenger. In 2009, the polling organization Gallup found that only 2 percent of the Republican Party identified themselves as black. Using the phrase “back of the bus” wasn’t a one-time slip for Bachmann. She repeated it again the next day at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando.
Continue reading …