Exit polls predict landslide victory for current president, making her first woman in Latin America to twice win the presidency Argentina’s president Cristina Kirchner is set to be re-elected by a landslide on Sunday, buoyed by popular government programmes to spread the wealth of a booming economy. Exit polls predicted Kirchner would end up with between 54% and 55% of the vote, putting her far ahead of her closest rival in the biggest presidential victory since Argentina’s democracy was restored three decades ago. The victory makes Kirchner the first woman re-elected as president in Latin America. It’s also the first in a lifetime of politics without her husband and predecessor, Nestor Kirchner, who died of a heart attack last year. Her voice almost broke when she spoke about this legacy, describing a mixture of pride and sorrow after casting her ballot in his hometown, the remote Patagonian city of Rio Gallegos. “In this world where they have criticised us so forcefully, all this makes me feel very proud, that we’re on the right track. He [Nestor] would be very content,” she said. Kirchner could have won with as little as 40% of the vote if none of her rivals came within 10 percentage points of her. Exit polls published in the Argentine media indicated she would win with a margin of about 40 points over socialist Hermes Binner, the closest of six rival candidates. Her Front for Victory coalition hoped to regain enough seats in Congress to form new alliances and regain the control it lost in 2009. Elections were held for 130 seats in the lower house and 24 in the Senate. While official results were not expected until hours after polls closed on Sunday night, Kirchner appeared to have won a larger share of votes than any president since Argentina’s democracy was restored in 1983, when Raul Alfonsin was elected with 52%. She would still trail her hero, Juan Domingo Peron, who won with 60% and 63% in his last two elections. Fernandez, 58, chose her youthful, guitar-playing, long-haired economy minister, Amado Boudou, as her running mate. Together, the pair championed Argentina’s approach to the global financial crisis: increase government spending rather than impose austerity measures, and force investors in foreign debt to suffer before ordinary citizens. Boudou was waiting for official results before declaring victory. Well after the polls closed, he tweeted: “Thanks to all the Argentines for this day of celebration, without violence and with love for the country. Now, to await the results.” Argentina Cristina Kirchner Néstor Kirchner Americas guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Exit polls predict landslide victory for current president, making her first woman in Latin America to twice win the presidency Argentina’s president Cristina Kirchner is set to be re-elected by a landslide on Sunday, buoyed by popular government programmes to spread the wealth of a booming economy. Exit polls predicted Kirchner would end up with between 54% and 55% of the vote, putting her far ahead of her closest rival in the biggest presidential victory since Argentina’s democracy was restored three decades ago. The victory makes Kirchner the first woman re-elected as president in Latin America. It’s also the first in a lifetime of politics without her husband and predecessor, Nestor Kirchner, who died of a heart attack last year. Her voice almost broke when she spoke about this legacy, describing a mixture of pride and sorrow after casting her ballot in his hometown, the remote Patagonian city of Rio Gallegos. “In this world where they have criticised us so forcefully, all this makes me feel very proud, that we’re on the right track. He [Nestor] would be very content,” she said. Kirchner could have won with as little as 40% of the vote if none of her rivals came within 10 percentage points of her. Exit polls published in the Argentine media indicated she would win with a margin of about 40 points over socialist Hermes Binner, the closest of six rival candidates. Her Front for Victory coalition hoped to regain enough seats in Congress to form new alliances and regain the control it lost in 2009. Elections were held for 130 seats in the lower house and 24 in the Senate. While official results were not expected until hours after polls closed on Sunday night, Kirchner appeared to have won a larger share of votes than any president since Argentina’s democracy was restored in 1983, when Raul Alfonsin was elected with 52%. She would still trail her hero, Juan Domingo Peron, who won with 60% and 63% in his last two elections. Fernandez, 58, chose her youthful, guitar-playing, long-haired economy minister, Amado Boudou, as her running mate. Together, the pair championed Argentina’s approach to the global financial crisis: increase government spending rather than impose austerity measures, and force investors in foreign debt to suffer before ordinary citizens. Boudou was waiting for official results before declaring victory. Well after the polls closed, he tweeted: “Thanks to all the Argentines for this day of celebration, without violence and with love for the country. Now, to await the results.” Argentina Cristina Kirchner Néstor Kirchner Americas guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
New survey suggests 10% of current A-level students put off applying in UK, with nearly half considering going abroad One in 10 students currently studying for A-levels has been put off university because of the increase in tuition fees next year, a new survey suggests. In addition, half of those polled would consider going to a local university to save money, while just under half said they would consider studying abroad to avoid the sharp increase in fees. The ComRes survey, commissioned by the BBC, shows that almost two-thirds would consider apprenticeships as an alternative to a degree. The survey has been published as a weekend report suggested that some universities are experiencing a steep drop in demand for courses beginning next September, with one, City University London, saying applications are down 41.4%. Goldsmiths has reported a 35% drop while Brunel has 24% fewer candidates, according to figures gathered by the Sunday Times. The survey of universities appears to match the ComRes survey, showing a broad decline of about 10%. However, some universities, including the London School of Economics, Queen Mary, and Bath, are seeing rises in applications, according to the report. The Universities and Colleges Admission Service (Ucas) is due to release figures today for the number of applications received by 15 October, the deadline for Oxford, Cambridge and courses in medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. Candidates for other universities have until 15 January to apply, but there has been a trend for early submissions. An Ucas spokesman indicated that demand for Oxbridge and medical courses has held up this year. He said: “In the figures we’re going to publish there’s a difference between the overall headline figure to date and the figures for Oxbridge and medicine courses where the early deadline makes a difference. It’s just too early in the cycle for us to say whether we’re going to see a drop in demand [overall].” Demographic factors could also be behind any dip in applications. The number of 18-year-olds in the UK is projected to decline for the rest of this decade. A number of universities are now reconsidering the amount they intend to charge after the government gave them incentives to set an average fee under £7,500. In July, a government watchdog announced that the estimated average fee across all English universities was £8,393. At the time, 47 planned to charge the maximum of £9,000 as their standard fee. The BBC Inside Out/ComRes survey, which interviewed 1,009 A-level students in England this month, found the vast majority were worried about the burden of debt and thought it hard to get a job after university. But most still planned to go to university. Wes Streeting, chief executive of the Helena Kennedy Foundation, an educational charity, said: “My main concern is about widening participation. If it is the case that higher tuition fees are having a detrimental impact on the number of applications, then schools, colleges and government need to redouble their efforts to get the facts out. “When people look at the details, some of the fears that families still have about paying fees upfront may be allayed.” Under reforms introduced by the government last year, students will be able to take out state-backed loans to pay for their fees, as they do now. In future, graduates will pay back 9% of their income above £21,000. Graduates will pay interest on their loans, of a maximum of inflation plus 3%. Any outstanding repayments will be written off after 30 years, so graduates with low lifetime earnings will be protected. A poll earlier this month showed the number of teenagers enrolled at further education colleges in England declining for the first time in 12 years, with some institutions reporting a slump in numbers of up to 15%. The Association of Colleges asked half the colleges in the country – 182 institutions – how enrolments for this autumn compared year-on-year. Overall, the number of students had dropped by 0.1%, the equivalent of almost 600 students. But in a quarter of the colleges, the number of students had fallen by between 5% and 15%. Tuition fees Higher education Students University of London University administration University funding Apprenticeships Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …New survey suggests 10% of current A-level students put off applying in UK, with nearly half considering going abroad One in 10 students currently studying for A-levels has been put off university because of the increase in tuition fees next year, a new survey suggests. In addition, half of those polled would consider going to a local university to save money, while just under half said they would consider studying abroad to avoid the sharp increase in fees. The ComRes survey, commissioned by the BBC, shows that almost two-thirds would consider apprenticeships as an alternative to a degree. The survey has been published as a weekend report suggested that some universities are experiencing a steep drop in demand for courses beginning next September, with one, City University London, saying applications are down 41.4%. Goldsmiths has reported a 35% drop while Brunel has 24% fewer candidates, according to figures gathered by the Sunday Times. The survey of universities appears to match the ComRes survey, showing a broad decline of about 10%. However, some universities, including the London School of Economics, Queen Mary, and Bath, are seeing rises in applications, according to the report. The Universities and Colleges Admission Service (Ucas) is due to release figures today for the number of applications received by 15 October, the deadline for Oxford, Cambridge and courses in medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. Candidates for other universities have until 15 January to apply, but there has been a trend for early submissions. An Ucas spokesman indicated that demand for Oxbridge and medical courses has held up this year. He said: “In the figures we’re going to publish there’s a difference between the overall headline figure to date and the figures for Oxbridge and medicine courses where the early deadline makes a difference. It’s just too early in the cycle for us to say whether we’re going to see a drop in demand [overall].” Demographic factors could also be behind any dip in applications. The number of 18-year-olds in the UK is projected to decline for the rest of this decade. A number of universities are now reconsidering the amount they intend to charge after the government gave them incentives to set an average fee under £7,500. In July, a government watchdog announced that the estimated average fee across all English universities was £8,393. At the time, 47 planned to charge the maximum of £9,000 as their standard fee. The BBC Inside Out/ComRes survey, which interviewed 1,009 A-level students in England this month, found the vast majority were worried about the burden of debt and thought it hard to get a job after university. But most still planned to go to university. Wes Streeting, chief executive of the Helena Kennedy Foundation, an educational charity, said: “My main concern is about widening participation. If it is the case that higher tuition fees are having a detrimental impact on the number of applications, then schools, colleges and government need to redouble their efforts to get the facts out. “When people look at the details, some of the fears that families still have about paying fees upfront may be allayed.” Under reforms introduced by the government last year, students will be able to take out state-backed loans to pay for their fees, as they do now. In future, graduates will pay back 9% of their income above £21,000. Graduates will pay interest on their loans, of a maximum of inflation plus 3%. Any outstanding repayments will be written off after 30 years, so graduates with low lifetime earnings will be protected. A poll earlier this month showed the number of teenagers enrolled at further education colleges in England declining for the first time in 12 years, with some institutions reporting a slump in numbers of up to 15%. The Association of Colleges asked half the colleges in the country – 182 institutions – how enrolments for this autumn compared year-on-year. Overall, the number of students had dropped by 0.1%, the equivalent of almost 600 students. But in a quarter of the colleges, the number of students had fallen by between 5% and 15%. Tuition fees Higher education Students University of London University administration University funding Apprenticeships Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
More children and partners likely to be cross-examined in court by alleged assailants, Manifesto for Family Justice claims An increasing number of victims of domestic abuse, including children, will be cross-examined in court by their alleged assailants if the government goes ahead with plans to cut legal aid, a coalition of family and children’s charities has warned. In a manifesto sent to all MPs, the group – which includes the Bar Council, the children’s commissioner, Liberty, Women’s Aid and Gingerbread – calls on ministers to protect vulnerable children and partners in divorce and family proceedings. The legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which will save £350m a year from the legal aid budget, has completed its committee stage in the Commons and will be debated on the floor of the house next week. The justice secretary, Ken Clarke, has said he wants to do away with “compensation culture”. Restrictions are being imposed on access to legal aid in divorce and family proceedings. The Ministry of Justice has said legal aid will be preserved for those who suffer violence and psychological abuse in domestic disputes. Family charities and the legal profession claim the definition remains too narrow and that alleged perpetrators will not be entitled to legal representation, resulting in many conducting personal cross-examinations. This already happens on rare occasions but is likely to become far more widespread under the proposed reforms, according to the Manifesto for Family Justice. Stephen Cobb QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, said: “We will see an increasing number of people going to court on their own without representation. “That is DIY justice, not access to justice. We face the very real prospect that many children and women who have been victims of domestic abuse will have to endure the further trauma of being cross-examined by their alleged perpetrator, who will not be eligible for legal aid. “We are facing a disturbing new landscape in which 600,000 people will no longer receive legal aid, 68,000 children will be affected by the removal of legal aid in family cases, 54,000 fewer people will be represented in the family courts annually and there will be 75% fewer private law cases in court. “When the government consulted on these proposals, virtually no one supported them. The civil legal aid cuts will be bad for children, bad for women and bad for families.” The Bar Council represents barristers in England and Wales. The manifesto states that the “narrow definition of domestic abuse [used in the bill] is more restrictive than that used by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers and will limit legal aid to victims of certain types of abuse”. Itsuggests that because of problems likely to be created for the courts, the government may not save money and could even be faced with increased costs. Fiona Dwyer from Women’s Aid said: “A lot of people will end up being cross-examined by their ex-partner. We have increasing evidence of that, but it’s going to be much worse in future if men are not going to be able to access legal aid. “Women are going to be pressurised into making informal arrangements which will place them at risk of harm. We would be concerned that more children would be at risk.” Jane Wilson of Resolution, which represents family lawyers, said: “We are really worried that the bill will reduce access to justice for the poorest in society.” Other signatories of the manifesto include the Association of Lawyers for Children, Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse, and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. Domestic violence Legal aid Family law UK criminal justice Kenneth Clarke Charities Voluntary sector Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …More children and partners likely to be cross-examined in court by alleged assailants, Manifesto for Family Justice claims An increasing number of victims of domestic abuse, including children, will be cross-examined in court by their alleged assailants if the government goes ahead with plans to cut legal aid, a coalition of family and children’s charities has warned. In a manifesto sent to all MPs, the group – which includes the Bar Council, the children’s commissioner, Liberty, Women’s Aid and Gingerbread – calls on ministers to protect vulnerable children and partners in divorce and family proceedings. The legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which will save £350m a year from the legal aid budget, has completed its committee stage in the Commons and will be debated on the floor of the house next week. The justice secretary, Ken Clarke, has said he wants to do away with “compensation culture”. Restrictions are being imposed on access to legal aid in divorce and family proceedings. The Ministry of Justice has said legal aid will be preserved for those who suffer violence and psychological abuse in domestic disputes. Family charities and the legal profession claim the definition remains too narrow and that alleged perpetrators will not be entitled to legal representation, resulting in many conducting personal cross-examinations. This already happens on rare occasions but is likely to become far more widespread under the proposed reforms, according to the Manifesto for Family Justice. Stephen Cobb QC, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, said: “We will see an increasing number of people going to court on their own without representation. “That is DIY justice, not access to justice. We face the very real prospect that many children and women who have been victims of domestic abuse will have to endure the further trauma of being cross-examined by their alleged perpetrator, who will not be eligible for legal aid. “We are facing a disturbing new landscape in which 600,000 people will no longer receive legal aid, 68,000 children will be affected by the removal of legal aid in family cases, 54,000 fewer people will be represented in the family courts annually and there will be 75% fewer private law cases in court. “When the government consulted on these proposals, virtually no one supported them. The civil legal aid cuts will be bad for children, bad for women and bad for families.” The Bar Council represents barristers in England and Wales. The manifesto states that the “narrow definition of domestic abuse [used in the bill] is more restrictive than that used by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers and will limit legal aid to victims of certain types of abuse”. Itsuggests that because of problems likely to be created for the courts, the government may not save money and could even be faced with increased costs. Fiona Dwyer from Women’s Aid said: “A lot of people will end up being cross-examined by their ex-partner. We have increasing evidence of that, but it’s going to be much worse in future if men are not going to be able to access legal aid. “Women are going to be pressurised into making informal arrangements which will place them at risk of harm. We would be concerned that more children would be at risk.” Jane Wilson of Resolution, which represents family lawyers, said: “We are really worried that the bill will reduce access to justice for the poorest in society.” Other signatories of the manifesto include the Association of Lawyers for Children, Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse, and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. Domestic violence Legal aid Family law UK criminal justice Kenneth Clarke Charities Voluntary sector Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Malcolm Grant, the government’s choice to run the powerful NHS commissioning board, makes remarkable admission The health secretary will “franchise” the running of the NHS to a quango for up to three years at a time – a move that will result in an unelected academic and the nation’s 38,000 family doctors, rather than ministers, being accountable for the day-to-day running of the health service, according to leaked documents obtained by the Guardian. In unpublished evidence to the health select committee last week, Malcolm Grant, the government’s choice to run the powerful NHS commissioning board, outlined “an extraordinary transformation of responsibility” that appears to undermine claims by ministers that the proposed legislation will not dilute the government’s constitutional responsibilities to the health service. At present, the cabinet minister for health has a “duty to provide a national health service” in England, but that disappears in the NHS bill’s proposals. Grant, a law professor who runs University College London, told MPs that, under the new system, the secretary of state “mandates” the commissioning board to run the NHS every “two … possibly three years” and then retreats into the shadows. The board will hand over taxpayers’ cash to groups of GPs to buy services on behalf of patients. He admitted there would be “a fundamental change of responsibility and accountability under the bill” because about £80bn of public money would be transferred to the board and GPs. He said these two groups – not politicians – would run the NHS and ensure patients received an adequate level of health provision in England. “If [GPs] are dissatisfied with what happens in a hospital, they need to deal with it and not simply complain to a secretary of state who no longer has this responsibility, nor to the commissioning board which has given them the responsibility, but to complain to the hospital and get it sorted, and, if it is not sorted, to use their commissioning power to ensure that it is.” With peers beginning line-by-line scrutiny of the coalition’s NHS bill on Tuesday, the government has been attempting to rebut detractors of all political persuasions influenced by the powerful Lords constitutional committee. The committee warned last month about the “extent to which the chain of constitutional responsibility as regard to the NHS [will be] severed”. In what is perceived as a sign of panic over the level of peers’ opposition, a 72-page letter from ministers sent to all peers last week conceded a “necessary amendment” might be needed to rectify the impression the government would not be “responsible and accountable” for the NHS. However, Grant, who is expected to take up the post later this month, confirmed the bill’s critics’ worst fears in a combative parliamentary performance last week. In a remarkable admission, Grant told MPs that, from April 2013, in the event of a “crisis” in the health service. either he, nurses, GPs or hospital medical directors would be taking to the airwaves as the health secretary would not have responsibility for the daily running of the NHS. “It is no longer going to be the case that the secretary of state is wheeled in front of the TV cameras,” he told MPs. “Responsibility has to go back to where it is. It has to go back to within those hospitals. Who is the chief nurse? Who is the medical director. Where is the CEO?” MPs questioned how the public would be informed how well the NHS was faring by asking who “will be the person doing Panorama?” Grant replied: “I said this job was full of risks and probably that ends up being one of them.” Parliamentary scrutiny will also become a thing of the past. After the bill is passed, the health secretary will no longer have to answer MPs’ questions every month but will just put forward an annual report on how the board is doing once a year. The secretary of state will also, in effect, lose “powers of direction” over the health service, depriving the minister of the power to order NHS services to improve. The government would find it difficult to repeat Labour’s 2007 act of ordering a “deep clean” of NHS hospitals to tackle a rising tide of MRSA infections. Lady Thornton, Labour’s shadow health minister in the Lords, said: “This completely undermines the 1948 and 2006 acts. The whole point of the debate we’ve been having is that the secretary of state has to be accountable to parliament for the provision of a national health service, and you can’t just start franchising out that role.” To smoke out the government, Labour has also put down a probing amendment before peers which asks the house to concede that the principles of the NHS should be to “promote quality, equity, integration and accountability, not the market”. A Department of Health spokesman said: “The secretary of state will remain responsible for promoting a comprehensive health service and retains the ultimate accountability for securing the provision of services, through his relationship with NHS bodies.” NHS Health Public services policy Health policy Andrew Lansley Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Malcolm Grant, the government’s choice to run the powerful NHS commissioning board, makes remarkable admission The health secretary will “franchise” the running of the NHS to a quango for up to three years at a time – a move that will result in an unelected academic and the nation’s 38,000 family doctors, rather than ministers, being accountable for the day-to-day running of the health service, according to leaked documents obtained by the Guardian. In unpublished evidence to the health select committee last week, Malcolm Grant, the government’s choice to run the powerful NHS commissioning board, outlined “an extraordinary transformation of responsibility” that appears to undermine claims by ministers that the proposed legislation will not dilute the government’s constitutional responsibilities to the health service. At present, the cabinet minister for health has a “duty to provide a national health service” in England, but that disappears in the NHS bill’s proposals. Grant, a law professor who runs University College London, told MPs that, under the new system, the secretary of state “mandates” the commissioning board to run the NHS every “two … possibly three years” and then retreats into the shadows. The board will hand over taxpayers’ cash to groups of GPs to buy services on behalf of patients. He admitted there would be “a fundamental change of responsibility and accountability under the bill” because about £80bn of public money would be transferred to the board and GPs. He said these two groups – not politicians – would run the NHS and ensure patients received an adequate level of health provision in England. “If [GPs] are dissatisfied with what happens in a hospital, they need to deal with it and not simply complain to a secretary of state who no longer has this responsibility, nor to the commissioning board which has given them the responsibility, but to complain to the hospital and get it sorted, and, if it is not sorted, to use their commissioning power to ensure that it is.” With peers beginning line-by-line scrutiny of the coalition’s NHS bill on Tuesday, the government has been attempting to rebut detractors of all political persuasions influenced by the powerful Lords constitutional committee. The committee warned last month about the “extent to which the chain of constitutional responsibility as regard to the NHS [will be] severed”. In what is perceived as a sign of panic over the level of peers’ opposition, a 72-page letter from ministers sent to all peers last week conceded a “necessary amendment” might be needed to rectify the impression the government would not be “responsible and accountable” for the NHS. However, Grant, who is expected to take up the post later this month, confirmed the bill’s critics’ worst fears in a combative parliamentary performance last week. In a remarkable admission, Grant told MPs that, from April 2013, in the event of a “crisis” in the health service. either he, nurses, GPs or hospital medical directors would be taking to the airwaves as the health secretary would not have responsibility for the daily running of the NHS. “It is no longer going to be the case that the secretary of state is wheeled in front of the TV cameras,” he told MPs. “Responsibility has to go back to where it is. It has to go back to within those hospitals. Who is the chief nurse? Who is the medical director. Where is the CEO?” MPs questioned how the public would be informed how well the NHS was faring by asking who “will be the person doing Panorama?” Grant replied: “I said this job was full of risks and probably that ends up being one of them.” Parliamentary scrutiny will also become a thing of the past. After the bill is passed, the health secretary will no longer have to answer MPs’ questions every month but will just put forward an annual report on how the board is doing once a year. The secretary of state will also, in effect, lose “powers of direction” over the health service, depriving the minister of the power to order NHS services to improve. The government would find it difficult to repeat Labour’s 2007 act of ordering a “deep clean” of NHS hospitals to tackle a rising tide of MRSA infections. Lady Thornton, Labour’s shadow health minister in the Lords, said: “This completely undermines the 1948 and 2006 acts. The whole point of the debate we’ve been having is that the secretary of state has to be accountable to parliament for the provision of a national health service, and you can’t just start franchising out that role.” To smoke out the government, Labour has also put down a probing amendment before peers which asks the house to concede that the principles of the NHS should be to “promote quality, equity, integration and accountability, not the market”. A Department of Health spokesman said: “The secretary of state will remain responsible for promoting a comprehensive health service and retains the ultimate accountability for securing the provision of services, through his relationship with NHS bodies.” NHS Health Public services policy Health policy Andrew Lansley Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …