People to be asked how content they feel in attempt to measure impact of policies on nation’s wellbeing Datablog: how do you measure happiness? The government will ask people how happy they are in order to measure the nation’s wellbeing for the first time, the chief statistician has revealed. Jill Mathieson, head of the Office for National Statistics, said that since April the Integrated Household Survey (IHS) had asked respondents to rank between one and 10 “how satisfied are you with your life nowadays, how happy did you feel yesterday, how anxious did you feel yesterday and to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?”. The results of the survey of 200,000 people will be published next July. Using these and a set of “objective” measurements, such as life expectancy and wealth, the government will devise a scheme to allow civil servants to assess the impact future policies will have on the wellbeing of the population. Mathieson said it was clear that how well-off people feel depends on things, such as their health or whether they have a job, that GDP does not capture. After 10 months of public consultation, she said, the ONS had “highlighted that the things that matter the most are our health, relationships, work and the environment. These are also themes that the majority of respondents agree should be reflected in a measure of national wellbeing, with the addition of education and training.” She argued that it was time to concentrate on household incomes, consumption and wealth rather than just total production. Launching the findings of the wellbeing debate, Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, said he would be publishing a discussion paper on how to revise the civil service “green book”, which issues guidance to mandarins on how ministerial proposals should be appraised before public funds are committed. He wanted a “social cost/benefit analysis” to be offered by civil servants in the future. “[It's] to give people an idea on how to submit to ministers … how can they frame it in the right way.” The question is how to measure well-being. One important facet is how to assess people’s “quality of life”. O’Donnell said he had been surprised by the beneficial effect of “altruism” on people giving their time to volunteer and was looking at releasing civil servants to help in charities on a pro bono basis. David Cameron – who first floated the idea of a “happiness index” in 2005 when he was running for the leadership of the Conservative party – last November asked the ONS how best to capture information that would help Britain re-evaluate its priorities. Since then government policies have tried to focus on wellbeing as a desirable outcome, said O’Donnell. He cited how improving the mental health of the long-term unemployed could help them find work; how protecting parks and green spaces raised people’s wellbeing; and how reducing pressure on families would help increase children’s happiness. In 2007 Unicef placed UK at the bottom of a league table looking at subjective indicators of children’s wellbeing, resulting in a big push by the government to improve the happiness of the young. Although the country’s standing improved by 2010 it remained below those of other wealthy nations. The ONS regularly produces measures of income inequality but said it had only just begun “to look at inequality between generations though its developmental work on the generational accounting approach to public finances in the UK”. Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at the University of Warwick, said recent research from Californian academics had confirmed that when people found out they were being paid “below average” for their work, they “instantly registered a lower job satisfaction and look for jobs elsewhere. There’s nothing intrinsically left or rightwing about wellbeing. But it is important for the government to measure it,” said Oswald. Health Civil service Children Poverty Social trends Unemployment Volunteering Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Norway gunman pleads not guilty to mass killing and tells Oslo hearing he acted to ‘save Europe’ from Islam The man who confessed to killing more than 70 people in a bomb and gun massacre on Friday has claimed he belonged to an organisation with two more cells who remain at large. At a closed hearing in Oslo, Anders Behring Breivik admitted carrying out the attacks but pleaded not guilty to one of the worst mass killings in peacetime Europe, and told the court he had acted to “save Europe” from Islam. Breivik, 32, will be detained in complete isolation for four weeks, with no incoming letters or visitors except for his lawyer, while police investigate his claims to have accomplices. Breivik has previously said he acted alone in the attacks. “The accused has made statements today that require further investigation, including that ‘there are two more cells in our organisation’,” said the judge, Kim Heger, who warned that Breivik could tamper with vital evidence if released. He will be held for at least another month after the court-ordered solitary confinement. Breivik arrived at court on Monday morning to jeering from a crowd of around 400 people. As a police convoy approached the rear of Oslo’s central court, someone shouted then the crowd surged forward. Bystanders screamed “traitor” and banged on the windows of a police car after one man said he’d spotted Breivik in the back seat. A local book editor, Marius Wulfsberg, 54, described one bystander pointing at a man in the crowd as Breivik’s vehicle passed. “That man lost three friends on Nyota Island, what do you have to say now? But the man he was pointing at was just standing there, impassive. “People were angry, shouting, some were hitting the door of the car.” Just after 1.40pm local time, Breivik was hustled into an underground tunnel that led into the basement and then taken up to courtroom 828, on the 8th floor. The hearing was ordered to be held behind closed doors after the judge was informed of last-minute police concerns. Outside the sealed courtroom, reporters waited in vain for a glimpse of Breivik, who had initially requested to appear in court in uniform, and asked for time to explain his actions. Normally such a hearing would be held in open court, but many in Norway had argued that Breivik should not be given a platform to justify the killings. Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad, said his client had admitted to the attacks but denied any criminal guilt. The court acknowledged the need for transparency in the case, but after a 35-minute hearing, Judge Heger said an open hearing would not be possible “for practical reasons.” “It is clear that there is concrete information that a public hearing with the suspect present could quickly lead to an extraordinary and very difficult situation in terms of the investigation and security,” he said. Police had earlier put the death toll at more than 90 but on Monday they revised the figure for the youth camp massacre down to 68, with at least seven killed in the bombing. Earlier, a minute’s silence brought Oslo to a standstill as thousands flocked to pay tribute outside the cathedral. More than 10 minutes later, thousands were still standing while others converged upon the vast field of flowers that has steadily grown in the heart of Oslo since Breivik struck. The flag on the courthouse remained at half mast. Meanwhile, the search for victims continued. Police have not released the names of the dead, but Norway’s royal court said on Monday that those killed at the island retreat included Crown Princess Mette-Marit’s stepbrother, an off-duty police officer, who was working there as a security guard. In an interview with the Swedish tabloid Expressen, Breivik’s father said he was disgusted by his son’s acts and wished he had committed suicide. “I don’t feel like his father,” said the former diplomat Jens David Breivik. “How could he just stand there and kill so many innocent people and just seem to think that what he did was OK? He should have taken his own life too. That’s what he should have done.” Norway Europe Global terrorism The far right Race issues Gun crime Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media On this week’s Fox News Sunday — even though Brit Hume ignored the fact that Republicans have been forcing this hostage taking on raising the debt ceiling and that these radical Republican freshmen are out there denying that defaulting on our debt would be bad for the economy and are openly cheering for it instead — even Hume had to admit that Republicans would be blamed if they forced a government shutdown. I think the only reason more people aren’t upset about what they’re doing now is they don’t understand what raising the debt ceiling is or how dangerous and irresponsible they’ve been with using it as a political weapon. I blame our lousy media in America for allowing these “tea partiers” to first of all pretend they’re something other than Republicans, and then for allowing them to come on the air and spout nonsense with little or no challenge to their talking points. Here’s the latest on where this mess is now . It looks like the big questions are going to be where are these cuts they’re talking about going to come from, like potentially drawing down in Afghanistan and Iraq and whether the Republicans are going to try to force us to go through this all over again before the next election. WALLACE: And I have to, Brit, the most interesting aspect both from Boehner and Geithner, was that neither of them was willing to put the final nail in the coffin the grand bargain. Geithner left it open. And Boehner, when I offered it to him, said my deal, his deal, prior to the president demanding $400 billion more, is still on the table. Do you take that seriously? HUME: I do. But I think it is a practical matter. I think they both are willing, but I think the obstacles to it are too great and time is too short for them to get there. I just think it is too much. First of all, the components of it are so numerous and the amount of legislating that needs to be done to get it in place is so extensive that I just don’t think it is feasible to pass it in time. We are going to need to do something ahead of that, if we can ever get that done. The other thing that is striking about this is, you know we have the ratings agencies out there issuing these dire warnings and all of this. Remember, now, what are talking about here is to enact something that would keep the government going for a while. And there are going to be plenty more bites at this apple. I mean, the Senate never passed anything. There is no budget. And there will be another day of reckoning down the road. I mean, this is simply a measure to keep the government open for a while. But there is just no real budget. I mean, we have a long way to go and we’re going to be fighting this fight, it seems to me, again and again, which is why I think House Republicans would be wise to say let’s take what we can get on this and go along with our leader. The only worry I have for the Republicans-or the thing I think they should be worried about-is you pass this short-term, you know, six months or so, uh, bill, that keeps the government going. And with it a batch of spending cuts. And it gets rejected by that Senate and or vetoed by the president and we have this shutdown. Even though the Senate has never passed anything; the president hasn’t proposed anything specific that we can see. And the House will have acted, be the only body that really has acted. And still it is possible, it is the scenario we saw back during the Clinton years, it plays out again, for the Republicans to get all the blame.
Continue reading …A poll commissioned last Thursday by the inside-the-Beltway political newspaper The Hill finds that “[l]ikely voters hold a dismal view of the news media, generally regarding reporters as biased, unethical and too close to the politicians they purport to cover.” Hill reporter Niall Stanage noted that the poll shows “68 percent of voters consider the news media biased” with “[m]ost, 46 percent, believ[ing] the media generally favor Democrats.” What's more, fully 44 percent of voters polled “believe the media are too friendly with politicians.” Also of note, nearly 4 out of 10 of self-described centrists see the bias as skewed in favor of Democrats, while only 19 percent of moderates think the media favor Republicans. For the full story at TheHill.com, click here .
Continue reading …
Judge extends injunction brought by ‘world-famous celebrity’ to keep details of sexual relationship with former escort secret The high court has extended a gagging order obtained by a leading actor to prevent reporting of his “sexual relationship” with a former escort girl. The married actor, described by judge Mr Justice King as a “world-famous celebrity”, brought a privacy injunction to stop Helen Wood revealing details of his extramarital affair in April. In a judgment handed down on Friday, King agreed to uphold the gagging order but relaxed rules over how he can be identified. The actor – who has admitted to the affair – can now be identified as a “leading actor” and a “world-famous celebrity”, King said in the judgment. The media can also refer to the affair as a “sexual relationship”. The judgment was published online on Friday but was later withdrawn by the court due to copyright issues, it is understood. The judge added: “It seems to me that this is material to the public debate about the class of person who is seeking these injunctions and the status they are seeking to protect when preventing the publication of private sexual encounters.” No anonymity was sought by Wood, who has previously claimed to have slept with Wayne Rooney. Wood had offered information about her relationship with the actor to the Sun. Granting the injunction, King concluded that the actor was “likely to establish that he has a reasonable expectation that that which he does in his private life by way of sexual encounters, albeit with a prostitute, should be kept private”. The judge also pointed out that neither Wood nor the Sun had argued that publishing details about the affair was in the public interest. The injunction is the latest to be heard in the high court following a huge storm over the controversial gagging orders in May and June. • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook Privacy & the media Media law Privacy Injunctions Newspapers Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told Fox News’s Chris Wallace Sunday that any deal to raise the debt ceiling must be within the “cut, cap and balance” framework that has already been rejected by the Senate. “I am going to continue to work with my congressional colleagues in both parties and my House Republican conference to try to develop a framework within the cut, cap and balance effort that the House passed this past week,” Boehner insisted. “I think a preferable path would be a bipartisan plan that involves all of the leaders, but it is too early to decide whether that is possible.” “There will be a two-stage process, it’s just not physically possible to do all of this in one step. Having said that, Chris, I know the president is worried about his next election. But my God, shouldn’t he be worried about the country?” the Speaker wondered. “So are you suggesting you might pass a short-term plan in the House and in effect, dare the Senate, dare the White House to block it?” Wallace asked. “We passed cut, cap and balance,” Boehner said. “But they have been defeated,” Wallace noted. “You talked about putting a framework out today. You are saying you would not do that unless you have Democratic buy-in?” “I would prefer to have a bipartisan approach to solve this problem. If that is not possible, I and my Republican colleagues in the House are prepared to move on our own,” Boehner explained. “I continue to believe that a balanced budget amendment is the greatest enforcement mechanism to bring Washington spending under control,” he later added. Washington Monthly ‘s Steve Benen observed that Boehner’s threat to act alone may show that he is willing to let the country default on its debts. “What Boehner is describing is a path that makes his caucus happy,” Benen wrote. “Boehner’s comments this morning — ‘I and my Republican colleagues are prepared to move on our own’ — sounded a lot like a House leader who’s not even interested in finding a solution at all. His goal is likely to avoid blame, not to resolve the problem.” “In other words, Boehner sees the car headed for the cliff, and appears ready to put a brick on the accelerator,” he concluded.
Continue reading …
Two students suffer life-threatening injuries after animal attacks group on survival course in Alaskan wilderness Two teenagers have life-threatening injuries after being mauled by a grizzly bear while on a survival skills course in the Alaskan wilderness. The group of seven students, who were on day 24 of a 30-day backpacking course in the Talkeetna mountains, north of Anchorage, had been in single file for a river crossing when the animal attacked. The two teenagers at the front of the line, Joshua Berg, 17, from New City, and Samuel Gottsegen, also 17, from Denver, suffered the most serious injuries. Witnesses said the animal struck out at Berg first, turned to another student, then turned back to Berg. The pair were being treated at Providence Alaska medical centre in Anchorage. Both were in a serious condition, said a hospital spokeswoman, Crystal Bailey. The group was rescued early on Sunday after activating their emergency locator beacon. Staff from the Rescue Co-ordination Centre, operated by the Alaska Air National Guard, were called at around 9.30pm in response to the signal but a state trooper and helicopter pilot only found the students in a tent nearly six hours later. Four of the teenagers were taken to hospital in Palmer city, about 40 miles northeast of Anchorage, where they received emergency treatment, but the rescue team decided the two most seriously injured would have to wait for medically trained crew. Bruce Palmer, a spokesman for the National Outdoor Leadership School, which runs the course and organises excursions in Alaska and elsewhere, said: “Our basic goal is that when a student graduates from the course, they have the experience and background to be able to take other people out into the back country. We’re training people to be outdoor leaders.” Among the skills learned on the course is the practice of calling out, to alert bears of human presence in order to give animals a chance to flee. “The students say they attempted that,” Palmer said. Alaska Animals United States Alexandra Topping guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Aircraft gunfire responsible for ‘regrettable’ injuries in Helmand during attack on insurgents, Ministry of Defence says Five Afghan children have been injured, some seriously, by cannon fire from a British Apache helicopter, according to UK defence officials. It is believed they were hit by stray bullets during an intended attack on an insurgent as they worked in a field in the Nahr-e-Saraj district of Helmand province, on Saturday. The children were taken to Camp Bastion, the main British base in Helmand, for treatment, the Ministry of Defence said. Officials are investigating the incident which is likely to focus on the accuracy of the Apache’s cannon and the speed with which they fire. The MoD is expected to offer compensation in the form of ex gratia payments to the families of the children. An MoD spokeswoman said: “On 23 July, UK forces used an Apache attack helicopter to conduct a strike operation against positively identified insurgents who were seen operating in Nahr-e Saraj (south). Regrettably, five local children working in a neighbouring field were injured during the strike. The five children were taken to Isaf medical facilities before being taken on to Camp Bastion where they received medical care.” She added: “Any incident involving civilian casualties is a matter of deep regret and we take every possible measure to avoid such incidents. A shooting incident review is now under way and UK officials in Afghanistan are keeping the provincial governor abreast of the results of the investigation.” Isaf said in a statement: “We are aware of an incident in Nahr-e-Saraj where a known insurgent was targeted by a coalition helicopter. As a result of the engagement, five local children were regrettably injured. Subsequently, the injured were evacuated to an International Security Assistance Force medical facility and are currently being treated. “Isaf is currently assessing this event, and more details will be released as they become available. Coalition forces take every allegation of civilian casualties seriously.” Isaf has said reducing civilian casualties is a priority. More than 400 civilians were killed by foreign and Afghan forces last year and over 2,000 killed by Taliban-led insurgents, according to UN figures. Afghanistan Military Nato Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Somalia’s deputy prime minister tells FAO meeting that people in areas controlled by Al-Shabaab may starve to death if aid does not reach them in the next few weeks The vast majority of people in insurgent-controlled areas of Somalia may starve to death unless aid reaches them in the next few weeks, said Mohamed Ibrahim, Somalia’s deputy prime minister. Ibrahim’s blunt warning came at an emergency summit in Rome organised by France, the current president of the G20, and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) as the world community seeks to mobilise help to relieve Somalia’s first famine in 18
Continue reading …
General Peter Wall has told commanding officers that troop reductions will be imposed sooner than ministers have admitted The head of the army has warned that deep cuts will be imposed sooner than ministers have admitted and will mean the end of regiments and battalions, including some that were recently deployed in Afghanistan. General Peter Wall’s warnings in a letter to all commanding officers, appears to contradict assurances made to MPs last month by the defence secretary, Liam Fox. It also appears to undermine the government’s repeated claims that last October’s strategic defence and security review (SDSR) remains valid. Wall says he regrets the “sobering” impact the extra cuts this will have on soldiers and their families, and the “uncertainties” they will cause. He adds that there are “significant changes to the original SDSR provision for the army, including significant cuts”. Wall writes: “Regular army manpower will be cut more steeply, with an additional reduction of 5,000 over and above the 7,000 already in progress as a result of the SDSR. This takes the army to about 90,000 by 2015. The additional manpower cuts are now being scoped but will inevitably require a further redundancy programme.” He continues: “Although the detailed planning is not yet complete we must assume that these reductions will require the further removal of formed battalions and regiments from the force structure, including the combat arm.” Fox told the Commons on 27 June: “When it comes to plans for the army, we have no plans to reduce its size in this parliament.” It is assumed he meant no further cuts than those already announced in the SDSR. The review said the army numbers would be reduced by about 7,000 to 95,000 by 2015. Wall now warns that the cuts will be deeper, leaving an army of 90,000 by 2015. The total will be further reduced to at least 84,000, perhaps to 82,000, by the year 2020, depending on how many more reservists are recruited by then. Either way, the British army will have fewer soldiers than at any time during the past 100 years. The Guardian reported last week that a number of infantry battalions will be disbanded as a result of the cuts. The head of the army’s letter was first reported in the Daily Telegraph. An Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “No one who is preparing for, or is deployed on operations, will be made redundant unless they volunteer. Only those who have returned from operations and have taken all their leave will be considered.” He added: “The defence secretary has agreed with [chief of the general staff] that we will move gradually towards the new army structure so operations are not adversely affected by additional reductions in regular army numbers, which will be made as we draw down our commitments in Afghanistan in 2014/15.” Military Defence policy Liam Fox Conservative and Liberal Democrat cabinet Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …