Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 308)
Queen’s spending drops 5% to £32.1m

Reduction in maintenance bill for royal residences helps to reduce monarch’s annual costs The Queen cost the taxpayer £32.1m in the last year – a drop of more than 5%. Her keeper of the privy purse, Sir Alan Reid , said that it was partly achieved by a pay freeze across all the royal staff, which will be continued this year, and by deferring spending on property maintenance – but warned that it will be difficult to cut spending any further. The Queen’s accounts – released as the attention of royal watchers is on the positive publicity being generated by her grandson and his new wife on their Canadian tour – show that spending has been cut by 19% in real terms over the past five years. They contrast strikingly with the accounts released last week for the Prince of Wales , which show that his income increased by 4% or £1m including money from the taxpayer, and his spending particularly on overseas travel also increased. The Queen’s travel spending was also significantly higher – reflecting many overseas events including her historic first state visit to Ireland – up from £3.9m to £6m, but her income from the civil list was down from £14.2m to £13.7m, and grants for property maintenance were down from £15.4m to £11.9m. In a statement Sir Alan said: “The Queen is very keen that the royal household should continue to reduce its expenditure in line with public expenditure reductions.” “The decrease in expenditure is due mainly to increased income generation, the deferral of property maintenance expenditure and the implementation of a pay freeze. This pay freeze will continue onto this year. However he warned the palace can not continue cutting at the same rate: “Over the past five years The Queen’s official expenditure has reduced by 19% in real terms and while the royal household will continue to identify efficiencies it will be very difficult for overall expenditure to reduce very much further without impacting on the royal household’s activities in support of the Queen and the long-term health of the estate.” Legislation is currently before parliament to change funding the Queen’s official spending to a new system called the sovereign grant, the biggest shakeup since the creation of the civil list – when the crown surrendered revenues from estates and assets in return for an annual grant – in the mid 18th century. Announcing the change in October, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced that the taxpayer’s funding of the Queen would remain frozen for a further year, and that royal spending would be expected to reduce by 14% by 2012-13. The Queen Monarchy Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Ratko Mladic removed from war crimes court after being disruptive

Former Bosnian Serb army chief refused to enter plea and interrupted judge as charges against him were read out Former Bosnian Serb army chief Ratko Mladic was removed from the UN war crimes court at The Hague on Monday after refusing to enter a plea and disrupting the judge’s attempts to read out the charges against him. Presiding judge Alphons Orie warned Mladic several times on Monday not to interrupt him as the defendant argued he should be allowed to choose his own lawyers. “No, no, I’m not going to listen to this without my lawyer,” Mladic shouted as he removed his translation headphones when judge Alphons Orie began reading out the charges. Shortly before guards escorted Mladic from court, he shouted at Orie: “You want to impose my defence. What kind of a court are you?” After a brief break, Orie resumed the hearing and began reading out the charges against Mladic. The tribunal judges entered not guilty pleas to 11 charges on Mladic’s behalf, which include genocide, and relate to the 43-month siege of the Bosnian capital Sarajevo and the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica. Ratko Mladic War crimes International criminal court Serbia Bosnia and Herzegovina Europe guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Politics live blog – Monday 4 July 2011

Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen including the launch of the report from Andrew Dilnot’s commission on funding of care and support 10.15am: More questions. Q: Why did you not impose a cap on the amount people would have to spend on hotel costs? Could someone end up losing their home to pay these costs? Dilnot says that if you are living at home, you pay for your food and accommodation. It would be unfair if people in care homes did not have to pay these costs. The report says these “hotel” costs should be capped at between £7,000 and £10,000. These charges are reasonable because pension credit guarantees an income of just over £7,000 to people in retirement. Q: The report recommends implementation from 2013. Would you be disappointed if this were to slip to 2014 or beyond? Dilnot says the report say it should be implemented “with pace”. The commission used this phrase because it sounded “modern and thrusting”, he jokes. The system does need reforming. In some respects, it is the last vestiges of the Poor Law. It would be naive to expect all parties to back the idea immediately. Dilnot says he will not be disappointed if the white paper arrives by Easter of next year. (A few moments ago Dame Jo Williams said she hoped it would come by the end of the year.) He would like implementation to start by 2014. But he is not too worried about the precise date. Lord Warner says the commission was asked to report within a year, so that the government could legislate in the next session of parliament. He assumes that is still the plan. But some measures could be implemented more quickly, he says. 10.09am: The questions are still going on. Q: Is there anything in your plans to stop people going to the most expensive care homes available? Dilnot says a cap could provide people with a “perverse incentive” to go to a very expensive home, so that they reach the £35,000 cap quickly. But Dilnot says he is proposing a system that takes into account what reasonable spending would be. Q: In the light of Southern Cross, do you have any thoughts on how care sector regulation could be improved? Dame Jo Williams says Southern Cross raises questions about whether or not there is a role for an economic regulator in the sector. Q: Who should people consult for advice on this area? Lord Warner says the commission backs a Law Commission proposal for councils to be given a statutory duty to provide advice on care 10.00am: Dilnot is still taking questions. Q: At what age do you envisage people starting to take out insurance for their care costs? Dilnot says at the moment people cannot plan for anything. At the moment people build up wealth in their homes and in their pensions. It might be sensible to see if those saving vehicles could be linked to saving to cover the costs of care. Q: What will you do if the report is kicked into the long grass? What will your response be? “Astonishment”, says Dilnot. Dilnot asks Dame Jo Williams how the care sector would feel if the report were kicked into the long grass. (Williams is chair of the Care Quality Commission.) Williams says people want more than talk. “It’s time for change.” People need to be able to plan. “It’s time for action,” she says. She hopes and believes that the government will publish a white paper by the end of the year. If the government were not to do this, then “disappointment” would not be the right word. The commission would be “disgusted”, she says. Dilnot says he wants the government to talk to interest groups and the other parties. He wants cross-party consensus. These are not “easy things” to do. But he is “confident” that something will happen. 9.52am: Q: The report mentions the possibility of a specific tax for pensioners to fund this. What are you proposing? (I’ve just found this section. It’s on page 74. It says the government could fund the proposal by raising extra money through taxation, by reprioritising existing expenditure or by introducing a specific tax increase. On this, it says “it would make sense for this [tax] to be paid at least in part by those who are benefiting directly from the reforms. In particular, it would seem sensible for at least a part of the burden to fall on those over state pension age.”) Dilnot says his report deliberately does not make recommendations on this because this is a “political decision”. Q: Would women have to pay higher premiums to pay for their care (because they live longer)? Dilnot says women would be the main beneficiaries of these changes, because they are more likely to have significant care needs. He says we will have to “wait and see” what products the financial services industry produce. 9.50am: Dilnot says the report does not just cover funding. It also proposes a major information campaign to improve the information and advice available to people about care. Carers need more support, he says. The system of assessing people’s care needs should be made more consistent too, he says. Dilnot is now taking questions. 9.42am: Dilnot says he has been studying means tests for 30 years. He illustrates the way the current means test works, with a chart showing a straight line dropping after £23,250 – because at that point people lose all their assets if they need to pay for care. Dilnot says they had a debate in the commission about when it was right to use the term “cliff edge”. This really is a cliff edge, he says. It’s crazy. The commission is proposing a fairer system. People with assets worth more than £150,000 would only have to pay up to £35,000 in care costs, he says. But the cap would be lower for people with fewer assets. For example, for people with £40,000, it should be set at £9,000; for those with £50,000 it would be set at £12,000. 9.37am: Dilnot says people told the commission they were “frightened” of the future because they did not know what costs they would face. At the moment, if you face care costs of £150,000, the worst position to be is right in the middle of the index of wealth distribution. This group face the risk of losing 84% of their assets, he says. (The politics of this chart are fascinating. It explains exactly why this is such a “Middle England” issue. It’s in the report, on page 36.) 9.35am: Dilnot is illustrating his opening remarks with charts projected onto a screen. It’s a bit like an Institute for Fiscal Studies briefing. Dilnot, of course, did used to run the IFS. One person in 10 aged 65 will face care costs of more than £100,000, he says. But at the moment there is no insurance system that enables people to cover this risk. The current system is “under enormous pressure”, he says. 9.30am: Dilnot is starting his press conference now. He is on the platform with the two other members of his commission, Lord Warner and Dame Jo Williams. Dilnot starts by saying that we should be celebrating the fact the people are living for longer. His report says that the number of people aged 85 and over in England is expected to double to 2.4m over the next 20 years. (The report only covers England, although Dilnot’s commission has consulted the devolved administrations about its plans.) Spending on social care is currently only £14bn, he says. Total government spending is about £700bn. It’s good to bear that in mind, Dilnot says. 9.17am: I’m at the QE2 centre in Westminster, in a suite where the press conference is due to start in about 10 minutes. The report itself is only 80 pages long, but the commission has published a second document, running to 195 pages, containing its supporting evidence. Dilnot has already given us the key points. (See 8.40am.) Here are some other findings and recommendations that stand out. • Dilnot’s claim that his plans would cost £1.7bn is based on the government capping the amount that people have to contribute to their care costs at £35,000. But the report suggests any figure between £25,000 and £50,000 would be an acceptable level for the cap. A £50,000 would cost the government just £1.3bn, while a £25,000 cap would cost £2.2bn. • Dilnot says that, under his plans for a new cap on costs and a higher means-testing threshold “no one going into care would have to spend more than 30% of their assets on their care costs”. Under the current system, people face losing up to 90% of their assets. • Dilnot says the government has already put more money into adult social care. But he says this money is not all getting through. “The impact of the wider local government settlement appears to have meant that the additional resources have not found their way to social care budgets in some areas,” the report says. • Anyone who enters adulthood with a care and support need – ie, a severe disability – should be eligible to free state support without being subject to a means test, the report says. The proposals has not been trailed in advance, but for some families it could turn out to be hugely significant. 8.52am: I’m off to the Dilnot press conference now. There’s an embargo until 9.30am, and so I won’t be posting until then. In the meantime, here’s a short reading list. • A Guardian interview with Andrew Dilnot • An article by David Brindle and Tom Clark in the Guardian explaining the background to today’s announcement • A report put out by the Dilnot comission explaining the responses to its consultation (pdf) 8.40am: The long-awaited report from Andrew Dilnot’s commission on funding of care and support is being published later this morning but Dilnot has just been on the Today programme and he’s spilled the beans on the main outline of what he’s proposing. Here are the main points. • Care costs should be capped at £35,000, Dilnot says. That means people would not have to pay any more than that for their care. (At the moment people can face unlimited bills.) But this figure would be means-tested, and for people with limited assets the cap would be lower. • So-called “hotel costs” would also be capped . Under Dilnot’s plan, although care costs would be capped at £35,000, people would still have to pay the cost of food and accommodation – as they would if they were healthy and able to look after themselves at home. But Dilnot says that the cost of these charges should be capped at between £7,000 and £10,000 a year to stop care homes raising fees excessively. • The means-test threshold should be raised to £100,000 . At the moment people have to pay for their own care if they have assets [ie, a home] worth more than £23,250. Dilnot says this figure should be raised to £100,000. • The total cost of the package would be £1.7bn a year. Dilnot insisted that as affordable. It was one four-hundredth of total public spending, he said. • Dilnot insisted that the government was not going to ditch his plans . On his Telegraph blog this morning , Benedict Brogan said the idea was “DOA” [dead on arrival] because it was going to cost too much. But Dilnot rejected this. “I have spoken with all the main players in this area,” he said. “I do not think that’s the position we are in.” He said he thought there would be a white paper on this subject next spring and that, although the government was unlikely to start funding the scheme before 2014, “by then we are almost certain to be seeing some shift”. • Dilnot said the current system was flawed . “At the moment there’s a massive market failure,” he said. “There’s a big area of our lives where you cannot get any risk coverage.” Dilnot is holding a press conference at 9.30am. I’ll be covering it live on the blog, and focusing on the report, and the reaction to it, for most of the morning. Later I’ll start to broaden out and focus on some of the other politics around. Here’s a full list of what’s coming up today. 9.30am: Andrew Dilnot publishes his report on the funding of care and support at an off-camera press briefing. 10am: Andrew Lansley , the health secretary, speaks at the Faculty of Public Health annual conference. 10am: William Hague attends the unveiling of a statue of Ronald Reagan outside the US embassy. 10.15am: The Labour MP Graham Allen launches his government-commissioned report on early intervention . In an article for the Guardian on Saturday , Iain Duncan Smith warmly welcomed Allen’s proposals. 2pm: The NHS Future Forum publishes a report with recommendations on changes to the health bill. As usual, I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one at about 4pm. House of Commons Carers Social care Long-term care Older people Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Fox News’s hacked Twitter feed declares Obama dead

Rogue 4 July tweets on TV news channel’s politics service go viral but Fox News is apparently back in control Fox News has apparently fallen victim to hacking, with its politics Twitter feed repeatedly announcing President Barack Obama had been shot dead . @foxnewspolitics began tweeting the information to its 33,000 followers at about 2am local time, with the posts rapidly being shared around the internet. The rogue tweets appeared to begin after the account sent a message saying Fox had just “regained full access to our Twitter account”. The following tweets all related to the supposed death of Obama, with some posts being very specific about the president’s injuries. “@BarackObama has just passed. The President is dead. A sad 4th of July, indeed. President Barack Obama is dead,” came the first tweet . The string of messages continued : “@BarackObama has just passed. Nearly 45 minutes ago, he was shot twice in the lower pelvic area and in the neck; shooter unknown. Bled out”, and then : “@BarackObama shot twice at a Ross’ restaurant in Iowa while campaigning. RIP Obama, best regards to the Obama family.” Whatever the hoaxer’s identity, they do not appear to have been entirely web-savvy. The first three posts revealing the president’s death were directed to the @BarackObama Twitter feed, meaning only those following both accounts would have seen the messages. The unknown tweeter appeared to realise the error of their ways, switching tack to post three more tweets that would have been seen by all followers: “#ObamaDead, it’s a sad 4th of July. RT to support the late president’s family, and RIP. The shooter will be found; “BREAKING NEWS: President @BarackObama assassinated, 2 gunshot wounds have proved too much. It’s a sad 4th for #america. #obamadead RIP; “We wish @joebiden the best of luck as our new President of the United States. In such a time of madness, there’s light at the end of tunnel.” Fox News was not immediately available for comment. Fox Twitter Internet Blogging Barack Obama United States Fox News TV news Television industry US television industry Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Greek rescue package will mean a default, warns S&P

• French-devised €110bn plan under threat • S&P says investors will receive less than promised • Greece’s rating will be cut to D if plan proceeds Efforts to resolve the Greek debt crisis were dealt a blow on Monday morning when rating agency Standard & Poor’s ruled that Europe’s favoured rescue plan is in effect a default. S&P warned that it would cut Greece’s credit rating to D, the lowest possible, if the debt rollover plan proposed by France’s banking sector is implemented. The decision, which echoes the views of other rating agencies in recent days, casts a cloud over the eurozone as policymakers struggle to devise a second bailout for Greece worth around €110bn (£100bn). The euro fell against the dollar, losing around half a cent to $1.4513, after S&P released its analysis. Under the Fédération Bancaire Française (FBF) plan, banks would invest some of the proceeds of maturing Greek debt in new bonds issued by Athens, which would not mature for up to 30 years. These securities would have an interest rate linked to Greece’s GDP, and their sale would be restricted. The proposal won support last week from Germany , which is keen for private creditors to share the cost of a new rescue package. S&P, though, has concluded that this plan must be treated as a debt restructuring because investors would receive less value than was promised when they bought their original securities, and because without the deal Greece would almost certainly be unable to service its debts. “In our view, Greece’s near-term reliance on European Union and International Monetary Fund official financing, the government’s difficulty in reducing its sizable fiscal deficit, and the current pricing of Greek government debt in the secondary market all underscore the Hellenic Republic’s weak creditworthiness and, consequently, point to a ‘realistic possibility’ that [the] financing option would fit the ‘distressed’ category,” said S&P. Chaos could ripple through financial markets if the rating agencies rule that Greece has defaulted. Banks would have to slash the value of the Greek bonds they hold, and would probably not be able to use them as collateral with the European Central Bank (ECB). There are also fears that Portugal and Ireland might also see their credit rating cut. Gary Jenkins of Evolution Securities predicted that S&P’s statement might scupper the FBF plan. “As the proposal not triggering a default was set as a precondition by the FBF it looks like it might be back to the drawing board. Or the ECB could back down and state that it will continue to accept defaulted bonds as collateral, and the FBF then ignores its own terms and conditions. We are in such strange and dangerous times that anything is possible,” said Jenkins. “It might be that a completely different form of bailout has to take place, such as guaranteeing Greek debt or buying it back. Anyhow, this is certainly a brave decision by S&P and it will be interesting to see how the other agencies follow and how senior officials at the EU react. Bet they wish they had gone ahead and set up their own rating agency now,” he added. Greece’s immediate financial crisis was eased over the weekend when finance ministers agreed to hand over the next slice of its original bailout, worth €12bn. This followed the Greek parliament’s approval of a tough five-year austerity plan designed to drive down Greece’s budget deficit, giving international investors the confidence to lend to the country again. However, the meeting of eurozone ministers did not make significant progress on the pressing issue of the second bailout . “It is likely that this could well be delayed until September, given European leaders’ predilection for delay,” commented Michael Hewson of CMC Markets. European debt crisis European banks Greece Europe Ratings agencies Graeme Wearden guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Bradley Manning: I was bullied in the military for being gay

New online conversations allege the suspected WikiLeaks source was mocked and physically attacked New online conversations between a gay activist and Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of passing secret diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, allege Manning was being bullied in the military over his sexuality. The 2009 weblogs, sent from Fort Drum, the upstate New York barracks where Manning was preparing to be sent to Iraq as an intelligence analyst, give new insight into his state of mind around the time he is alleged to have contacted WikiLeaks. Using the online pseudonym Bradass87, Manning used AOL’s instant messager for several exchanges with a 19-year-old man called Zachary Antolak, who lived near Chicago. Antolak adopted a female persona on the internet, ZJ Antolak. In the weblogs, never before made public, Manning tells ZJ of bullying he endured as a gay man serving in the army under “don’t ask, don’t tell”, the discriminatory policy towards gay soldiers. Though he tried to hide his sexuality, it was soon discovered by others in his platoon. “It took them a while, but they started figuring me out, making fun of me, mocking me, harassing me, heating up with one or two physical attacks,” Manning wrote to ZJ. The logs were uncovered by Steve Fishman, a journalist at New York magazine who wrote a profile of Manning for the latest issue. The new material adds to the understanding of Manning, who has spent more than a year in military prison awaiting a court martial on charges that he sent hundreds of thousands of confidential documents and videos to WikiLeaks. Manning has become a cause celebre in the US, where protests are regularly held outside Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where he is in custody. In the cyber conversations with ZJ Manning also says he was shocked by life in the army when first recruited. “The army took me, a web dev, threw me into a rigid schedule, removed me from my digital self,” posted Manning. “The army … threw me in the forests of Missouri for 10 weeks with an old M-16, Reagan-era load-bearing equipment and 50 twanging people hailing from places like Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi … joy. What the hell did I put myself through?” In October 2009 Manning was deployed to Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles from Baghdad. There his feeling of isolation grew more intense. “It’s awfully stressful, lonely,” he wrote. As part of the profile piece, Fishman interviews a counsellor who saw Manning in November 2009. At the sessions they discussed a previously unknown incident in which Manning appears to have felt responsible for a US military operation in Iraq that led to the death of a civilian. Manning told the counsellor he was trying to find out why two groups of Iraqis were in a particular area. A US army unit was dispatched and Manning later learned that a man connected to them was killed. Manning, the counsellor said, “was very, very distressed”. He also claimed Manning discussed wanting to have a sex change. In previously disclosed weblogs he expressed anger at the apparent lack of concern shown by his superior officers in Iraq about the treatment of civilians. Bradley Manning WikiLeaks United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Chris Stirewalt’s Idea of Negotiations is President Obama Giving Republicans Everything They Want

Click here to view this media On this week’s Fox News Sunday , the Washington Examiner’s Chris Stirewalt apparently thinks negotiating entails one side getting everything they want and then stomping off before giving even one iota of the concessions they agreed to when talks started. In my world, that’s called bargaining in bad faith, or hostage taking, not negotiating. BREAM: Chris, you had sort of a visceral reaction when Bill said they won’t reach a deal. STIREWALT: Well, look, the problem for the president in all of this is that he can have a deal anytime he wants. He’s driving the bus and he can stop at any moment. He feels tremendous pressure from markets, tremendous pressure from the largest question that looms over his reelection, which is the condition of the economy. He needs a deal quickly. Now, he can stop today. They already have a deal in principle for $1.4 trillion, $1.5 trillion in cuts, with the cap extension to match. That takes them maybe not to the 2012 election, but very close. It’s a year’s worth of borrowing, probably. And he can stop this buggy any time he wants and they can have a deal. But he’s afraid to do that because of two things. One, he wants to make sure that they get it past the election so that he doesn’t have to go through this next summer. And the other problem is, as Nina pointed out, he took a lot of blowback for extending the Bush tax rates. That was a big deal. Supporters did not like it, Democratic members of Congress felt that he sold them out. So he feels political pressure to push this to the end. But every day longer he goes, the less the markets like it and the more damage to the economy it does. It’s a real sweet spot.

Continue reading …
Rand Paul’s Twisted American Dream

Click here to view this media When Rand Paul makes Marco Rubio sound sane, you know it’s bad. Candy Crowley’s theme of the day was the American Dream, and Rand’s idea of it is, well…Randian. Actually, it’s pretty dystopian. Here’s the transcript, via CNN: CROWLEY: We leave you with a last set of thoughts on the fundamentals of the American dream. Capitol Hill, we found out, remains full of dreamers. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: For me the American dream is the ability of people, no matter what their ethnicity, their religion, their background, their sexual orientation, to live up to their full potential. SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: The American dream is more than just about people that made millions of dollars or own a jet airplane or yacht. It’s about the hard-working people that service our lunch at restaurants or clean our offices at night who are working hard so that one day their kids can do all the things they themselves could not. SEN. MARK WARNER (D), VIRGINIA: We can’t guarantee everyone in America that they’re going to be successful, but we sure as heck ought to be able to guarantee that everybody gets a fair shot. SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: It’s not that we will have equal outcome. In fact, the American dream is that those who work harder and those who merit it will have unequal outcomes, that they will gain more of whatever the American dream is. SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D), MISSOURI: The American dream means to me that a young girl who grew up going to public schools in a very modest household and who worked her way through college and law school someday has the incredible opportunity to be a United States senator. In the overall spectrum of remarks clipped in this segment, Rand Paul’s stand out like a big black thumbprint on an otherwise gradient landscape. “Those who work harder and those who merit it…” What exactly does that mean? Is there some formula for preordination for some in this country to ‘merit it’? Is it a dogwhistle or just simple-minded meanness? What I heard in this segment was a United States Senator arguing for inequality, which squares exactly with his political philosophy of returning us to pre-Civil War era times. As for Marco Rubio, what did he say, exactly? Not a whole lot, but most of it contradicts his actions. He voted for the Ryan plan, won’t vote to raise the debt limit, and supports draconian cuts to services and assistance that would help those hard workers out there who want life to be better for their kids. So thanks Marco for the platitudes but next time back up your pretty words with some action, okay?

Continue reading …
Framing the Debate: This Week Paints Constitutional Debate As Pro-Life

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe ) It’s an insidious thing, framing the debate. And too often, people watch the Sunday news shows without doing the meta-analysis necessary to evaluate the truthfulness or accuracy of the information being presented to them. They don’t look at the partisan or ideological bents of the invited guests; they don’t consider the assumptions made the framing of questions. It never occurs to them that the media is trying to lead them to a specific point of view, even if it’s not necessarily the one you actually hold. I noticed this little bit of framing in the intro for This Week’s roundtable discussion of the Constitution. It’s just a small part of a larger intro, but it’s very telling in the way that ABC News views the abortion debate. Go to 1:47 of the intro. Here’s the other way we’ve long tended to treat the Constitution — as wrapping paper, as in wrap yourself in it to make your case sound even better type of wrapping paper, to put a nice bow on it. Which is really nothing new. Every case that ever gets to the Supreme Court gets there because both sides argue they have the Constitution on their side. Richard Nixon, refusing to give up his tapes, said the Constitution protected him. He lost. Folks that want to burn the American flag say the Constitution protects them. They generally win. People who argue the Constitution protects the unborn have yet to win their battle. Hold on…what was that? “Have YET to win their battle”??? Um, no. They lost that battle. It was called Roe v. Wade and the Supreme Court decided that an actual born woman’s right to privacy and determine medical procedures on her body superseded any potential (and nonviable) life forms. That is the law of the land, Republican attempts to thwart it notwithstanding. But so kind of ABC News and John Donvan to frame it as an still existing battle on behalf of the anti-choicers.

Continue reading …
Lord Patten targets ‘toxic’ executive pay to restore public sympathy for BBC

BBC Trust chairman hints at reducing number of managers earning above £150,000 and adoption of Hutton pay proposals Lord Patten, the BBC Trust chairman, has signalled that the corporation would address what he called a “toxic” public relations problem by cutting the pay of some of its most senior executives. In an interview on BBC1′s Andrew Marr Show, Patten hinted that the number of managers earning more than £150,000 would be reduced as part of a series of announcements designed to show the BBC was responding to the need to cut public spending. He said he would be taking up some of the proposals in the recent report by the Work Foundation’s Will Hutton into pay in the public sector. Patten spoke as it emerged that the BBC pays 19 presenters, actors and journalists more than £500,000 a year. The figures will be published in the corporation’s forthcoming annual report. Patten focused on executive pay rather than the salaries paid to onscreen stars. He said this was the biggest issue for the BBC because “what’s happened does seem to fly in the face of public service ethos”. The forthcoming announcement would cover four issues, Patten said. “First of all there’s the pay level at the very top; secondly there’s the number of people who get more than £150,000; thirdly there’s the number of people who are deemed to be senior managers; and fourthly there’s the whole issue of fairness across the board, with senior managers getting some deals which don’t apply to others. “We can deal with all that and if we do so, we will deal with one of the most toxic reasons for the public’s lack of sympathy with the BBC as an institution, even though they like enormously what it does.” Patten said he was particularly interested in the “very good ideas” in Hutton’s report on public sector pay, which rejected a suggestion that top pay in public sector bodies should be capped at 20 times median pay in the organisation. But Hutton said pay multiples should be published, any increase in the figure should be explained publicly and executives should receive some of their salary as “earn back” pay that would only be handed over if certain targets were met. Patten indicated he would adopt some of these recommendations. “I would like the BBC to be the first organisation in the public sector which actually gets into implementing some of Will Hutton’s ideas,” he said. Patten said the BBC was “a fantastic organisation”, but it should “take out a lot of costs” and learn to live within its £3.5bn budget. “Everybody is having to pull in their belts and I hope we can pull in ours while producing high-quality programmes still,” he said. The corporation’s annual report will publish the most detailed analysis of stars’ pay in the corporation’s history. It will not reveal the salaries paid to presenters, nor will it identify individuals, but the annual accounts, which will be unveiled next Tuesday, will show the number of performers who fall within a series of pay brackets. The corporation will confirm that since the departure of Jonathan Ross, who was reputed to earn £6m a year, it pays no performer more than £5m. Salary information for what the BBC terms its “top tier” of talent – those paid more than £1m a year – will be revealed. Attempts to force top presenters to take salary cuts, as well as the defection of Adrian Chiles to ITV, are understood to have brought the total paid to seven-figure stars down by £2.3m to £14.5m. The highest paid is thought to be Graham Norton, who banked a talent fee of £1.5m from his production outfit So Television, according the company’s latest accounts. He was also paid a dividend of £500,000 from the company’s profits, which include non-BBC activities. But the BBC will not reveal how many stars it pays more than £1m, citing data protection legislation. “We have had to aggregate the numbers from £500,000 upwards to prevent the individuals being identified,” a BBC source said. “This is based on strong legal advice. Our lawyers believe that if we break that number down any further there will be jigsaw identification and we will be in breach of our confidentiality obligations.” The total spent on presenters and performers has fallen for the second year running, dropping to £213m from £222m in 2009-10, according to figures seen by the Guardian. When performers who earn less than £100,000 are excluded from the equation, the numbers are also down, from £68m to £65m. Mark Thompson, the BBC director general, will use the figures to claim the corporation is making progress in its pledge to drive down talent costs. He is expected to point to the new hosts of The One Show, Matt Baker and Alex Jones, as examples of how the BBC is developing new presenters, but will nevertheless pledge that the corporation will still invest large amounts to draw in the best performers. BBC Lord Patten BBC Trust Executive pay and bonuses Television industry Television Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …