Playing the ‘Can’t They All Just Get Along Game’ in the Wake of GOP Obstruction
October 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media In yet another example of CNN allowing one of their guest to play the “both sides are obstructionists” and a lack of bipartisanship is what’s wrong with our politics game, frequent contributor Prof. Peter Morici does his best to lie to their audience about who is actually making sure that nothing gets done in Washington D.C. — as long as Republicans’ primary goal is to make sure that President Obama is not reelected instead of allowing the economy to improve. Here’s Morici on Saturday’s Your Money : VELSHI: So the work needs to be done to fix this economy outside of Washington in the private sector. But the idea there is a road map, there is some destination and there are some agreement as to how to get there is the thing that is going to help businesses make those decisions to employ people. So ultimately the gridlock you’re saying, Diane, is a large part of the problem. Peter Morici, what’s the logical fix to that? Do we have to wait for 14 months for an election to finally have the people somehow send the message that you guys have to get something done in Washington? Are we still going to see this reactionary politics that plays its way all the way down to the voter who now is going to vote on choices that affect them personally? MORICI: The fact of the matter is we’re going to see marginal action on the president’s plan. Even the Democrats in the Senate are putting it off. My feeling is there will be a package. It won’t be nearly as comprehensive as the president likes. But a basic problem we have is that when the Republicans win, they think they should get everything their way and the Democrats think they should obstruct. When the Democrats win, they think they should get everything their way and Republicans think they should obstruct. The reality is folks do want government — Americans are moderate. They want solutions in the middle. Until politicians are willing to do that, we’re going to have this seesawing in elections. I mean, that’s all there is to it and we’re going to be a country divided. But I think there are real solutions to getting the private sector going. We haven’t had a clear vision from the White House how to do that beyond stimulus. And frankly on the Republican side, cutting taxes and deregulating doesn’t warm me up. Naturally what Morici fails to mention here is that Democrats have not been the ones unwilling to negotiate, to a fault I would say. It’s been the Republicans and to the point that they’re even refusing to vote for their own ideas if heaven forbid those ideas might somehow even marginally improve the economy. We’ve already written about the level of GOP obstruction we’ve been watching over the last couple of years at Video Cafe. Steve Benen wrote a post on this earlier this year here — Evil vs. Disgusting — which did a really good job laying out just how craven the Republican’s strategy has been that bears repeating here in the wake of Morici’s remarks. Regular readers know that we’ve been keeping an eye on the “ sabotage ” question, wondering whether congressional Republicans would consider hurting the economy on purpose, for purely partisan reasons. Just this month, some high-profile, mainstream pundits have begun exploring the issue , and just last week, two of Congress’ most powerful Democrats broached the same subject . Michael Tomasky went even further the other day, arguing that Democrats should start “saying openly what has been clear for months or even years now — that as long as economic recovery would work to the political benefit of Barack Obama, the Republicans have been, are, and will be in favor of sabotaging the economy.” Tomasky added this is “obvious,” though many consider the question to “impolite” to repeat. Rachel noted, among other things, that the congressional GOP has decided it’s against their own ideas about helping the economy, which necessarily raises some awkward questions about their motivations. Keep in mind, for much of the country, the problem with policymakers and the economy is that Washington lacks “leadership” and the “political will” to make things better. These assumptions are wrong — the problem is a major party that controls the House and can block at will in the Senate appears unwilling to consider any measures that could improve the economy, and demands measures that would make matters worse. During the segment after the clip at the top of the post, host Ali Velshi, Morici and Mesirow financial economist Diane Swonk went on to discuss what they thought some of the solutions out there might be for job creation in the United States. And what were those? The first one suggested was naturally lowering the tax rates on corporate America and supposedly closing some of those loopholes we know is never going to happen at the behest of that great bastion of bipartisanship, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Club for Growth). Following that, they did actually talk about a few things I agree with, like doing something for underwater homeowners instead of the banks, and the fact that businesses are hurting right now because we just don’t have enough demand and that government can play a role in helping in that regard although I disagree with their premise that ultimately it’s all up to the private sector to see that happen in the long term. If government doesn’t step in and protect American workers, the private sector is going to continue to do nothing but have a race to the bottom on wages and benefits all in the name of taking care their stockholders and bonuses for their CEO’s. What irked me when watching this is that not once did they point to the GOP and let their viewers know what Steve Benen wrote about in his post, and that is the Republicans are obstructing everything possible for the sole purpose of hoping that if our economy is in the tank, President Obama does not get reelected. They also, of course, failed to address the real divide we’ve got in America right now and it’s not a problem with the divide between Republicans and Democrats. It’s a problem with the divide between the powerless in America and the ultra-rich who are controlling so much of the wealth in the country as the middle class disappears. Nor did they discuss the problem with our politicians having to raise endless amounts of money to get reelected and being beholden to those they’re taking the money from once they get in office — and companies like CNN benefiting from the political advertising money that follows — so they have no interest in trying to do anything about it because it’s earning them a handsome profit. And if you go read the entire transcript from the show which is linked above, it wasn’t just this segment that was playing the “can’t all of the politicians just get along” game. It was repeated over and over again during the entire hour, even from one of their so-called liberals they had on there, Roland Martin, who said this later in the program: MARTIN: I recall President George W. Bush coming in, in 2000 saying I want to end partisanship in Washington, D.C. What happened? I heard President Obama, then Senator Obama, say in 2008, I want to come into Washington, D.C. No politician, Democrat or Republican, they have to be able to confront the problem that you have few moderate Republicans, and you have a decreasing number of conservative Democrats. As long as you have people who are on the extremes, you cannot bring folks together. We still are a split nation. That’s the fundamental problem that we have. Just replace “moderate” with the word “corporate” and maybe what Martin said could be considered a halfway honest statement other than the fact that he’s calling those on the left who are tired of a race to the bottom and actually want to fix our economy instead of rigging it for Wall Street and the rich “extremists.” That and the fact that he is actually pretending that there is a single person left in the Republican Party that you could rightfully call a “moderate.” Sorry Martin, but they’re long gone. Just not obstructing every single things Democrats do just because they’re Democrats doesn’t suddenly earn someone the title of “moderate.” Here’s the follow up with Velshi, Swonk and Morici discussing what they thought needed to be done to help the unemployment in the U.S. that I already wrote about above. Click here to view this media
Continue reading …
Met e-crime specialists on course to exceed target due to successful operations A Metropolitan police unit claims to have saved the economy more than £140m in the past six months and is on course to exceed its four-year “harm reduction” target, the force said on Sunday. The Met said the central e-crime unit had delivered nearly 30% of its £504m target during this period. The figure relates to the amount of money the UK has been prevented from losing through cyber crime and follows a number of successful prosecutions and operations. Funding of £30m has been provided over four years to support the development of the unit as it tackles computer intrusion, denial of service attacks and internet fraud. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Janet Williams said: “In the initial six-month period the unit, together with its partners in industry and international law enforcement, has excelled in its efforts to meet this substantial commitment and has delivered in excess of £140m of financial harm reduction to the UK economy. We hope to be able to better this result in the future as we expand our national capability.” Cases include Operation Pagode, which resulted in £84m worth of harm saved. Five defendants were jailed for a total of nearly 16 years after an investigation into a group of fraudsters who set up an online “criminal forum” which traded unlawfully obtained credit card details and tools to commit computer offences. Another was Operation Dynamaphone, which resulted in £5.5m worth of harm saved. Three men were jailed for 13 years for their part in a concerted attack on the UK and international banking system. They are believed to be the first prosecutions in the UK involving such detailed evidence of an organised internet phishing operation. The investigation focused on a network of individuals who obtained large quantities of personal information, such as online bank account passwords and credit card numbers through online phishing in order to steal money from the accounts and use credit card details. Crime Metropolitan police London Police Cybercrime Computing Identity fraud guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian investigation reveals PM pressed for military action and Gaddafi secretly sought figurehead role A Guardian investigation into David Cameron’s six-month Libyan campaign has revealed how the prime minister overrode scepticism from his cabinet and MI6 to press for military action, and how Colonel Gaddafi secretly wanted to become a figurehead of the country “like the Queen of England”. In interviews with senior Whitehall figures and five ministers the Guardian has established that the National Transitional Council assured Britain that sleeper cells were ready to rise up in Tripoli once rebel troops entered the capital. Defence sources say Britain provided logistical support to the rebels in the capital, as well as in the Nafusa mountains, including a bombing campaign that cleared the way for the rebels to come down from mountains towards Tripoli. Britain also took the lead in pressing, in the early summer, for the military campaign to be used to put pressure on Gaddafi from the west of Libya. The French, who had led the way in pressing for a no-fly zone in February after Gaddafi besieged the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, believed that Gaddafi could be overthrown from the east. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, describes the shift, supported by the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, as “a tilt to the west”. Gaddafi told Britain in secret messages sent to the Foreign Office that he was willing to start a political process that would end with the Libyan leader becoming a head of state like the Queen. In a sign of his erratic and desperate negotiating strategy, which persuaded ministers that Gaddafi would eventually be overthrown, the Libyan leader indicated not just that he had been in power as long as the Queen , but that he was prepared to become a figurehead in the same way as her. “It would be like the Queen of England, is how they thought of it,” one minister said. “He would be a non-powerful president, not even in power. They would go as far as he would be a figurehead. But this was not on for the rebels, of course.” The Guardian investigation has also established that: • David Cameron overrode scepticism in his cabinet when he took one of the biggest gambles of his premiership in March to press for a UN security council resolution to authorise military force to protect civilians. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary who was described by one cabinet minister as the “biggest dove”, thought that partition was the “logical thing”. • MI6 was privately sceptical of military action, arguing “it is better to stick with the devil you know”. • The world was “48 hours from watching a humanitarian disaster unfold” in Benghazi before to the US, French and UK air strikes, according to Fox. Cameron did not want to allow another Srebrenica – the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia in 1995 – on his “watch”. Friends say he feared he would be remembered as the “pull up the drawbridge” generation” if he did not act to defend the Arab spring. • The US, which had initially been sceptical about a no-fly zone, ended up pressing for a tougher UN security council resolution. This led to UN resolution 1973 in March which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. Fox said: “The Nato operation would have been impossible without the contribution of the Americans.” The offer from Gaddafi to serve as a figurehead, plus intelligence from within Tripoli, was one reason the foreign secretary, William Hague, remained convinced that what he described as his “Anaconda strategy” would squeeze Gaddafi from power. Hague believes Gaddafi overplayed his hand, insisting he would agree only to a political process in the course of which he would retire to the role of state figurehead. The foreign secretary, who has described the Arab spring as the most important event of the 21st century, warned that there would have been grave consequences if Britain and France had not succeeded in persuading the UN to sanction military action. “If Benghazi had fallen it would have been a huge setback for the Arab spring in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. It would have shown that a dictatorial ruler can successfully fight back and entrench himself again. That would have carried a strong message. [Syrian president] Bashar al-Assad now would be feeling in a stronger position and probably getting active assistance from a well-entrenched Gaddafi regime.” Hague added that he was stunned by the success of the high-precision GPS-guided Brimstone missiles after Fox ruled that the collateral damage target – the risks to civilians – should be set at zero. “I saw in Tripoli one of the buildings where they managed to hit the top floor to stop the sniping from the roof without damaging at all the floors underneath. This is the amazing precision of the targeting. Things have really moved on even since the Iraq war. The criterion for targeting was zero civilian casualties and that was rigorously stuck to.” Some senior Whitehall officials interviewed by the Guardian confirm that the French and the UK might have taken military action, even if they failed to secure a UN resolution, on the basis of averting a humanitarian disaster. “We would have had to look at the humanitarian necessity option. We would have had to ask the attorney general whether the situation was so grave that we could act.” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, who was briefed by officials on Whitehall’s lessons from Iraq as soon as he was asked by Cameron to draw up a stabilisation plan, outlined a five-point plan on how to avoid mistakes from Iraq. It now forms the basis of the National Transitional Council’s plans. Mitchell praised Cameron for ignoring critics who said the military campaign would never work. “David was brave and proved right in the beginning, because he said we cannot allow a massacre to take place in Benghazi. All the soi-disant experts said, you can’t do it from the air, the Americans said it was naive – but he stuck to his guns.” David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Guardian investigation reveals PM pressed for military action and Gaddafi secretly sought figurehead role A Guardian investigation into David Cameron’s six-month Libyan campaign has revealed how the prime minister overrode scepticism from his cabinet and MI6 to press for military action, and how Colonel Gaddafi secretly wanted to become a figurehead of the country “like the Queen of England”. In interviews with senior Whitehall figures and five ministers the Guardian has established that the National Transitional Council assured Britain that sleeper cells were ready to rise up in Tripoli once rebel troops entered the capital. Defence sources say Britain provided logistical support to the rebels in the capital, as well as in the Nafusa mountains, including a bombing campaign that cleared the way for the rebels to come down from mountains towards Tripoli. Britain also took the lead in pressing, in the early summer, for the military campaign to be used to put pressure on Gaddafi from the west of Libya. The French, who had led the way in pressing for a no-fly zone in February after Gaddafi besieged the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, believed that Gaddafi could be overthrown from the east. Liam Fox, the defence secretary, describes the shift, supported by the chief of the defence staff, Sir David Richards, as “a tilt to the west”. Gaddafi told Britain in secret messages sent to the Foreign Office that he was willing to start a political process that would end with the Libyan leader becoming a head of state like the Queen. In a sign of his erratic and desperate negotiating strategy, which persuaded ministers that Gaddafi would eventually be overthrown, the Libyan leader indicated not just that he had been in power as long as the Queen , but that he was prepared to become a figurehead in the same way as her. “It would be like the Queen of England, is how they thought of it,” one minister said. “He would be a non-powerful president, not even in power. They would go as far as he would be a figurehead. But this was not on for the rebels, of course.” The Guardian investigation has also established that: • David Cameron overrode scepticism in his cabinet when he took one of the biggest gambles of his premiership in March to press for a UN security council resolution to authorise military force to protect civilians. Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary who was described by one cabinet minister as the “biggest dove”, thought that partition was the “logical thing”. • MI6 was privately sceptical of military action, arguing “it is better to stick with the devil you know”. • The world was “48 hours from watching a humanitarian disaster unfold” in Benghazi before to the US, French and UK air strikes, according to Fox. Cameron did not want to allow another Srebrenica – the massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Bosnia in 1995 – on his “watch”. Friends say he feared he would be remembered as the “pull up the drawbridge” generation” if he did not act to defend the Arab spring. • The US, which had initially been sceptical about a no-fly zone, ended up pressing for a tougher UN security council resolution. This led to UN resolution 1973 in March which authorised “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya. Fox said: “The Nato operation would have been impossible without the contribution of the Americans.” The offer from Gaddafi to serve as a figurehead, plus intelligence from within Tripoli, was one reason the foreign secretary, William Hague, remained convinced that what he described as his “Anaconda strategy” would squeeze Gaddafi from power. Hague believes Gaddafi overplayed his hand, insisting he would agree only to a political process in the course of which he would retire to the role of state figurehead. The foreign secretary, who has described the Arab spring as the most important event of the 21st century, warned that there would have been grave consequences if Britain and France had not succeeded in persuading the UN to sanction military action. “If Benghazi had fallen it would have been a huge setback for the Arab spring in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. It would have shown that a dictatorial ruler can successfully fight back and entrench himself again. That would have carried a strong message. [Syrian president] Bashar al-Assad now would be feeling in a stronger position and probably getting active assistance from a well-entrenched Gaddafi regime.” Hague added that he was stunned by the success of the high-precision GPS-guided Brimstone missiles after Fox ruled that the collateral damage target – the risks to civilians – should be set at zero. “I saw in Tripoli one of the buildings where they managed to hit the top floor to stop the sniping from the roof without damaging at all the floors underneath. This is the amazing precision of the targeting. Things have really moved on even since the Iraq war. The criterion for targeting was zero civilian casualties and that was rigorously stuck to.” Some senior Whitehall officials interviewed by the Guardian confirm that the French and the UK might have taken military action, even if they failed to secure a UN resolution, on the basis of averting a humanitarian disaster. “We would have had to look at the humanitarian necessity option. We would have had to ask the attorney general whether the situation was so grave that we could act.” Andrew Mitchell, the international development secretary, who was briefed by officials on Whitehall’s lessons from Iraq as soon as he was asked by Cameron to draw up a stabilisation plan, outlined a five-point plan on how to avoid mistakes from Iraq. It now forms the basis of the National Transitional Council’s plans. Mitchell praised Cameron for ignoring critics who said the military campaign would never work. “David was brave and proved right in the beginning, because he said we cannot allow a massacre to take place in Benghazi. All the soi-disant experts said, you can’t do it from the air, the Americans said it was naive – but he stuck to his guns.” David Cameron Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
As conference kicks off, PM unveils new housing policy, vows to kickstart economy and seeks to keep party on centre ground The prime minister pledged to “fire up the engine of the economy” on the first day of his party conference in Manchester, pushing a new homes policy but thwarting the desires of his backbenchers for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the EU. The Conservatives announced plans – an extension of an existing programme – to boost the “right to buy” council house scheme introduced under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s. David Cameron made the announcement to increase discounts to encourage council tenants to buy their own homes alongside a “build now, pay later” scheme to encourage developers to build on government land and only pay for the land once a house is sold. Cameron said the policies could lead to the building of 200,000 homes and the creation of 400,000 jobs. Cameron and his foreign secretary, William Hague, had warm words for their Lib Dem coalition partners alongside ploughing a fresh furrow – that it is the Tories as much as the Lib Dems who have pushed for “cuddly” policies, in the language of the prime minister. To mark this, on the first day of conference, the party sent out a pamphlet, Modern Compassionate Conservatism, as the Tories sought to emphasise they would be staying in the centre ground, despite pressure from some inside the party. “I don’t believe for a minute that this government is only held back by the cuddly Liberal Democrats,” Cameron said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme. “The proposal not to cut health spending came from the Conservatives.” Explaining the theme of conference, Cameron said: “I described myself as a modern, compassionate Conservative. Modern, because I think we’ve got to apply ourselves to the challenges of today … Compassionate, because we mustn’t leave people behind in our country … But I’m a Conservative because I believe, generally, if you give people more power and control over their own lives, they will actually make great decisions.” He also would not rule out asking Lib Dems to join a Tory government if they were to win a majority at the next election. He said: “What happens at the next election? We will fight as independent parties. We will be fighting to win. And whatever happens, happens.” Later in the day, Hague made a point of praising the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, in his speech, though the mention received muted applause. He said: “Faced with a necessary but difficult decision over tuition fees, Nick Clegg stuck with it. In May, the British people affirmed by an overwhelming majority and with their usual good sense that first past the post is the best way of running our democracy and put to rest schemes of playing with the rules for a generation. He stuck with our agreement all the same. We should always have the generosity of spirit to recognise the contribution he makes to turning this country around.” The Tory leadership has had to manage disagreements with its voluble and increasingly muscular backbench and activist base over issues including Britain’s relationship with the EU and government planning reforms. The Mail on Sunday reported that MPs will get to debate the issue of whether or not there should be a referendum on Europe – because more than 100,000 people have signed a petition asking for a debate the Commons backbench committee will table it for debate in parliament. Cameron’s comments suggested government MPs will be told to vote against it. The prime minister said: “There is a European treaty that is happening right now. This is the treaty that gets us out of the bail-out mechanism that Labour got us into. Further, future treaty change is not an immediate prospect.” “For the longer term, I’ve been very clear, I think we gave too much power to Europe. There are some powers I would like to get back. Any future treaty change would be an opportunity to do that. But right now that’s not on the immediate agenda.” Another flashpoint is the Human Rights Act which, in opposition, the Tories had said they would scrap and replace with a bill of rights. The home secretary, Theresa May, confirmed this still remained her wish and later the prime minister weighed in behind her. However both politicians are hamstrung by being in coalition with the Lib Dems and subject to a commission being controlled by justice secretary Ken Clarke and Nick Clegg meaning it is unlikely that the tory party itself will do anything distinctive on the human rights act ahead of the next election. Cameron said: “One of the problems we have here is not just the Human Rights Act. It’s the chilling culture under it that means that someone drives a police van … to move a prisoner 200 yards when he was perfectly happy to walk. The Human Rights Act doesn’t say that that’s what you have to do. It’s the chilling effect of people thinking I will be found guilty under it. “I think that government can do a huge amount to communicate to institutions and individuals, let’s have some common sense, let’s have some judgment, let’s have that applying rather than this over-interpretation of what’s there.” Conservative conference 2011 Conservative conference Conservatives David Cameron Housing Communities Liberal-Conservative coalition Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Greece’s deficit is forecast to hit 8.5% of GDP this year – missing the 7.6% target set by the EU and IMF in their bailout agreement Greece is likely to miss the deficit targets agreed as part of July’s bailout package, which would cast further doubt on its ability to steer safely through its current financial crisis and will send new tremors through global financial markets. As the country’s cabinet agreed a controversial plan to begin laying off 30,000 state workers, its latest budget plan reportedly indicated a deficit of 8.5% of GDP this year, missing the 7.6% target agreed with the European Union and the IMF. In 2012 the deficit is expected to fall to 6.8% of GDP – above the year’s 6.5% target. A recession that has been worse than expected is behind much of the increase. According to Reuters, Greece expects its economy to contract by 5.5% this year and 2% next. But the deficit shortfall means Greece would need another €2bn finance this year. It will put more pressure on the prime minister, George Papandreou, as he meets inspectors from the European commission, IMF and European Central Bank – the “troika” – who are inspecting the country’s books before deciding whether to approve the next $8bn of bailout money. Without the funds, it would struggle to pay state wage bills within weeks. Amid signs of discord among European politians, officials are working to avoid the country defaulting on its debts, which would hit the balance sheets of a host of European banks and cast doubt on the future of the single currency. At a meeting of Eurozone finance ministers on Monday, there will be demands for Greece to provide evidence it is on course to deliver further spending cuts and meet its tough fiscal targets, although any decisions will await the report of the troika inspectors. Meeting in Luxembourg, the ministers will also warn Slovakia that it has to deliver on its share of the enhanced bailout fund despite threats from Bratislava, the Slovak capital, of scuppering the entire deal. There is a growing sense on financial markets that Greece will be forced to default on its debts in the face of the current political and social turmoil but EU officials insist that by the end of the month the country will win the sixth tranche of €8bn from its first bailout package. Papandreou has assured the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in recent days that his cabinet is “absolutely determined” to deliver on its commitments and save the country from bankruptcy. Merkel and Sarkozy, who are due to meet again in a few days to accelerate implementation of the enhanced rescue fund, the European financial stability facility (EFSF), are equally determined to keep Greece within the euro. But senior officials from the troika have reported from Athens that striking civil servants barring their way to the national statistics office have prevented them from delivering a definitive update on the Greek budgetary position. Eurozone finance ministers, meanwhile, are increasingly alarmed at reports from Bratislava that the Slovaks will vote down the enhanced EFSF. Leading Slovak opponents of the fund insisted in a series of German media interviews that they would not back down. Richard Sulik, chairman of the Freedom and Solidarity party that is part of the ruling coalition government, said: “We will vote solidly against the EFSF.” Opposition parties said they would also vote no. Euro Currencies Euro European Union Economics Greece Europe David Gow Nick Fletcher guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Herman Cain on Sunday slammed fellow Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry over a sign on his ranch that used a racial slur. The Washington Post reported Saturday that in the early years of political career, Perry had hosted hunting parties at his family’s ranch, a place known as “Niggerhead.” A sign bearing that name had been at the entrance of the ranch when Perry’s father painted over it in the 1980s. “That is very insensitive,” Cain told ABC’s Christian Amanpour Sunday. “There are some words that do not basically inspire the kind of negativity like that particular word. I know that you are refraining from saying that word so I’m going to say what the word was on the rock — the name of the place was called ‘N*ggerhead.’” “That is very insensitive and since Gov. Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think it shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time not taking that word off of that rock and renaming the place. It’s just basically a case of insensitivity.” In a statement, the Perry campaign pushed back on details in the Post ‘s story. “A number of claims made in the story are incorrect, inconsistent, and anonymous, including the implication that Rick Perry brought groups to the lease when the word on the rock was still visible,” Perry campaign communications director Ray Sullivan said. “Perry’s father painted over offensive language on a rock soon after leasing the 1,000-acre parcel in the early 1980s.”
Continue reading …
Opposition groups form national council to ‘achieve the wishes and hopes of our people in overthrowing the current regime’ Syria’s main opposition groups have agreed to form a national council to overthrow President Bashar Assad’s regime in what appeared to be the most serious step yet to unify a fragmented opposition. Members of the Syrian National Council (SNC) said it would be an umbrella group for opposition groups inside and outside the country and a vehicle for democratic change. The council aims at “achieving the wishes and hopes of our people in overthrowing the current regime … including the head of this regime,” according to a statement read by opposition figure Burhan Ghalioun at a news conference in Istanbul on Sunday. The development came after another bloody weekend in Syria’s six-month uprising which has left 2,700 dead, according to UN estimates. In one of the fiercest clashes of the insurrection, Syrian troops finally took control of the town of Rastan after five days of intense fighting with army defectors who sided with protesters. Syrian authorities said they were fighting armed terrorist gangs. The Syrian opposition consists of a variety of groups with differing ideologies, including Islamists and secularists. The new council is the broadest umbrella movement of revolutionary forces formed so far. Ghalioun said that the council aims to present a united front for the opposition, and urged Syrians everywhere to support it. He said he was not worried about whether the international community recognised the council, although it would provide a single body with which other countries could coordinate. Ghalioun said it included representatives from the Damascus Declaration grouping, a pro-democracy network based in the capital, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Kurdish factions and the grassroots local coordination committees which have led protests across the country, as well as other independent and tribal figures. He said the council categorically rejects any foreign intervention or military operations to bring down Assad’s regime but called on the international community to “protect the Syrian people” from “the declared war and massacres being committed against them by the regime”. The council’s statement said that protesters should continue to use “peaceful means” to topple the Syrian leader, but there have been increasing reports of some protesters taking up arms to protect themselves. The organisers have not named a leader for the national council, but appeared to give a leading role to Ghalioun, a scholar of contemporary oriental studies at the Sorbonne in Paris. Bassma Kodmani, another Paris-based academic, said the council consists of three bodies: a general assembly, a general secretariat and an executive committee. Leadership of the council will be rotated, she said. Syria Bashar Al-Assad Middle East guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …