As cabinet prepares to meet for the first time since the elections and referendum, PM admits ‘there will be more noise, more debate and more public airing of differences’ David Cameron has admitted that a change in the coalition relationship is “inevitable” following the tensions that surfaced in the run-up to the elections and AV referendum. But the prime minister stressed his commitment to the coalition as Conservative and Liberal Democrat ministers prepared to meet across the cabinet table for the first time since the Lib Dems suffered severe losses in local elections and saw voting reform decisively rejected by the public. The prime minister said in an interview with the Sun that he was still committed to a five-year term in coalition to deliver a “very strong” programme. Insisting the coalition government had “chalked up a lot of achievements”, Cameron said: “The challenge for the next period is going to be: how do you have two parties perhaps wanting to make their voices heard more clearly, but still achieve that coherence? I think the Lib Dem top team and the Conservative top team will still work together very well. But that is going to be the challenge.” He added: “There will be more noise, there will be more debate, there will be more public airing of differences. I think that is inevitable.” Cameron also denied Lib Dem claims that he betrayed the spirit of the coalition by allowing the No to AV campaign to attack Nick Clegg’s broken promises, though he admitted that he ended up playing a “greater part” than he had first anticipated when it became clear it was going to be a much more political campaign. The last cabinet meeting saw tense exchanges when the Liberal Democrat energy secretary, Chris Huhne, confronted David Cameron and George Osborne over No to AV campaign leaflets that he believed smeared Nick Clegg. The dire election results for the Liberal Democrats, in contrast to a stronger-than-expected performance for the Conservatives in the local elections alongside a resounding win for the retention of first past the post in the referendum, did little to improve relations. Vince Cable, the business secretary, accused the Conservatives in the wake of the results of being “ruthless, calculating and thoroughly tribal” and claimed that “some of us never had many illusions about the Conservatives”. Cameron insisted the no campaign had been cross-party, despite being funded almost exclusively by Tory party donors . Defending his role in the referendum campaign, Cameron told the Sun: “If I had gone in and told them, ‘you can do this and you can’t do that’, the whole thing would have broken up acrimoniously.” Asked if he had ever promised Clegg he would not campaign strongly against AV, Cameron said: “No”. He added: “I wanted Conservative party supporters, who at the start were a little uncertain about what they thought about AV, to be clear about what my view was. But the bosses — the British people — have made their decision and I think we should now move on.” Clegg has signalled his intent to demonstrate more Lib Dem muscle as deputy prime minister, notably the Conservative- led NHS reforms. Clegg has threatened to veto the reforms unless they are substantially improved as part of attempts to reassert his party’s independence after last week’s events. Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives Liberal Democrats David Cameron Nick Clegg Alternative vote Electoral reform AV referendum Elections 2011 Vince Cable Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
After the country reported a rare trade deficit for the start of this year, China has showed a strong rebound for April but it is likely to fuel US calls to revalue its currency China reported an unexpectedly large April trade surplus, in an announcement that is likely to fuel US pressure over currency controls and market access as American and Chinese officials hold high-level talks in Washington. China’s global trade surplus widened to $11.4bn (£7bn) as import growth fell amid government efforts to cool an overheated economy and exports rose by nearly 30%, data showed on Tuesday. The gap exceeded forecasts of $5bn to $10bn and was a strong rebound after China reported a rare trade deficit in the first quarter of this year. China’s trade gap has angered Washington and other trading partners who blame currency controls and other policies which they say are hampering trade and a global recovery. At the start of two days of talks in Washington, US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner pressed China’s envoys on Monday to allow the yuan to rise faster against the dollar. That might help to boost Chinese imports, narrowing the American trade surplus with China, which hit an all-time high last year. China’s commerce minister, Chen Deming, responded that yuan appreciation was being carried out in a “very healthy manner”. He said the United States needed to change its policies on high-tech sales and investment to spur American manufacturing. Beijing has allowed the yuan to rise about 5% against the dollar since it promised more exchange rate flexibility last June but American manufacturers and others say the currency still is undervalued. The yuan’s link to the dollar means it has declined against the euro as the American currency weakened over the past year. China’s April trade surplus with the United States rose 52% over a year ago to $15.1bn. The gap with the European Union, China’s biggest trading partner, narrowed slightly to a still large $10.3bn. Foreign manufacturers complain China’s trade surplus also is swelled by policies that hamper imports and encourage companies to shift production to China. The country’s global trade gap, up from just $1.7bn in April 2010, reflected a slowdown in demand for imports as Beijing tries to cool an economy that grew by 9.7% in the first three months of this year. China’s trade surplus usually narrows early in the year as manufacturers restock following the Christmas export rush. This year’s decline was unusually large due to high prices for oil and other commodities. China recorded a trade deficit for the first three months of 2011 and a surplus of just $140m for March. Still, analysts expect China to show a global trade surplus for the year of $160bn to $200bn. Last year, China ran a trade surplus of about $16bn a month. Economics China Global economy Currencies US economy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The most vulnerable sections of society are emerging as the worst hit by council cuts If he’s lucky, Frank Bailey gets a good night’s sleep twice a week. The rest of the time he is on call and spends the small hours worrying, waiting for a bell to ring, to signal at best that his sick wife, Faith, needs help out of bed; at worst that she is struggling for breath and he will have to call paramedics to take her to hospital. At 80, Frank suffers from angina, arthritis and limited use of his left arm because of tendon problems. He has been a carer for Faith since she was diagnosed with life-limiting heart and lung disease four years ago. Asked what is wrong with her, Faith, 72, lets out a sigh, shakes her head and then, rummaging in her handbag, hands over a well-worn piece of paper on which is typed a catalogue of afflictions: diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, asthma, osteoporosis, lung disease. She can no longer walk and a small tube delivering oxygen to her lungs that her body can’t provide is permanently attached to her nostrils. “My brain’s still working, but that’s about it,” she says. “The heart is the bit that’s failing the most.” Faith’s illness was considered so severe that her local authority, Birmingham city council, provided her with overnight carers three nights a week. But several months ago, after a spell in hospital, the Baileys were told that it was being cut back from three nights a week to two. “It doesn’t sound much,” says Frank, a former milkman, as he sits hand-in-hand with his wife of 40 years. “But it makes a big difference to me. They used to come Monday, Wednesday and Friday, which was all right as, if you have a weekend, one of the granddaughters might stop over. I knew that every couple of nights I’d have a break. I could get some sleep. I don’t sleep when they’re not here because her breathing might go. Some nights you do, some nights you don’t.” The couple, who have two children and six grandchildren and recently became great-grandparents, are among thousands of Britain’s most vulnerable citizens who have seen their home care cut over the past year. Already bearing the brunt of welfare changes at a time of financial hardship, with worse to come as local authorities implement this year’s savage cuts, the disabled and the cared-for are facing an uncertain future. In Birmingham, which has restricted free social care to those who have “critical” needs, elderly and disabled people such as the Baileys are more worried about what’s around the corner than most. The shift in eligibility, described as “catastrophic and counterproductive” by disability campaigners, is aimed at saving the council £17.5m this year and £52m over the next three years, according to its business plan for 2011. Those affected will include people with conditions such as dementia, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes. An estimated 4,100 of Birmingham’s council-funded care users have been assessed as having “substantial” but not critical needs, and face losing their care packages altogether. Others face losing some of their home care. The Baileys do not know whether their needs have been assessed as critical or substantial and are unsure if they are among those most at risk. Restricting eligibility is a controversial move: according to Department of Health guidance, people with substantial needs include those who have suffered abuse or neglect, those unable to carry out the majority of care or domestic routines, and those for whom social support systems and relationships cannot or will not be maintained. However, in an interim decision that is being closely watched by the caring community, a high court judge ruled last month that Birmingham council’s care-cutting business plan is unlawful. In a judicial review brought by the families of four severely disabled people, Mr Justice Walker found that, in making the plan, council leaders had failed to consider their duty to disabled people. Public authorities have a duty under the Disability Discrimination Act to encourage disabled people to participate in public life and to take steps to meet their disabilities, even when that involves treating them more favourably than others. One of the four who brought the case, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told journalists she felt it important to take a stand against the council’s decision. She feared it would extinguish the 24-hour care in a home, paid for by the council, provided for her sister-in-law, 65, who has severe learning difficulties, and that her quality of life would fall dramatically as a result. The judgment, although welcomed by disability campaigners, has created anxiety in some quarters as no one knows what the outcome will be and whether the council will appeal. In a statement issued after the interim decision, Birmingham city council said: “Like all councils, Birmingham faces a huge financial challenge, with adults and communities having to make a share of the savings like all other directorates, and we need to assess the impact of this decision.” There can be no further assessment of social care needs until Walker delivers his full judgment, expected next week, but the vacuum has created its own problems. Nearly one in four disabled and older people have experienced cuts to services and increased charges for care, with families “pushed to breaking point”, according to a recent report from a group of charities. In a survey conducted by charities including Carers UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Macmillan Cancer Support and Scope, more than a fifth of respondents said services had been cut back even though their needs had stayed the same. More than half said they had seen their health suffer, 52% said they were struggling to maintain their independence, and half said increased charges for care meant they could no longer afford essentials such as food and heating. As part of its plans to restrict social care, Birmingham council, a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, said it would “signpost” those no longer eligible towards possible alternative sources of support, such as the voluntary sector. But in Kingstanding, north Birmingham, home to the Baileys and one of the poorest areas in the city, the voluntary sector aimed at supporting elderly and disabled people is itself struggling to survive. Jackie Dray, a former social worker, has run the support group Elders with Attitude for two years. Aimed at giving carers a break and the cared-for confidence, it has been a lifeline for the Baileys and others like them. Faith Bailey, who talks with candour about the blackness that threatens to engulf her, says: “I love that group. Otherwise it’s just the four walls. I was scared at first, but Jackie makes you feel wanted. She makes me feel that she cares. I get upset sometimes, I cry. But she tells me to aim for the stars.” Dray, who is adored by her charges, used to run four groups in Birmingham, but was told in March that her £30,000 council grant was to be cut altogether. She now runs only one group and is looking for alternative funding. She says: “They are cutting luncheon clubs or groups like mine that could make a difference between somebody remaining in the community or sinking into clinical depression and residential care. For a small amount of money, you could delay the point at which people have to go into hospital. I see a lot of clinical depression in carers and cared-for alike. People are teetering on the brink. There’s a lot of frustration, worry, lack of sleep.” At Witton Lodge community centre in Kingstanding, at a meeting for carers and charities organised by Jack Dromey, the local Labour MP, one person after another stands up to talk about cuts in funding. Bernie Blackledge, of Alzheimer’s UK, which runs four cafes each used by between 40-50 families, spoke of how cuts in council funding had led her to make good, experienced cafe staff redundant. The council has since found additional funding, she says, but the damage has already been done, the staff gone. “What are we supposed to do?” she says. Margaret Binns, of Age Concern Kingstanding, who advises elderly people on benefits and welfare, describes her office as the “last-chance saloon. After us, there’s nothing.” The charity, which also runs two day centres for people with dementia or physical disabilities, has had a 15% reduction in funding. Pauline Pullen, the chief executive, said: “If we close our services down, where do people go? People with memory loss are very vulnerable and if they live with a carer, it is very stressful to care for them. Day care is vital for both of them.” Dromey said: “The tragedy about the cuts to care is that the people concerned are invisible. If care packages are cut, if caring organisations go under, the vulnerable go back to their houses and no one ever hears from them again. The true responsibility lies with the government who are inflicting the biggest cuts in local government history and creating nigh-on impossible problems for local government. But councils have to reflect on their responsibilities.” Whatever the outcome of the high court judgment, it will not be enough to help the Baileys. Faith says she cried when she was told her night carers were being cut. “Frank’s getting old. I know he’s 80 but in the last few months, I’ve really seen it in him. I don’t like to see him struggling. He says he doesn’t find it hard, but I can see he’s in pain.” Disability Public sector cuts Public services policy Health policy Welfare Social care Public finance Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Business experts question whether internet phone service Skype could be worth price after recording losses last year Microsoft is reported to have closed a $8.5bn (£5bn) deal for the internet phone service Skype, in a deal that has shocked analysts who think it would be a substantial overpayment for the company. The acquisition, which is expected to be announced on Tuesday, would be Microsoft’s biggest, ahead the $6bn it paid for online advertising company aQuantive in 2007, and would bring it 660 million users worldwide while giving it a foothold in voice and video communications. Analysts suggested the service could be integrated into existing Microsoft products such as its Xbox 360 games console and Kinect gaming systems, or even into its flagship Office product to let users collaborate more effectively. Speculation has been rife in Silicon Valley for months about Skype’s future. Rumours last week suggested Facebook, Google or Cisco Systems were interested in acquiring it to fold into their own services. Tony Bates, the chief executive hired from Cisco last year, has reportedly been exploring the idea of joint ventures or a sale to Google and Facebook. News of the deal and Microsoft’s interest in Skype was first reported by the Wall Street Journal online and the technology site GigaOM. Analysts have broadly favoured the idea of the deal, but questioned whether it could ever be worth the price. Skype was bought by eBay for $2.6bn in 2005: at the time people suggested its services could be incorporated into auctions so that bidders or sellers could call each other ahead of their close. But the synergistic ideas never materialised, and eBay wrote down Skype’s value by $1.4bn, before selling off a 70% stake at the end of 2007. Ironically, the suggested price would make its 30% stake worth $2.4bn – effectively making money on the deal long-term. Skype has debt of $686m, which Microsoft would assume in the purchase. Microsoft’s online efforts have been staggering loss-makers over the past few years. Its online service division, which includes its Bing search engine, has lost $8bn over the past six years, and has not been profitable since the end of 2005. Google previously looked at purchasing Skype in 2005, but decided against it because of questions over patent ownership – essential patents for the service are owned by a company linked to Skype’s founders – and doubts about integration into its own offerings. Microsoft already has a voice-over-internet offering, called Lync, which combines email, instant messaging and voice communications into a single program. That is run by its huge Office division, one of Microsoft’s two biggest profit centres along with the Windows division. While Skype has a name among consumers, it has barely bumped along on profitability. With 663 million registered users, most of its services are free, using internet connections for make calls between computers or in some cases internet-enabled phones. It makes revenues on voicemail services and calls to physical landlines or mobile numbers. In 2010 it recorded a loss of $7m on revenues of $859.8m, and there has been little sign that it will gain traction there. Mobile carriers tend to see Skype as a threat to their own services, because it allows people to make calls for free via data links rather than over voice connections, and have been reluctant to route its traffic. Though Microsoft is keen to push its Windows Phone mobile operating system, it is not clear whether it could keep carriers sweet while incorporating that. Microsoft rarely makes large purchases, preferring to buy smaller startups. It made an ill-fated $48bn bid for Yahoo in January 2008, which was opposed and fell apart. Since then Yahoo’s value has halved and Microsoft has taken over its search business, but in their latest quarterly results the companies revealed that integration had been more difficult than they expected. In 2004 it also explored a takeover of the corporate integration software company SAP for $50bn, but that too stalled. Skype Internet Telecoms Microsoft Computing Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
This was ready to roll on Friday, but for most of us, I figured Emilio Rojas’ empowering “Champion” video might be a better fit after punching out of a long Monday on the clock. Directed by Redd Pen Media and featuring the NY native living out his dreams of damnation for those who push us Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Smoking Section Discovery Date : 09/05/2011 03:56 Number of articles : 3
Continue reading …
New blood and a quest for the fountain of youth aren’t quite enough to rejuvenate the timber-shivering franchise It’s fitting that this fourth instalment of the mega booty-hauling franchise revolves around a quest for the fountain of youth. Here’s a property that would give its right arm for some rejuvenation, having worn out its welcome last time round, way back in 2007. And having already paid an arm and a leg to persuade Johnny Depp to reprise his Jack Sparrow role, you wouldn’t imagine it had many more limbs to spare. But the logic seems to be, if you’re splashing out on your star, you’d better make a splash with the rest of the movie. This splashes so much, its stranger tides almost drown it. It’s a succession of ever-escalating action sequences and grand settings. At first they’re stunning, then they’re routine, then they’re wearying. There is at least some new blood to power this rejuvenation exercise. Depp is his usual mincing self but Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley have walked the plank when aboard clambers Penélope Cruz, as a duplicitous old flame of Jack’s. Being Cruz, she’s Spanish and feisty, and that’s about it. And fitting right in as the new villain of the piece is Ian McShane’s Blackbeard – a mystically powered captain whose orange, leathery complexion suggests he’s spent long years trapped in a tanning salon. Throw in Geoffrey Rush’s Barbossa (now with a peg leg), and the British and Spanish navies, and you’ve got something close to a piratical wacky races. Everyone’s racing to get to the fountain of youth, negotiating perilous terrain and fantastical episodes and stitching each other up. The freshest new monsters are some vicious but seductive mermaids, which are rather cruelly hunted, slaughtered and tortured along the way. That could traumatise a few younger viewers but being just about the only other women in the movie apart from Cruz, it also suggests something more worrying beneath the light-hearted mateyness. Worse still, everyone else is so scheming and self-centred and double-crossing, it’s not always clear who to root for, who’s in cahoots with whom, or what anyone’s going to do if/when they actually find the sacred fountain. The only virtuous role model is a hunky clergyman, played by Sam Claflin. In terms of visual spectacle, it almost goes without saying the film fitfully delivers. There are vertiginous 3D swoops up and down ships, in and out of water and over jungles, and some of the action is ingeniously choreographed. The early scenes in 18th century London are particularly enjoyable, with Richard Griffiths as a delectably piggy George II, and Depp staging a thrilling escape on ropes and horse-drawn carriages. But no sooner has one set piece ended, we’re thrown into another one. In the brief moments of downtime there’s some enjoyable comedy and even some useful dialogue but it’s soon drowned out by another chase or swordfight or race to get some thing that will help them get another thing or stop someone else getting the thing they want. As previous franchise-resuscitation attempts have shown (Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Rambo, Shrek, etc), it’s difficult to come back with a part four after a long absence. The temptation to do something fresh is often outweighed by the fear of losing whatever it was that made it successful in the first place. This tries to do both, but ends up just trying too hard. On general release from 18 May Rating: 2/5 Johnny Depp Penélope Cruz Geoffrey Rush Steve Rose guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Liberal Democrats insist on rigorous checks as MPs debate Andrew Lansley’s NHS bill The Treasury will only support GP-led consortiums if the new bodies have passed rigorous clinical and financial tests, the chancellor’s deputy said on Monday. In a sign of the Lib Dems’ determination to introduce major changes to the health and social care bill, Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury and No 2 to George Osborne, told the Guardian the reforms would be implemented in a “variable pattern”. Tory MPs were angered over the weekend when Nick Clegg described the bill as a “disruptive revolution” and said it would be wrong to force GPs to join the new consortiums by 2013. The deputy prime minister felt free to speak so strongly after reaching agreement with Cameron over relaxing the 2013 deadline. Alexander expanded on Clegg’s remarks by suggesting there would never be a uniform imposition of the NHS reforms. He told the Guardian: “We need to be sure that we only allow GP consortia to go forward where they show they are capable and have got all the right building blocks in place so some will go faster than others and we will have a more variable pattern. “From a Treasury point of view, consortia only get the permission to go forward when they are capable clinically and financially to go forward. If GP consortia don’t want to go forward, they will hardly develop the capabilities they need. So we are working very hard on timetables and flexibility right now.” But Alexander makes clear that he hopes the NHS reforms are not abandoned. “Reform is necessary to ensure the NHS is able to deal with these rising health pressures and I just don’t believe the Labour top-down model of the NHS is suitable. So we should not abandon reform. “But at the end of the day if we think this is a bad bill then having no bill would be better than that so we have to come up to substantial changes. What we have heard in recent weeks and months is growing voices in the NHS that there are new things we need to look at.” Alexander opened up a new area of controversy by saying he did not want the new pubic services reform white paper to impose a universal blueprint for reform across the pubic sector. Cameron said in February a presumption would be written into legislation that public services will be delivered by the private or voluntary sectors. Alexander’s intervention came as the Tory whips orchestrated an ostentatious show of support for health secretary Andrew Lansley. Nine cabinet ministers sat with him on the frontbench as he took part in a Commons debate called by Labour. No voting member of the cabinet sat on the frontbench last month when Lansley announced the pause in the health and social care bill that would hand about 60% of the NHS budget to new GP-led consortiums. Lansley told MPs that the changes to the health and social care bill, which will be introduced at the end of the government’s “listening exercise”, would be substantive. He indicated that the consortiums would be expanded to include patients, doctors and nurses. Senior Tories made clear there was growing support for Lansley. One ministerial source said: “David Cameron needs to be careful. Andrew is a lot stronger than he thinks. If Andrew tells the prime minister that he is putting his job at his disposal because Downing Street has undermined his credibility that would make David look foolish.” The Labour motion failed by 284 votes to 231. But Lib Dem MPs expressed anger. Andrew George, the MP for St Ives, called for ministers to “take the guts” out of the reforms because opening the health service to greater free market competition “undermines the NHS ethos”. John Pugh, MP for Southport, said: “I have this vision of a bill being drafted during the daytime by a sane, pragmatic Dr Jekyll-like minister, but during the night some … Mr Hyde jumps in with a rightwing ideology, breaks into Richmond House [the Department of Health] and changes many of the sentences.” The findings will alarm the many medical organisations which have voiced alarm that Lansley’s plans would lead to the NHS undergoing privatisation, a fear that has caused severe unease in Downing Street. Leading cancer charities warn that care received by the growing number of people in England developing the disease could suffer as a result of the government’s NHS plans. Cancer networks, groups of specialists who advise GPs where patients can get the best treatment, are due to be phased out in 2012. But Lansley is resisting calls to keep funding them. Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support, said: “It’s a deeply worrying prospect that the care of cancer patients could be compromised by this. Cancer patients need to know their care will not suffer.” Health policy Health Danny Alexander Liberal-Conservative coalition Liberal Democrats Conservatives Andrew Lansley NHS Patrick Wintour Nicholas Watt Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Interaction between mother and child seen as significant factor in research based on Millennium Cohort Study Babies who are breastfed are less likely to have behavioural problems by the age of five than those given formula milk, according to new research. The question of whether breastfeeding has a long-term impact on behaviour has been investigated before, but the studies have usually been small-scale and inconsistent in their findings. But a large research project carried out by the universities of Oxford, Essex and York, together with University College London, has come to a more robust conclusion. They used data from the ongoing Millennium Cohort Study, a survey of babies born in the UK during a 12-month period between 2000 and 2001. More than 10,000 mother and baby pairs of white ethnic background took part. They were interviewed when the baby was nine months old and again at two-yearly intervals. The researchers asked parents to fill in questionnaires to assess their children’s potential behavioural difficulties. These included emotional issues such as clinginess and anxiety, hyperactivity such as restlessness, and conduct problems such as lying and stealing. Fewer than a third of the babies born at full-term (29%) and a fifth (21%) of those born prematurely were breastfed for at least four months. But only 4% of the breastfed babies showed a tendency to behavioural problems compared with 16% of those fed formula milk. The difference in the full-term babies was still significant even when other influences were taken into account, such as socioeconomic status and the mother’s education, age and smoking habits. However, the association was not clear among the 512 children who were born prematurely. The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood , say they are not concerned with ordinary childhood misbehaviour. “Children learn appropriate behaviour from people around them and, during the learning process, all children sometimes behave inappropriately – for example, have temper tantrums or are aggressive,” they write. “Behavioural problems, however, are inappropriate behaviours that occur repeatedly over a period of time, have a negative impact on the child’s development and interfere with the child’s or their family’s everyday life.” They offer two possible explanations for their findings. One is that breast milk contains large amounts of essential fatty acids, which are known to have an important role in the development and function of the brain and central nervous system. But in the past decade, they note, formula manufacturers have been supplementing their products with essential fatty acids and it is likely that the children in the study were given supplemented formula milk. The other possible answer, they write, is that “breastfeeding leads to more interaction between the mother and the child, better learning of acceptable behaviours and fewer behavioural problems”. Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at Liverpool University, called it “a very good piece of research published in an important journal”. He said he suspected the mother-child bonding that takes place during breastfeeding might be the most important factor. “Positive bonding between parent and child is known to be fantastically helpful for development,” he said, noting that the authors specifically took into account factors such as childcare arrangements because they are so well-established as important influences in development. “This is more evidence of the importance of breastfeeding and mother-baby attachment, not just for physical health but also for the psychological development of the child,” he said. The authors said that more work needed to be done to see if their findings would contrast with other ethnic groups. Breastfeeding Children Parents and parenting Medical research Health & wellbeing Health Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Press Complaints Commission condemns Daily Telegraph for undercover recording of Cable and other Lib Dem ministers The Daily Telegraph is criticised by the Press Complaints Commission today for secretly recording conversations between Liberal Democrat ministers and having reporters pose as constituents. It upholds a complaint lodged last year by the party’s president, Tim Farron MP, over the paper’s use of subterfuge, ruling that the stories the Telegraph published as a result did not justify the methods it employed. “On this occasion, the commission was not convinced that the public interest was such as to justify proportionately this level of subterfuge,” the PCC says. The undercover reporters taped Vince Cable boasting he had “declared war” on Rupert Murdoch when, as business secretary, he was due to rule on whether News Corporation should be allowed to take full control of BSkyB. The story was leaked to the BBC, which reported it the day before it appeared in the Daily Telegraph on 21 December. Cable came close to being sacked and was stripped of his power to rule on media mergers by David Cameron, who handed them to the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt. The paper also recorded separate conversations with other Lib Dems, including employment minister Ed Davey, who privately said he was opposed to housing and child benefit cuts despite defending coalition savings in October 2010. The PCC, an industry body paid for and run by newspaper and magazine publishers, says clandestine use of recording devices breaches the editors’ code of conduct, which it enforces. This states that papers “must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices or hidden devices including tape recorders and cameras”. Subterfuge is also outlawed unless there is a strong public interest. The PCC acknowledges in its ruling: “there was a fine balance to be struck”. But it said it “did not believe that the Telegraph – although acting no doubt with legitimate intent – had sufficient grounds, on a prima facie basis, to justify their decision to send the reporters in”. It added it had consistently advised newspapers not to go on “fishing expeditions” in the hope of finding stories and said it would be issuing futher guidance on the subject. The Daily Telegraph editor, Tony Gallagher, says the paper accepts the ruling but adds in a statement that the PCC adjudication “has alarming implications for the future of investigative journalism”. The paper told the Commission it had received information from numerous anonymous sources, including voters as well as senior political figures, that Liberal Democrat ministers were contradicting their publicly-stated views in private. Its owner Telegraph Media Group told the PCC it had sought to expose this contradiction by sending in reporters and that it had been in the public interest to do so. It denied it had been on a “fishing expedition” because it had acted on tip off from politicians and the public. Gallagher said: “We had a duty to investigate their conduct and…..to be effective the use of subterfuge was necessary. Our revelations led to the demotion of a member of the Cabinet, apologies from a string of junior ministers and condemnation from their party leader.” He added that the decision: “Increases the obstacles facing newspapers wishing to carry out legitimate inquiries based on material which is often by its nature incomplete – and it limits their ability to expose matters of legitimate public interest which those in positions of power would rather shield from public view.” Daily Telegraph Newspapers & magazines Vince Cable Liberal Democrats News Corporation Press freedom James Robinson guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …John Boehner and Paul Ryan double down on destroying Medicare by attacking AARP
May 9, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Credit: CNN USA NEXT smears AARP with anti-Gay ad Remember the above ad? As the American public turns its back on Paul Ryan’s Medicare-killing budget, part of his similarly popular Roadmap to the Poorhouse, the GOP is doubling down by attacking the AARP: Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) political group went on the attack Monday against AARP, calling one of the most powerful lobbies a “left-leaning pressure group.” Ryan’s Prosperity PAC sought to push back on attacks by AARP against the House Budget Committee chairman’s 2012 budget, specifically its proposed changes to Medicare. “Last week, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a left-leaning pressure group with significant business interests in the insurance industry, launched a national ad campaign that intentionally misleads seniors about the Medicare debate,” wrote Pat Shortridge, a senior adviser to Ryan’s PAC, in an email to supporters. Ryan’s Medicare proposal has been a particular point of criticism by Democrats and groups on the left, which say that the Medicare plan would significantly revamp the entitlement program to the detriment of seniors. Democrats have homed in their attacks against that part of the Ryan budget, which has sparked some degree of heartburn among Republicans. AARP launched ads last week warning against “harmful cuts” to Medicare and Social Security it said Republicans favored. Fox News pushed a phony seniors’ group led by Art Linkletter called USA Next in 2005 when they tried to privatize Social Security, and they too attacked AARP — which failed miserably . Now some people on the right want you to think of gay marriage and Sunni insurgency. The New York Times this morning reported that the lobbyists who brought you the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” have been contracted to promote the agenda of USA Next, a conservative lobbying group. To build support, USA Next is portraying AARP – which opposes the White House’s pseudo-plan for privatizing Social Security – as some kind of liberal extremist group. They even produced a smear ad attacking gay marriage to try and rile up some old folks against AARP. Click here to view this media So now Ryan’s PAC is doing the same thing and attacking AARP. Good luck with that. Second up was John Boehner, who told Wall Streeters that he is indeed for going after Medicare: Speaker John Boehner is more blatant even than most politicians about telegraphing which constituency matters to him most: Wall Street. While his caucus leadership can’t run away from abolishing Medicare fast enough, Boehner is assuring Wall Street that it’s still on the agenda . In a speech to the Economic Club of New York in Midtown Manhattan, the Ohio Republican is set to reiterate to leading financial executives that he believes that reforming Medicare should be part of negotiations in raising the debt ceiling, saying that there needs to be “an honest conversation,” because the program is on an “unsustainable path if changes are not made,” according to sources familiar with the speech. Boehner also is expected to advocate for immediate cuts rather than deficit and debt targets preferred by some Democrats. After his talk, Boehner will take questions from two prominent Wall Street players at the intersection of Washington power: Peter G. Peterson, the private-equity giant who worked for President Richard Nixon, and Observatory Group CEO Jane Hartley, who worked for President Jimmy Carter…. Boehner’s public insistence that reforming Medicare stay a part of debt ceiling negotiations could reaffirm a concern among Wall Street types that Republicans are driving a hard bargain on the limit and will take the negotiations up to the last minute. Boehner said last week Congress must now cut trillions, not billions…. Friday evening, in a sign of unity after a disjointed week, GOP leadership, along with Ryan and Camp, released a statement saying “everything must be on the table except increasing taxes.” Freshmen, who voted en masse for the Ryan budget, largely want entitlement reform dealt with. It’ll keep Pete Peterson and his crowd happy, no matter how disastrous the plan is with actual voters. But more than anything, this is reflecting the very thin ice Boehner is skating. He’s got to try to convince the powers that be that really, his caucus isn’t a bunch of nihilists perfectly willing to blow up the economy over the debt ceiling vote. Lesse: the Speaker of the House is going to use the debt ceiling vote to “reform” Medicare, and Paul Ryan’s PAC is attacking the AARP. Let’s see how that all works out, but attacking AARP failed once and it will fail again. Millions of seniors have been members of AARP and they have tangible proof of how good an organization they are because they’ve used their services and love them. Using the debt to scare seniors is something that’s not tangible or even felt on a material level, so pragmatically speaking, which side would you choose if you’re fifty-five and older?
Continue reading …