Prime minister accused of using referendum to ruin Nick Clegg’s leadership as new polls shows No lead cut to 10 points The deepening loss of personal trust at the top of the coalition government engendered by the bitter AV referendum campaign was exposed when David Cameron was accused of a systematic and shortsighted attempt to trash Nick Clegg’s leadership. The attack by the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, in the final week of the campaign further exposes the deep anger among Liberal Democrats that Cameron is using the referendum to shore up his position within the Conservative party at Clegg’s expense. Huhne expressed anger over widely circulated no campaign leaflets that focus on Clegg’s alleged broken pledges. He told the Guardian: “David Cameron has had the power to stop these no campaign leaflets saying Nick Clegg has broken promises and told lies. He has done nothing about it. “To attack your political colleagues in a coalition and Nick Clegg in particular for accepting the compromises necessary to allow the Conservatives to implement some of its policies is absurdly short-sighted and outrageous. “Our two parties came together in the national interest in order to deal with our country’s economic problems. The Conservative party is now completely trashing us and Nick Clegg’s leadership for doing something they asked us to do in the national interest.” Huhne’s remarks constitute the most personal attack on Cameron mounted by a Lib Dem during the referendum campaign. Huhne, who has taken more risks than any other Lib Dem cabinet member to take the fight to the Conservatives during the campaign, said the no camp was run and wholly funded by the Conservative party, and if Cameron wanted to stop the leaflets he could have done so. Cameron insisted he was only responsible for the Conservative no campaign, and not the wider all-party campaign. The latest row follows a Sunday Times/YouGov poll that showed some tightening in the race, with the no lead narrowing from 18 points to a still emphatic 10. There is some sign that Labour voters now believe it is in their better long-term interest to damage Cameron by voting yes than it is to vote no and punish Clegg. But the yes campaign is still only leading in Scotland, suggesting that despite the fluctuating polls it may have an insurmountable job to turn a tentative shift into a decisive victory by Thursday. Both Clegg and Cameron said the coalition would survive Thursday’s results, which could also see the loss of 600 Conservative councillors and as many as 400 Liberal Democrats. Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Cameron said he would not be giving his coalition partners any consolation prizes if they were defeated in the referendum. “I don’t believe that a successful coalition is based around trying to endlessly sort of trade off each other’s policies.” But he signalled he wanted to revise his plans to introduce GP-led commissioning in the NHS so that the reform did not exclude hospital doctors. Meanwhile, Clegg accused the no campaign of trying to sow confusion over AV. But he acknowledged that “at a time of some anxiety … it’s sometimes quite a challenge to persuade people that we need to change things, move with the times”. He said the campaign had shown “this coalition government is composed of different parties with different values and different identities; maybe in the long run that’s not a bad thing”. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, also waded into the dispute yesterday, saying: “I have always thought that this is likely to be a five-year government. I think it is less likely after the rows of the last month.” Alternative vote AV referendum Electoral reform David Cameron Nick Clegg Chris Huhne Conservatives Liberal Democrats Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Death sentence on activist accused of being a member of a separatist group could be implemented at any time, says lawyer Fears are growing for the fate of a political activist in Iran who is facing imminent execution after being convicted of acting against national security. Sherko Moarefi, a 31-year-old ethnic Kurd from Baneh in north-west Iran, was arrested in October 2008 on suspicion of being a member of a Kurdish opposition political party, Komala. The leftwing separatist group has been branded a terrorist organisation by Iran. Moarefi was sentenced to death after being convicted of “acting against the national security” and moharebeh (waging war against God) – vague charges that Iran has used against many political activists in recent years. According to Khalil Bahramian, one of his lawyers in Iran, Moarefi’s conviction has been upheld by the supreme court and he was scheduled to be hanged on Sunday morning but his execution was delayed for a possible judicial review. “I have genuine fear that he might be executed at any time. This delay does not mean that his sentence has been halted,” Bahramian told the Guardian in a phone interview from Iran. “Sherko is innocent. Enmity with God is a charge for those who have taken up arms against the regime but Moarefi has been a peaceful activist,” he added. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have called on Iran to change Moarefi’s death sentence. Both human rights organisations have expressed alarm over the increase in capital punishment in Iran, which last year executed more people than any other country, apart from China. Since the beginning of this year, Iran has executed at least 135 people, according to official sources, although Amnesty says dozens more unacknowledged executions have taken place. Activists see it as a tactic to intimidate people at a time when pro-democracy movements are sweeping across the Middle East. Thirteen men have been hanged in public this year. Speaking to the Guardian, Kaveh Ghasemi-Kermanshahi, a Kurdish Iranian activist who recently fled to Iraq after being sentenced to four years in jail, said: “This coming week is the death anniversary of five Kurdish prisoners, including Farzad Kamangar, a teacher, who were executed in May last year … even a year later Iran refuses to hand over their dead bodies to their families.” Iran has launched a campaign against its Kurdish minority’s political activists. At least 15 other imprisoned Kurdish activists are on death row. In Tehran, Siamak Pourzand, an 80-year-old journalist who spent much of the past 10 years in jail, has killed himself. Pourzand was barred from leaving the country and was separated from other members of his family, who were forced to live outside Iran. His daughter, Leili, told the BBC Persian network that “separation from his family” led to his suicide. Iran is the leading jailer of journalists, along with China, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. At least 34 journalists are in prison in Iran. Iran Kurds Capital punishment Middle East Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Lack of data means Home Office unclear whether applicants are still being deported to countries where they risk persecution Ministers have admitted they are failing to collect data on the number of people who claim or are refused asylum on the basis of their sexuality, despite a government promise not to deport lesbians and gay men at risk of persecution. The lack of statistics means the government does not know whether gay and lesbian asylum seekers are still being deported to countries where they may face imprisonment, torture or execution. It is also unable to say whether new rules, brought in after a supreme court ruling that marked an end to Britain refusing asylum to gay men and lesbians on the grounds they could hide their sexuality by living discreetly, are being breached. In that July ruling, welcomed by Theresa May, the home secretary, one judge described how homophobia had “dramatically worsened” in countries such as Uganda, Malawi and Iran, making it necessary to allow those at risk protection in Britain. The UK Border Agency was told by the Home Office last year that the new rules should be applied “with immediate effect” and that relevant cases should be “flagged and recorded”. But more than six months on, the government still does not know how many cases they are dealing with, let alone whether the ruling is being followed. Last week, the US secretary of state, Hilary Clinton, launched her department’s 35th Human Rights report, which cited a Stonewall report drawing attention to “significant disadvantages” experienced by lesbian and gay asylum seekers in Britain. The UK chapter in the US state department report said: “Stonewall claimed that, by ‘fast tracking’ these more complex cases and denying them quickly, UKBA staff did not give applicants time to talk openly about their sexual orientation.” The campaign group found that, in the period between 2005-2009 almost all gay and lesbian asylum seeker claims were initially refused, compared with a 76% refusal rate among all asylum seekers, and were more likely to be fast tracked, which meant applicants and their lawyers had much less time to prepare an appeal. Following accusations of “institutional homophobia”, the UKBA has taken steps to address criticisms, including training case workers in dealing with such claims. Lesbian and gay asylum support groups said that the lack of centrally held official figures means they are unable to track whether any progress is being made. Erin Power of the UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group said: “This makes it impossible to say anything at all about LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] claims because we don’t know whether they are granting asylum. An awful lot of work and money has gone into improving the approach to LGBT claims. “What worries us is people who were refused prior to the supreme court decision. In these cases, we know the countries they are being sent back to are dangerous. If they are picked up as failed asylum seekers, no one is checking whether they were told to be discreet. We’ve no idea how many people there are.” In what she described as a “worrying” development, following the ruling, it is becoming more difficult for asylum seekers to “prove” to the authorities that they are homosexual. “It has always been difficult to prove but more frequently now, people are not being believed.” Steve Symonds, the legal officer of Immigration Law Practitioners Association, said: “We are aware of cases where the Home Office and the courts have refused people asylum on the basis which we know now to be wrong. “The sensible thing to do would be to review cases of removal. When you get to a point where you have to put someone on a plane for removal, you should get their file out and make sure there’s nothing of concern. They should check they have not claimed on the grounds of being gay, because they know that there was an important decision in the court which may be relevant.” In at least one immigration case, last month, involving a woman they believed was a lesbian from Uganda, Home Office lawyers argued that there was no persecution of lesbians in there and that she could be safely returned if she lived discreetly. But a judge ruled that living openly as a lesbian would expose her to persecution and granted her leave to remain. In response to a parliamentary question asking how many lesbian and gay asylum seekers had been granted or refused asylum since July, Damian Green, the immigration minister, said: “The information requested in the questions is not recorded centrally by the UK Border Agency and can only be obtained through examination of individual case records at a disproportionate cost.” A UKBA spokesperson said: “The UK Border Agency does not currently record separate statistics on the grounds on which individuals claim asylum. “We are, however, reviewing how data on sexual orientation cases can be recorded more effectively and whether any resulting data can be published.” Immigration and asylum Gay rights Liberal-Conservative coalition Hillary Clinton Damian Green Karen McVeigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Disappearance of male choir after landing at Heathrow had prompted an immigration inquiry and headlines around the world Ten members of a Nepalese male choir, who sparked a nationwide hunt and an investigation by the UK Borders Agency after they disappeared from Heathrow, have turned up in fine voice after going missing for three days – explaining that they just got lost leaving the airport. On Tuesday, a coach had travelled the 250 miles to London to bring the choir to the Cornwall Male Voice Choir Festival but, despite the driver spending hours searching for them, they could not be found. The organisers of the festival – which ends on Monday– with 3,500 singers in more than 60 choirs to keep track of, were also hit by the illness of a key staff member, and the fact a Russian choir was refused an exit visa to travel when the singers were waiting on the runway to board their plane. The organisers spent hours on the phone trying to work out what had happened to the Nepalese men, first assuming they had missed their flight. They established that all their travel documents and visas were in order, and they had landed at Heathrow and then apparently vanished. They were reported missing, presumed absconded, an immigration inquiry was launched, and the news caused headlines round the world. David Peters, who is the joint organiser of the festival, said: “I will advise anyone looking to publicise a festival to lose a Nepalese choir.” Three days later when the choir had already missed its first scheduled appearance, the festival organisers got a call to say the singers had taken a wrong turn out of the airport and were at a house in Wembley. Their coach headed back to London to collect them and the second in their series of planned concerts and workshops went ahead without a hitch. Nepal Immigration and asylum Maev Kennedy guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Other countries believe their agricultural expertise can kickstart an agrarian revolution across the African continent They are calling it the next great trek . Almost two centuries after Boers hitched their wagons to oxen and headed inland to establish the South African republic, they are on the move again. This time they are flying – and their destination is the whole of the African continent. White South African farmers are now being courted by the north, by countries who believe their agricultural expertise can kickstart an agrarian revolution across the continent. They are being offered millions of hectares of allegedly virgin rainforest and bush, as well as land already farmed by smallholders or used as pastures by herders. In the biggest deal to date, Congo-Brazzaville has offered South Africa farmers long leases on up to 10m hectares of land, an area that includes abandoned state farms and bush in the remote south-west of the country. The first contracts, which put 88,000 hectares in the hands of 70 farmers, were signed at a ceremony in the country last month. Meanwhile, in Mozambique, some 800 South African farmers have acquired a million hectares in the southern province of Gaza, thanks to an arrangement set up by sugar farmer Charl Senekal, an associate of the South African president, Jacob Zuma. This deal will be celebrated at a ceremony in Pretoria next month. There have been sporadic moves north by white South African farmers since the end of apartheid. But the current migration is more organised, says Ruth Hall of the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies at the University of the Western Cape in South Africa. “South Africa is exporting [not just] its farmers, but also its value chains, to the rest of the continent,” she told a meeting on international land grabs in Brighton last week . The mass movement is mostly organised by Agri South Africa , an association that represents 70,000 South Africa farmers. Its president, Johannes Moller, made a pitch for new deals at a conference on large-scale farming in Africa, held in Cairo last April. Since then, Agri SA has received offers of land from 22 African countries, says Hall. Along with free land come tax holidays, free rein to export produce and profits, and promises of new roads and power lines – angering local peasants who have never enjoyed such benefits. Zambia wants South African pioneers to grow maize, and Sudan is offering land and irrigation water to grow sugar cane. Another deal, currently on hold, would see them take over 35,000 hectares of Libya. With one-third of South Africa’s white-owned farmland to be transferred to black owners by 2014, many white South African landowners are keen to find new territory, though most want to keep their home farms as well, says Hall. The new trek is attracting support from major South African finance houses such as Standard Bank and investment funds such as Emergent Asset Management, a UK-South Africa fund run by former Goldman Sachs high flyer Susan Payne. She claims to be investing in 14 African countries and promises a 30% annual return. Many African countries believe the new white farmers can end their reliance on food imports. But the farmers and their financiers often have other plans. According to Theo de Jager, Agri SA deputy president and mastermind of the international deals, the farmers in Congo-Brazzaville want to grow more profitable tropical fruit for export to European supermarkets, rather than grains for locals. Another concern is what land the farmers are being offered. The governments making overtures towards claim there is ample “empty” land – in which case the threat is that forests and other biodiversity hotspots will be gobbled up. But much of the land is, in reality, already occupied by farmers and pastoralists. While the Congo-Brazzaville government says the land it is handing over to white South Africans has been empty since the closure of state farms more than 10 years ago, Hall says its former owners have returned and are growing cassava and peanuts. Like the original trek, the new invasion is likely to be met with resistance. Farming Food South Africa International land deals Fred Pearce guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician President Dmitry Medvedev is pushing to extend his tenure in the Kremlin against the wishes of Russia’s powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a senior politician from the country’s ruling party has told the Guardian. Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent MP with United Russia, which dominates parliament and is headed by Putin, said Medvedev’s allies were waging a campaign to undermine the prime minister behind a public facade of unity between the two men. Until recently it was widely assumed that Medvedev would not run in presidential elections next March, so that Putin could return to his old job and serve two more terms to 2024. Most analysts had presumed that Putin would put himself forward while Medvedev would bow out meekly after a single term. However, Zatulin said in an interview that the president’s aides were jockeying to keep him in the Kremlin by eroding Putin’s support in parliament. “Medvedev wants to stay, he has broken the agreement and now Putin will have to persuade him to back off,” he said. His words highlight a deepening rift between Russia’s ruling duo. Putin has emphasised his credentials as a conservative statist who rejects “liberal experiments”, in what analysts interpreted as a bold pitch for the presidency. Medvedev, by contrast, has pushed his image as a tech-savvy moderniser and anti-corruption crusader. He recently removed top members of government from the boards of state companies such as oil giant Rosneft in favour of independent directors, a move seen as a blow to Putin’s “Kremlin Inc” view of the economy. The split extends to foreign policy, where Medvedev promotes the “resetting” of relations with Washington, while Putin has nurtured his image as a hawk who rejects US unilateralism. When Putin likened western military intervention in Libya to “medieval calls for crusades” last month, the president condemned the phrase a few hours later as “unacceptable”. While Medvedev has no party, Putin leads United Russia, which he uses to exert control over parliament, regional leaders and the bureaucracy. The party has said that Putin is its preferred candidate, and that it will consider supporting Medvedev only if the prime minister does not run. Medvedev, on the other hand, wields clout through his huge presidential administration, and via influential aides who can manipulate party politics and state media. Zatulin, the MP, was drawn into the conflict last month when he was removed from his post as deputy chairman of a Duma committee, in what he says was a punishment by Medvedev’s political fixers inside United Russia for statements he made in the chamber supporting Putin’s “Crusades” comments. He said that Kremlin aides – including the powerful ideologue, Vladislav Surkov — were also secretly cultivating a minor party, Fair Russia, as a potential vehicle for Medvedev. The party could be given a new leader such as the popular nationalist and representative to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, and then be boosted with huge administrative support in the run up to parliamentary elections in December, Zatulin said, providing Medvedev a platform for his bid to the presidency three months later. Zatulin said: “Medvedev has decided to put himself forward [as a presidential candidate]. He feels inspired and he senses a certain support.” Asked if Putin and Medvedev might go head to head, the politician replied: “Yes, I think so.” Other observers are also putting their money on Medvedev as the preferred candidate, though most of these think he will stand unopposed. The president, a lawyer, took up his post in 2008 after he was endorsed by the outgoing Putin, 58, who had spent eight years in the Kremlin but could not stand for a third consecutive term. Putin, a former KGB officer, then stepped into the prime ministerial role, from which he has appeared to take the lead in Russia’s ruling tandem, known collectively to wags as either “PutiMed” or “MedvePut”. Stanislav Belkovsky, a well-connected political commentator said that differences between the pair were “no more than between man and wife”. He believes they have already decided together that Medvedev will be the one to go forward. “For both of them, Medvedev is the best choice for the elections,” he said. “The ruling elite have many business interests and they want to legalise their capital abroad. They need to feel at home in New York and London, so nobody points a finger when they walk into the lobby bar at the Lanesborough or the Dorchester. “Medvedev is seen overseas as western-leaning and liberal so he is better placed than Putin to finish this cynical process.” The choice of candidate will almost certainly determine who becomes Russia’s next president. Political forces opposing the Kremlin have been systematically marginalised, so the emergence of a popular competing figure is practically impossible. Putin and Medvedev have respectable, if slipping, popularity ratings which can also be shored up by falsifying election results, a common practice over the past decade. Yet intrigue remains. On a visit to Sweden last week Putin was asked by journalists whether he intended to run. “It is still too early to tell,” he replied. “The time will come, and we will make the appropriate decision. You will like it. You will be satisfied.” That response prompted fresh speculation that either Medvedev – seen to be the favoured candidate in Washington and many European capitals – will run, or that both men will go to the polls, in a show of democratic competition. In another sign of nervousness in the ruling elite last week, Gleb Pavlovsky, a veteran spin doctor and adviser to the presidential administration, had his pass to the Kremlin revoked. Pavlovsky told reporters he was ousted for being too vocal in his support of the president at a time of tension in the tandem, and for saying – in a criticism of Putin – that Medvedev’s first term should not become “some recess in one person’s endless governance”. In spite of Medvedev’s ambitions, many Russians remain convinced that it is Putin who will muscle his way back to the Kremlin. They say that he is desperate to regain the top job, whatever his partner’s wishes. “I’m 80% certain that Putin will be the candidate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of Russia’s small democratic opposition, in an interview at his basement office in southern Moscow. “These three years he has kept up a pre-election campaign, driving yellow Ladas around the country, kissing snow leopards, firing crossbows at whales, putting out fires. And that’s allowed him to remain the most popular politician in the country.” Ryzhkov agreed that Medvedev was agitating to preserve his position, but argued that had only succeeded in firing up his opponents. “His recent behaviour has begun to irritate and frighten the people around Putin,” he said, predicting that the prime minister would stand alone. Zatulin, however, said he was convinced that Medvedev would run for the presidency. Asked if Putin could talk his protege out of competing in the election, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. The point of no return has already been passed.” Russia Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Medvedev set to defy pact with prime minister Vladimir Putin and seek second term, claims prominent politician President Dmitry Medvedev is pushing to extend his tenure in the Kremlin against the wishes of Russia’s powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin, a senior politician from the country’s ruling party has told the Guardian. Konstantin Zatulin, a prominent MP with United Russia, which dominates parliament and is headed by Putin, said Medvedev’s allies were waging a campaign to undermine the prime minister behind a public facade of unity between the two men. Until recently it was widely assumed that Medvedev would not run in presidential elections next March, so that Putin could return to his old job and serve two more terms to 2024. Most analysts had presumed that Putin would put himself forward while Medvedev would bow out meekly after a single term. However, Zatulin said in an interview that the president’s aides were jockeying to keep him in the Kremlin by eroding Putin’s support in parliament. “Medvedev wants to stay, he has broken the agreement and now Putin will have to persuade him to back off,” he said. His words highlight a deepening rift between Russia’s ruling duo. Putin has emphasised his credentials as a conservative statist who rejects “liberal experiments”, in what analysts interpreted as a bold pitch for the presidency. Medvedev, by contrast, has pushed his image as a tech-savvy moderniser and anti-corruption crusader. He recently removed top members of government from the boards of state companies such as oil giant Rosneft in favour of independent directors, a move seen as a blow to Putin’s “Kremlin Inc” view of the economy. The split extends to foreign policy, where Medvedev promotes the “resetting” of relations with Washington, while Putin has nurtured his image as a hawk who rejects US unilateralism. When Putin likened western military intervention in Libya to “medieval calls for crusades” last month, the president condemned the phrase a few hours later as “unacceptable”. While Medvedev has no party, Putin leads United Russia, which he uses to exert control over parliament, regional leaders and the bureaucracy. The party has said that Putin is its preferred candidate, and that it will consider supporting Medvedev only if the prime minister does not run. Medvedev, on the other hand, wields clout through his huge presidential administration, and via influential aides who can manipulate party politics and state media. Zatulin, the MP, was drawn into the conflict last month when he was removed from his post as deputy chairman of a Duma committee, in what he says was a punishment by Medvedev’s political fixers inside United Russia for statements he made in the chamber supporting Putin’s “Crusades” comments. He said that Kremlin aides – including the powerful ideologue, Vladislav Surkov — were also secretly cultivating a minor party, Fair Russia, as a potential vehicle for Medvedev. The party could be given a new leader such as the popular nationalist and representative to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, and then be boosted with huge administrative support in the run up to parliamentary elections in December, Zatulin said, providing Medvedev a platform for his bid to the presidency three months later. Zatulin said: “Medvedev has decided to put himself forward [as a presidential candidate]. He feels inspired and he senses a certain support.” Asked if Putin and Medvedev might go head to head, the politician replied: “Yes, I think so.” Other observers are also putting their money on Medvedev as the preferred candidate, though most of these think he will stand unopposed. The president, a lawyer, took up his post in 2008 after he was endorsed by the outgoing Putin, 58, who had spent eight years in the Kremlin but could not stand for a third consecutive term. Putin, a former KGB officer, then stepped into the prime ministerial role, from which he has appeared to take the lead in Russia’s ruling tandem, known collectively to wags as either “PutiMed” or “MedvePut”. Stanislav Belkovsky, a well-connected political commentator said that differences between the pair were “no more than between man and wife”. He believes they have already decided together that Medvedev will be the one to go forward. “For both of them, Medvedev is the best choice for the elections,” he said. “The ruling elite have many business interests and they want to legalise their capital abroad. They need to feel at home in New York and London, so nobody points a finger when they walk into the lobby bar at the Lanesborough or the Dorchester. “Medvedev is seen overseas as western-leaning and liberal so he is better placed than Putin to finish this cynical process.” The choice of candidate will almost certainly determine who becomes Russia’s next president. Political forces opposing the Kremlin have been systematically marginalised, so the emergence of a popular competing figure is practically impossible. Putin and Medvedev have respectable, if slipping, popularity ratings which can also be shored up by falsifying election results, a common practice over the past decade. Yet intrigue remains. On a visit to Sweden last week Putin was asked by journalists whether he intended to run. “It is still too early to tell,” he replied. “The time will come, and we will make the appropriate decision. You will like it. You will be satisfied.” That response prompted fresh speculation that either Medvedev – seen to be the favoured candidate in Washington and many European capitals – will run, or that both men will go to the polls, in a show of democratic competition. In another sign of nervousness in the ruling elite last week, Gleb Pavlovsky, a veteran spin doctor and adviser to the presidential administration, had his pass to the Kremlin revoked. Pavlovsky told reporters he was ousted for being too vocal in his support of the president at a time of tension in the tandem, and for saying – in a criticism of Putin – that Medvedev’s first term should not become “some recess in one person’s endless governance”. In spite of Medvedev’s ambitions, many Russians remain convinced that it is Putin who will muscle his way back to the Kremlin. They say that he is desperate to regain the top job, whatever his partner’s wishes. “I’m 80% certain that Putin will be the candidate,” said Vladimir Ryzhkov, a leader of Russia’s small democratic opposition, in an interview at his basement office in southern Moscow. “These three years he has kept up a pre-election campaign, driving yellow Ladas around the country, kissing snow leopards, firing crossbows at whales, putting out fires. And that’s allowed him to remain the most popular politician in the country.” Ryzhkov agreed that Medvedev was agitating to preserve his position, but argued that had only succeeded in firing up his opponents. “His recent behaviour has begun to irritate and frighten the people around Putin,” he said, predicting that the prime minister would stand alone. Zatulin, however, said he was convinced that Medvedev would run for the presidency. Asked if Putin could talk his protege out of competing in the election, he said: “Personally, I don’t think so. The point of no return has already been passed.” Russia Vladimir Putin Dmitry Medvedev Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Lou Dobbs Loves Free Market Capitalism When it Comes to Exxon Mobil’s Profits, Not so Much for Unions’ Right to Strike
May 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Apparently Lou Dobbs is terribly upset with the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to try to stop Boeing from punishing their unions for striking in Washington by moving their jobs to South Carolina, but he loves “free market capitalism” when it comes to Exxon Mobil’s ability to rake in record breaking profits. As the Hill reported — Exxon posts $10.7B first-quarter profit : Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. reported a $10.65 billion first-quarter profit Thursday, a 69 percent jump from the same period last year that will likely fuel political battles over U.S. oil-and-gas policy. The company is benefiting from higher refining margins, but also a surge in the price of oil that has led to $4 per gallon gas prices in the U.S. It’s also made oil companies a rich political target for the White House. Exxon’s profits are its highest since its record in 2008, when it posted profits of $10.9 billion in the first quarter, $11.7 billion in the second quarter and $14.8 billion in the third quarter (and $45 billion for the year). But the liberal Center for American Progress is holding a call for reporters later Thursday that will take a very different view of the industry earnings. The group parlayed the profits into a shot at GOP budget plans. “As the first quarter profits from the big five oil companies roll in, so do the $40 billion in taxpayer subsidies to these already highly lucrative oil companies through the next decade — preserved in Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget by gutting $30 billion from Medicare,” the center said in an advisory previewing the call. Ryan (R-Wis.) chairs the House Budget Committee. “While Big Oil rakes in windfall profit margins, they do nothing to ease the record-high prices facing American consumers at the pump and slowing our economic recovery,” the group added. There’s that “free market” for ya, subsidized by our tax dollars. Think Progress’ Wonk Room has more on the NLRB’s complaint — Gov. Haley Defends Boeing’s Union-Busting: ‘It’s Called Capitalism’ : The National Labor Relations Board last week filed a complaint against the airplane manufacturer Boeing, noting that, according to public pronouncements by the company’s officials, the construction of a new plant in South Carolina was intended as retribution against workers in Washington who have engaged in a pair of strikes over the last six years. One senior Boeing official, for instance, said during an interview, “The overriding factor [in moving to South Carolina] was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we’re paying today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage , you know, every three years.” Under national labor law, retaliating against workers for striking is illegal union-busting, but several Republican lawmakers have attacked the NLRB and the Obama administration for initiating the complaint. “This is nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama’s re-election campaign,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). “The Obama administration is now dictating where companies are allowed to create new jobs,” wrote former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). As the Washington Post’s Steve Pearlstein wrote, “given the public statements of Boeing officials, there is nothing radical about the NLRB’s decision”; the NLRB is simply trying to enforce worker protections that are already law. And, contrary to Haley’s pronouncement, the NLRB made clear that “The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit Boeing from assembling planes there .” Haley also neglects to mention that South Carolina gave Boeing nearly $1 billion to open its plant in South Carolina (even as Boeing systemically dodges taxes ). Nor is this Haley’s first foray into union-busting; she named a union-busting attorney to head South Carolina’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation for the express purpose of preventing unions from trying to unionize Boeing’s South Carolina plant. Boeing donated to both Haley’s election campaign and her inaugural gala . The laws that the NLRB is seeking to enforce are necessary to ensure that corporations can’t threaten to move production and fire workers who exercise their right to organize. Haley’s view — and that of the rest of the Republicans attacking Obama and the NLRB — is that corporations should be allowed to ignore the law and workers’ rights if it will increase their profits.
Continue reading …
Move follows calls by France and Italy to reinstate border checks after influx of thousands of migrants from north Africa The European Union executive is considering allowing member states to reinstate some border controls, its president has said, responding to demands for more national power to stem immigration. The announcement on Sunday lent momentum to a campaign by France and Italy to reimpose some of the border checks , abolished in 1995 under the Schengen agreement, as they grapple with an influx of migrants fleeing political upheaval in north Africa. In a letter to Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and French president Nicolas Sarkozy, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said it would be possible to permit countries reintroduce limited controls. “The temporary restoration of borders is one of the possibilities, provided this is subject to specific and clearly defined criteria, that could be an element to strengthen the governance of the Schengen agreement,” Barroso wrote. EU countries may already introduce temporary border checks as Germany has done to stop foreign soccer hooligans visiting football games, but new EU rules could widen countries’ freedom to do so, said a source familiar with the plans. “To reinstate border controls now, you have to justify that based on the threat to public order,” said the source. “With the new system, you would no longer need to invoke a threat to public order. This would extend the possibilities to reinstate controls.” The EU executive, which writes the first draft of EU laws that are then sent to countries for approval, plans to present an outline of its legal proposals in the coming days. If accepted, the new EU rules would alter one of the biggest achievements of the single European market, passport-free travel, but one which makes it harder to curb illegal migration. The proposals could become law as soon as they are agreed by the EU’s 27 member states and the bloc’s parliament, a process that could be concluded in months but could also easily drag on for more than a year. The arrival of thousands of immigrants from north Africa prompted France in April to shut its borders to trains carrying African migrants from Italy. The two countries accused each other of flouting the spirit of the Schengen treaty, which eliminates many border controls within the EU. So far this year, around 25,000 migrants, most from France’s former colony Tunisia, have arrived in southern Italy on small, overloaded fishing boats, creating a humanitarian emergency on the tiny island of Lampedusa where most of the boats landed. Italy says it has been left to deal with the problem on its own while Paris has accused Rome of trying to escape its responsibilities by allowing illegal immigrants free transit across the border. Last Tuesday, Sarkozy visited Rome to try to defuse tension. European Union Europe France Italy Arab and Middle East unrest guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …President Obama Shares His Thoughts On GOP 2012 Contenders at White House Press Dinner
May 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media President Obama had some opinions on the 2012 field of Republican candidates. I think my favorite was his message for Michele Bachmann. Michele Bachmann is here, though, I understand. And she is thinking about running for President, which is weird, because I heard she was born in Canada. [laughter] Yes Michele, this is how it starts. Tim Pawlenty: He seems all-American, but have you ever heard his real middle name? Tim Hosni Pawlenty? What a shame. Jon Huntsman: Now, there’s something you might not know about Jon. He didn’t learn to speak Chinese to go there. Oh, no. He learned English to come here. On Mitt Romney: There’s a vicious rumor floating around that I think could really hurt Mitt Romney. I heard he passed universal healthcare when he was Governor of Massachusetts. Someone should get to the bottom of that. And I know just the guy to do it. Donald Trump. The Donald Trump comments are about as funny and as withering as anyone could get without descending into the nasty zone. Watch those to see what I mean. As annoyingly insular as these events are — and they are — they’re also an opportunity for the President to use humor as a way of disarming ongoing and aggravating personal attacks with some humor and some class, which he really did quite nicely.
Continue reading …