I don’t know who MC NxtGen is, but his analysis of the threat Andrew Lansley’s proposals pose to the NHS is bang on I don’t know who the artist MC NxtGen is, but having watched his superb take down on YouTube of Andrew Lansley and his plans for the NHS – the Andrew Lansley Rap – I suspect he’s set for great things. Like a No
Continue reading …
Average households to be £750 a year worse off while NHS funding pledge is ‘sailing perilously close to the winds’ George Osborne’s deficit-cutting strategy is at risk of being blown off course by rising prices and slower growth, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, threatening the coalition’s pledge to raise NHS spending every year. In its analysis of the budget, the independent thinktank also estimated that the average household would lose £750 this year as a result of higher taxes and benefit cuts implemented by the chancellor since coming to power. “Over the whole parliament, tax and benefit changes will hit household incomes to the tune of more like 5%, or £1,500 a year,” said the IFS director, Paul Johnson. David Cameron promised that spending on the health service would rise in real terms – adjusted for inflation – in each year of the current parliament, but the IFS said Osborne would have to find more cash to avoid breaking the pledge next year. Gemma Tetlow of the IFS said the government was only fulfilling its promise in 2011-2 because NHS spending in the current financial year had been lower than Osborne forecast in October’s spending review. She added that the next four years would be the tightest spending period for the NHS since the 1950s. On the Treasury’s current plans, the IFS calculates that NHS spending will fall in 2012-3 and stagnate in 2013-4, before rising by just 0.1% in the final year of the parliament. Paul Johnson said: “The government is meeting its pledge, but is sailing perilously close to the wind.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, seized on the IFS analysis, saying the NHS faced a real terms cut in the next two years. “David Cameron is more concerned with his ideologically driven NHS reorganisation than keeping his promises on the health service,” Healey said. The business secretary Vince Cable defended the budget in the Commons, saying the cuts were, “painful but very necessary,” and caused by Labour’s mismanagement of the economy. The shadow chancellor Ed Balls described the government’s strategy as, “deeply flawed, misguided and unfair”. He said: “My advice to the chancellor is take the blinkers off and look at what is actually happening out there in our economy. It’s hurting but it’s not working.” Cable hit back, accusing Balls of “bumptious self-confidence,” and adding that Labour’s starting point, “seemed to be that the past was another country, that 2010 was year zero”. The IFS’s number crunching revealed that the overall impact of Wednesday’s budget – in which a headline-grabbing petrol duty cut was paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil companies – would be minimal. But Johnson said that together with the worsening inflation outlook, the downgrades to growth forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility would make deficit targets harder to meet. “In terms of the fiscal plans, it’s steady as she goes. But risks to the plans are already beginning to crystallise in lower predicted growth and higher predicted inflation,” he said. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said the OBR’s forecasts revealed that the squeeze on hard-pressed families was set to continue, and urged Osborne to slow the pace of cuts. “The government must heed the economic warning signs and change course,” he said. “Over 100,000 people will be marching through central London on Saturday to call on the government to abandon its damaging cuts and to set out an alternative based on jobs, fairer taxation and growth.” Overall, IFS analysis shows that the government’s austerity plans – including the VAT rise and other tax increases, as well as reductions in benefits and tax credits, are highly regressive, hitting those at the bottom of the income scale hardest. By 2015, the poorest 10% of the population will be more than 6.5% worse off as a result of the squeeze, while the richest 10% will lose out by just over 3%. Only those at the very top of the income scale – earning more than £100,000 a year – will lose more than the poorest in society. Osborne said Wednesday’s statement would move Britain “from rescue, to reform, to recovery”. But IFS experts expressed scepticism about many of the measures in his Plan for Growth, published alongside the budget. Helen Miller, an IFS economist, echoed the chancellor’s claim to have “put fuel in the tank of the economy,” said, “these measures might have put fuel in the tank, but they have done very little to affect how many miles we’ll get to the gallon.” Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, defended the decision to take 1p off fuel duty, despite previously warning that the UK “must get off the oil hook”. He said high prices were causing hardship, particularly for people in rural areas. “We need to take account of people’s concerns. But in the long run price signals are very clear … sometimes you need to go backwards to make a bigger jump forwards.” Too close for comfort Nick Clegg inadvertently played to some Liberal Democrats’ worst fears when he was caught telling David Cameron that he could not see what the two men could disagree about in a general election TV debate in 2015. The deputy prime minister was caught making the jokey aside after the two men had appeared together in Nottingham, left, at a post-budget question-and-answer session. At the end of the public meeting, Cameron told their audience that the event might have been “a bit better-natured between the two of us” than the TV debates would be during the 2015 election campaign. But as they left backstage, Clegg forgot his TV mic was still turned on and said to the prime minister: “If we keep doing this, we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates.” The Lib Dem leader was then seen looking down at his mic – realising that, like Gordon Brown during the 2010 general election, his words would be picked up by the broadcasters. The remark was dismissed as a joke by his aides, but it will fuel concerns among some Lib Dems that their leader will find it difficult to establish a separate identity to fight the Tories in 2015 after working for so long with Cameron in government. Labour said it was already considering telling broadcasters it will not be involved in three-way TV debates with Clegg and Cameron on the basis that they are both from the government. Patrick Wintour Budget 2001 George Osborne David Cameron Ed Balls Budget Spending review 2010 Tax and spending NHS Family finances Heather Stewart Larry Elliott Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Average households to be £750 a year worse off while NHS funding pledge is ‘sailing perilously close to the winds’ George Osborne’s deficit-cutting strategy is at risk of being blown off course by rising prices and slower growth, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, threatening the coalition’s pledge to raise NHS spending every year. In its analysis of the budget, the independent thinktank also estimated that the average household would lose £750 this year as a result of higher taxes and benefit cuts implemented by the chancellor since coming to power. “Over the whole parliament, tax and benefit changes will hit household incomes to the tune of more like 5%, or £1,500 a year,” said the IFS director, Paul Johnson. David Cameron promised that spending on the health service would rise in real terms – adjusted for inflation – in each year of the current parliament, but the IFS said Osborne would have to find more cash to avoid breaking the pledge next year. Gemma Tetlow of the IFS said the government was only fulfilling its promise in 2011-2 because NHS spending in the current financial year had been lower than Osborne forecast in October’s spending review. She added that the next four years would be the tightest spending period for the NHS since the 1950s. On the Treasury’s current plans, the IFS calculates that NHS spending will fall in 2012-3 and stagnate in 2013-4, before rising by just 0.1% in the final year of the parliament. Paul Johnson said: “The government is meeting its pledge, but is sailing perilously close to the wind.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, seized on the IFS analysis, saying the NHS faced a real terms cut in the next two years. “David Cameron is more concerned with his ideologically driven NHS reorganisation than keeping his promises on the health service,” Healey said. The business secretary Vince Cable defended the budget in the Commons, saying the cuts were, “painful but very necessary,” and caused by Labour’s mismanagement of the economy. The shadow chancellor Ed Balls described the government’s strategy as, “deeply flawed, misguided and unfair”. He said: “My advice to the chancellor is take the blinkers off and look at what is actually happening out there in our economy. It’s hurting but it’s not working.” Cable hit back, accusing Balls of “bumptious self-confidence,” and adding that Labour’s starting point, “seemed to be that the past was another country, that 2010 was year zero”. The IFS’s number crunching revealed that the overall impact of Wednesday’s budget – in which a headline-grabbing petrol duty cut was paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil companies – would be minimal. But Johnson said that together with the worsening inflation outlook, the downgrades to growth forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility would make deficit targets harder to meet. “In terms of the fiscal plans, it’s steady as she goes. But risks to the plans are already beginning to crystallise in lower predicted growth and higher predicted inflation,” he said. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said the OBR’s forecasts revealed that the squeeze on hard-pressed families was set to continue, and urged Osborne to slow the pace of cuts. “The government must heed the economic warning signs and change course,” he said. “Over 100,000 people will be marching through central London on Saturday to call on the government to abandon its damaging cuts and to set out an alternative based on jobs, fairer taxation and growth.” Overall, IFS analysis shows that the government’s austerity plans – including the VAT rise and other tax increases, as well as reductions in benefits and tax credits, are highly regressive, hitting those at the bottom of the income scale hardest. By 2015, the poorest 10% of the population will be more than 6.5% worse off as a result of the squeeze, while the richest 10% will lose out by just over 3%. Only those at the very top of the income scale – earning more than £100,000 a year – will lose more than the poorest in society. Osborne said Wednesday’s statement would move Britain “from rescue, to reform, to recovery”. But IFS experts expressed scepticism about many of the measures in his Plan for Growth, published alongside the budget. Helen Miller, an IFS economist, echoed the chancellor’s claim to have “put fuel in the tank of the economy,” said, “these measures might have put fuel in the tank, but they have done very little to affect how many miles we’ll get to the gallon.” Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, defended the decision to take 1p off fuel duty, despite previously warning that the UK “must get off the oil hook”. He said high prices were causing hardship, particularly for people in rural areas. “We need to take account of people’s concerns. But in the long run price signals are very clear … sometimes you need to go backwards to make a bigger jump forwards.” Too close for comfort Nick Clegg inadvertently played to some Liberal Democrats’ worst fears when he was caught telling David Cameron that he could not see what the two men could disagree about in a general election TV debate in 2015. The deputy prime minister was caught making the jokey aside after the two men had appeared together in Nottingham, left, at a post-budget question-and-answer session. At the end of the public meeting, Cameron told their audience that the event might have been “a bit better-natured between the two of us” than the TV debates would be during the 2015 election campaign. But as they left backstage, Clegg forgot his TV mic was still turned on and said to the prime minister: “If we keep doing this, we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates.” The Lib Dem leader was then seen looking down at his mic – realising that, like Gordon Brown during the 2010 general election, his words would be picked up by the broadcasters. The remark was dismissed as a joke by his aides, but it will fuel concerns among some Lib Dems that their leader will find it difficult to establish a separate identity to fight the Tories in 2015 after working for so long with Cameron in government. Labour said it was already considering telling broadcasters it will not be involved in three-way TV debates with Clegg and Cameron on the basis that they are both from the government. Patrick Wintour Budget 2001 George Osborne David Cameron Ed Balls Budget Spending review 2010 Tax and spending NHS Family finances Heather Stewart Larry Elliott Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Average households to be £750 a year worse off while NHS funding pledge is ‘sailing perilously close to the winds’ George Osborne’s deficit-cutting strategy is at risk of being blown off course by rising prices and slower growth, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, threatening the coalition’s pledge to raise NHS spending every year. In its analysis of the budget, the independent thinktank also estimated that the average household would lose £750 this year as a result of higher taxes and benefit cuts implemented by the chancellor since coming to power. “Over the whole parliament, tax and benefit changes will hit household incomes to the tune of more like 5%, or £1,500 a year,” said the IFS director, Paul Johnson. David Cameron promised that spending on the health service would rise in real terms – adjusted for inflation – in each year of the current parliament, but the IFS said Osborne would have to find more cash to avoid breaking the pledge next year. Gemma Tetlow of the IFS said the government was only fulfilling its promise in 2011-2 because NHS spending in the current financial year had been lower than Osborne forecast in October’s spending review. She added that the next four years would be the tightest spending period for the NHS since the 1950s. On the Treasury’s current plans, the IFS calculates that NHS spending will fall in 2012-3 and stagnate in 2013-4, before rising by just 0.1% in the final year of the parliament. Paul Johnson said: “The government is meeting its pledge, but is sailing perilously close to the wind.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, seized on the IFS analysis, saying the NHS faced a real terms cut in the next two years. “David Cameron is more concerned with his ideologically driven NHS reorganisation than keeping his promises on the health service,” Healey said. The business secretary Vince Cable defended the budget in the Commons, saying the cuts were, “painful but very necessary,” and caused by Labour’s mismanagement of the economy. The shadow chancellor Ed Balls described the government’s strategy as, “deeply flawed, misguided and unfair”. He said: “My advice to the chancellor is take the blinkers off and look at what is actually happening out there in our economy. It’s hurting but it’s not working.” Cable hit back, accusing Balls of “bumptious self-confidence,” and adding that Labour’s starting point, “seemed to be that the past was another country, that 2010 was year zero”. The IFS’s number crunching revealed that the overall impact of Wednesday’s budget – in which a headline-grabbing petrol duty cut was paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil companies – would be minimal. But Johnson said that together with the worsening inflation outlook, the downgrades to growth forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility would make deficit targets harder to meet. “In terms of the fiscal plans, it’s steady as she goes. But risks to the plans are already beginning to crystallise in lower predicted growth and higher predicted inflation,” he said. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said the OBR’s forecasts revealed that the squeeze on hard-pressed families was set to continue, and urged Osborne to slow the pace of cuts. “The government must heed the economic warning signs and change course,” he said. “Over 100,000 people will be marching through central London on Saturday to call on the government to abandon its damaging cuts and to set out an alternative based on jobs, fairer taxation and growth.” Overall, IFS analysis shows that the government’s austerity plans – including the VAT rise and other tax increases, as well as reductions in benefits and tax credits, are highly regressive, hitting those at the bottom of the income scale hardest. By 2015, the poorest 10% of the population will be more than 6.5% worse off as a result of the squeeze, while the richest 10% will lose out by just over 3%. Only those at the very top of the income scale – earning more than £100,000 a year – will lose more than the poorest in society. Osborne said Wednesday’s statement would move Britain “from rescue, to reform, to recovery”. But IFS experts expressed scepticism about many of the measures in his Plan for Growth, published alongside the budget. Helen Miller, an IFS economist, echoed the chancellor’s claim to have “put fuel in the tank of the economy,” said, “these measures might have put fuel in the tank, but they have done very little to affect how many miles we’ll get to the gallon.” Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, defended the decision to take 1p off fuel duty, despite previously warning that the UK “must get off the oil hook”. He said high prices were causing hardship, particularly for people in rural areas. “We need to take account of people’s concerns. But in the long run price signals are very clear … sometimes you need to go backwards to make a bigger jump forwards.” Too close for comfort Nick Clegg inadvertently played to some Liberal Democrats’ worst fears when he was caught telling David Cameron that he could not see what the two men could disagree about in a general election TV debate in 2015. The deputy prime minister was caught making the jokey aside after the two men had appeared together in Nottingham, left, at a post-budget question-and-answer session. At the end of the public meeting, Cameron told their audience that the event might have been “a bit better-natured between the two of us” than the TV debates would be during the 2015 election campaign. But as they left backstage, Clegg forgot his TV mic was still turned on and said to the prime minister: “If we keep doing this, we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates.” The Lib Dem leader was then seen looking down at his mic – realising that, like Gordon Brown during the 2010 general election, his words would be picked up by the broadcasters. The remark was dismissed as a joke by his aides, but it will fuel concerns among some Lib Dems that their leader will find it difficult to establish a separate identity to fight the Tories in 2015 after working for so long with Cameron in government. Labour said it was already considering telling broadcasters it will not be involved in three-way TV debates with Clegg and Cameron on the basis that they are both from the government. Patrick Wintour Budget 2001 George Osborne David Cameron Ed Balls Budget Spending review 2010 Tax and spending NHS Family finances Heather Stewart Larry Elliott Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Average households to be £750 a year worse off while NHS funding pledge is ‘sailing perilously close to the winds’ George Osborne’s deficit-cutting strategy is at risk of being blown off course by rising prices and slower growth, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned, threatening the coalition’s pledge to raise NHS spending every year. In its analysis of the budget, the independent thinktank also estimated that the average household would lose £750 this year as a result of higher taxes and benefit cuts implemented by the chancellor since coming to power. “Over the whole parliament, tax and benefit changes will hit household incomes to the tune of more like 5%, or £1,500 a year,” said the IFS director, Paul Johnson. David Cameron promised that spending on the health service would rise in real terms – adjusted for inflation – in each year of the current parliament, but the IFS said Osborne would have to find more cash to avoid breaking the pledge next year. Gemma Tetlow of the IFS said the government was only fulfilling its promise in 2011-2 because NHS spending in the current financial year had been lower than Osborne forecast in October’s spending review. She added that the next four years would be the tightest spending period for the NHS since the 1950s. On the Treasury’s current plans, the IFS calculates that NHS spending will fall in 2012-3 and stagnate in 2013-4, before rising by just 0.1% in the final year of the parliament. Paul Johnson said: “The government is meeting its pledge, but is sailing perilously close to the wind.” John Healey, the shadow health secretary, seized on the IFS analysis, saying the NHS faced a real terms cut in the next two years. “David Cameron is more concerned with his ideologically driven NHS reorganisation than keeping his promises on the health service,” Healey said. The business secretary Vince Cable defended the budget in the Commons, saying the cuts were, “painful but very necessary,” and caused by Labour’s mismanagement of the economy. The shadow chancellor Ed Balls described the government’s strategy as, “deeply flawed, misguided and unfair”. He said: “My advice to the chancellor is take the blinkers off and look at what is actually happening out there in our economy. It’s hurting but it’s not working.” Cable hit back, accusing Balls of “bumptious self-confidence,” and adding that Labour’s starting point, “seemed to be that the past was another country, that 2010 was year zero”. The IFS’s number crunching revealed that the overall impact of Wednesday’s budget – in which a headline-grabbing petrol duty cut was paid for by a windfall tax on North Sea oil companies – would be minimal. But Johnson said that together with the worsening inflation outlook, the downgrades to growth forecasts by the Office for Budget Responsibility would make deficit targets harder to meet. “In terms of the fiscal plans, it’s steady as she goes. But risks to the plans are already beginning to crystallise in lower predicted growth and higher predicted inflation,” he said. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said the OBR’s forecasts revealed that the squeeze on hard-pressed families was set to continue, and urged Osborne to slow the pace of cuts. “The government must heed the economic warning signs and change course,” he said. “Over 100,000 people will be marching through central London on Saturday to call on the government to abandon its damaging cuts and to set out an alternative based on jobs, fairer taxation and growth.” Overall, IFS analysis shows that the government’s austerity plans – including the VAT rise and other tax increases, as well as reductions in benefits and tax credits, are highly regressive, hitting those at the bottom of the income scale hardest. By 2015, the poorest 10% of the population will be more than 6.5% worse off as a result of the squeeze, while the richest 10% will lose out by just over 3%. Only those at the very top of the income scale – earning more than £100,000 a year – will lose more than the poorest in society. Osborne said Wednesday’s statement would move Britain “from rescue, to reform, to recovery”. But IFS experts expressed scepticism about many of the measures in his Plan for Growth, published alongside the budget. Helen Miller, an IFS economist, echoed the chancellor’s claim to have “put fuel in the tank of the economy,” said, “these measures might have put fuel in the tank, but they have done very little to affect how many miles we’ll get to the gallon.” Chris Huhne, the climate change secretary, defended the decision to take 1p off fuel duty, despite previously warning that the UK “must get off the oil hook”. He said high prices were causing hardship, particularly for people in rural areas. “We need to take account of people’s concerns. But in the long run price signals are very clear … sometimes you need to go backwards to make a bigger jump forwards.” Too close for comfort Nick Clegg inadvertently played to some Liberal Democrats’ worst fears when he was caught telling David Cameron that he could not see what the two men could disagree about in a general election TV debate in 2015. The deputy prime minister was caught making the jokey aside after the two men had appeared together in Nottingham, left, at a post-budget question-and-answer session. At the end of the public meeting, Cameron told their audience that the event might have been “a bit better-natured between the two of us” than the TV debates would be during the 2015 election campaign. But as they left backstage, Clegg forgot his TV mic was still turned on and said to the prime minister: “If we keep doing this, we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates.” The Lib Dem leader was then seen looking down at his mic – realising that, like Gordon Brown during the 2010 general election, his words would be picked up by the broadcasters. The remark was dismissed as a joke by his aides, but it will fuel concerns among some Lib Dems that their leader will find it difficult to establish a separate identity to fight the Tories in 2015 after working for so long with Cameron in government. Labour said it was already considering telling broadcasters it will not be involved in three-way TV debates with Clegg and Cameron on the basis that they are both from the government. Patrick Wintour Budget 2001 George Osborne David Cameron Ed Balls Budget Spending review 2010 Tax and spending NHS Family finances Heather Stewart Larry Elliott Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Nicolas Sarkozy, who had clashed with Turkey over role of Nato, says new two-tier military structure will be established Western allies and Turkey have reached a breakthrough deal to put the entire military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi under Nato command by next week, senior UK and French sources have told the Guardian. The deal, being finalised at Nato headquarters in Brussels, gives political oversight of the military action to a committee of international coalition partners involved in the Libyan campaign. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had tried to diminish the role of Nato, conceded, in the face of determined Turkish opposition, that a new two-tier structure will be established to run the operation. Nato “assets” will be used to co-ordinate all aspects of the military campaign against Libya, including enforcement of the no-fly zone, protecting civilians through air strikes, and enforcing a UN arms embargo. Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, conceded that Nato would be in control of the entire operation. Political oversight will be in the hands of a Nato-led committee, modelled on the body that oversees the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan. Isaf is led by Nato, but includes countries outside the alliance, such as Australia and New Zealand. The coalition against Libya includes Arab countries, such as Qatar, that are not in Nato. The breakthrough came in a conference call between Hillary Clinton, William Hague, Alain Juppe and their Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu. Turkey and France, which have been involved in bitter exchanges, reached agreement on the new structure. The agreement was put to a meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels this afternoon. Diplomatic sources said they “99% there”. One said: “There are a few last minute wrinkles. It has all moved rapidly.” Hague had told MPs he was hopeful of a breakthrough. He said: “On the question of command and control, we are still working some of that out. The simplest and most effective solution is for all of these operations to come under the North Atlantic Council [Nato's main political decision-making body] and for other countries to plug into that, to work with that. “We have made a great deal of progress. “We should understand this is a new coalition, put together very quickly for obvious reasons, and so there are bound to be issues to sort out in its management. But we are getting through those pretty well. I will be discussing the remaining issues with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts to try to iron out the remaining difficulties on future Nato command and control. The nations involved in this operation – their representatives are able to meet in Brussels on a regular basis.” Earlier, Turkey attacked Sarkozy’s and France’s leadership of the military campaign, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct of operations. The criticism, from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül, followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy’s plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi. With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said. The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara’s EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa. Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.” President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. “The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people,” he said. “There are hidden agendas and different interests.” Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy’s chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was “leading a crusade” to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Erdogan denounced the use of the word ‘crusade’, blaming those– France chief among them – who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday’s summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign. The dispute over Libya appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. “Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this,” complained Erdogan. “I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France.” While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately, Sarkozy has declared that, culturally, Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East. France has blocked tranches of Ankara’s EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as fit for membership. Libya France Turkey Nicolas Sarkozy Middle East Nato Europe Ian Traynor Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Nicolas Sarkozy, who had clashed with Turkey over role of Nato, says new two-tier military structure will be established Western allies and Turkey have reached a breakthrough deal to put the entire military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi under Nato command by next week, senior UK and French sources have told the Guardian. The deal, being finalised at Nato headquarters in Brussels, gives political oversight of the military action to a committee of international coalition partners involved in the Libyan campaign. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had tried to diminish the role of Nato, conceded, in the face of determined Turkish opposition, that a new two-tier structure will be established to run the operation. Nato “assets” will be used to co-ordinate all aspects of the military campaign against Libya, including enforcement of the no-fly zone, protecting civilians through air strikes, and enforcing a UN arms embargo. Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, conceded that Nato would be in control of the entire operation. Political oversight will be in the hands of a Nato-led committee, modelled on the body that oversees the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan. Isaf is led by Nato, but includes countries outside the alliance, such as Australia and New Zealand. The coalition against Libya includes Arab countries, such as Qatar, that are not in Nato. The breakthrough came in a conference call between Hillary Clinton, William Hague, Alain Juppe and their Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu. Turkey and France, which have been involved in bitter exchanges, reached agreement on the new structure. The agreement was put to a meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels this afternoon. Diplomatic sources said they “99% there”. One said: “There are a few last minute wrinkles. It has all moved rapidly.” Hague had told MPs he was hopeful of a breakthrough. He said: “On the question of command and control, we are still working some of that out. The simplest and most effective solution is for all of these operations to come under the North Atlantic Council [Nato's main political decision-making body] and for other countries to plug into that, to work with that. “We have made a great deal of progress. “We should understand this is a new coalition, put together very quickly for obvious reasons, and so there are bound to be issues to sort out in its management. But we are getting through those pretty well. I will be discussing the remaining issues with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts to try to iron out the remaining difficulties on future Nato command and control. The nations involved in this operation – their representatives are able to meet in Brussels on a regular basis.” Earlier, Turkey attacked Sarkozy’s and France’s leadership of the military campaign, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct of operations. The criticism, from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül, followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy’s plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi. With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said. The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara’s EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa. Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.” President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. “The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people,” he said. “There are hidden agendas and different interests.” Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy’s chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was “leading a crusade” to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Erdogan denounced the use of the word ‘crusade’, blaming those– France chief among them – who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday’s summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign. The dispute over Libya appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. “Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this,” complained Erdogan. “I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France.” While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately, Sarkozy has declared that, culturally, Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East. France has blocked tranches of Ankara’s EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as fit for membership. Libya France Turkey Nicolas Sarkozy Middle East Nato Europe Ian Traynor Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Nicolas Sarkozy, who had clashed with Turkey over role of Nato, says new two-tier military structure will be established Western allies and Turkey have reached a breakthrough deal to put the entire military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi under Nato command by next week, senior UK and French sources have told the Guardian. The deal, being finalised at Nato headquarters in Brussels, gives political oversight of the military action to a committee of international coalition partners involved in the Libyan campaign. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had tried to diminish the role of Nato, conceded, in the face of determined Turkish opposition, that a new two-tier structure will be established to run the operation. Nato “assets” will be used to co-ordinate all aspects of the military campaign against Libya, including enforcement of the no-fly zone, protecting civilians through air strikes, and enforcing a UN arms embargo. Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, conceded that Nato would be in control of the entire operation. Political oversight will be in the hands of a Nato-led committee, modelled on the body that oversees the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan. Isaf is led by Nato, but includes countries outside the alliance, such as Australia and New Zealand. The coalition against Libya includes Arab countries, such as Qatar, that are not in Nato. The breakthrough came in a conference call between Hillary Clinton, William Hague, Alain Juppe and their Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu. Turkey and France, which have been involved in bitter exchanges, reached agreement on the new structure. The agreement was put to a meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels this afternoon. Diplomatic sources said they “99% there”. One said: “There are a few last minute wrinkles. It has all moved rapidly.” Hague had told MPs he was hopeful of a breakthrough. He said: “On the question of command and control, we are still working some of that out. The simplest and most effective solution is for all of these operations to come under the North Atlantic Council [Nato's main political decision-making body] and for other countries to plug into that, to work with that. “We have made a great deal of progress. “We should understand this is a new coalition, put together very quickly for obvious reasons, and so there are bound to be issues to sort out in its management. But we are getting through those pretty well. I will be discussing the remaining issues with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts to try to iron out the remaining difficulties on future Nato command and control. The nations involved in this operation – their representatives are able to meet in Brussels on a regular basis.” Earlier, Turkey attacked Sarkozy’s and France’s leadership of the military campaign, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct of operations. The criticism, from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül, followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy’s plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi. With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said. The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara’s EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa. Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.” President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. “The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people,” he said. “There are hidden agendas and different interests.” Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy’s chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was “leading a crusade” to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Erdogan denounced the use of the word ‘crusade’, blaming those– France chief among them – who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday’s summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign. The dispute over Libya appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. “Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this,” complained Erdogan. “I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France.” While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately, Sarkozy has declared that, culturally, Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East. France has blocked tranches of Ankara’s EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as fit for membership. Libya France Turkey Nicolas Sarkozy Middle East Nato Europe Ian Traynor Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Nicolas Sarkozy, who had clashed with Turkey over role of Nato, says new two-tier military structure will be established Western allies and Turkey have reached a breakthrough deal to put the entire military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi under Nato command by next week, senior UK and French sources have told the Guardian. The deal, being finalised at Nato headquarters in Brussels, gives political oversight of the military action to a committee of international coalition partners involved in the Libyan campaign. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had tried to diminish the role of Nato, conceded, in the face of determined Turkish opposition, that a new two-tier structure will be established to run the operation. Nato “assets” will be used to co-ordinate all aspects of the military campaign against Libya, including enforcement of the no-fly zone, protecting civilians through air strikes, and enforcing a UN arms embargo. Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, conceded that Nato would be in control of the entire operation. Political oversight will be in the hands of a Nato-led committee, modelled on the body that oversees the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan. Isaf is led by Nato, but includes countries outside the alliance, such as Australia and New Zealand. The coalition against Libya includes Arab countries, such as Qatar, that are not in Nato. The breakthrough came in a conference call between Hillary Clinton, William Hague, Alain Juppe and their Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu. Turkey and France, which have been involved in bitter exchanges, reached agreement on the new structure. The agreement was put to a meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels this afternoon. Diplomatic sources said they “99% there”. One said: “There are a few last minute wrinkles. It has all moved rapidly.” Hague had told MPs he was hopeful of a breakthrough. He said: “On the question of command and control, we are still working some of that out. The simplest and most effective solution is for all of these operations to come under the North Atlantic Council [Nato's main political decision-making body] and for other countries to plug into that, to work with that. “We have made a great deal of progress. “We should understand this is a new coalition, put together very quickly for obvious reasons, and so there are bound to be issues to sort out in its management. But we are getting through those pretty well. I will be discussing the remaining issues with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts to try to iron out the remaining difficulties on future Nato command and control. The nations involved in this operation – their representatives are able to meet in Brussels on a regular basis.” Earlier, Turkey attacked Sarkozy’s and France’s leadership of the military campaign, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct of operations. The criticism, from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül, followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy’s plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi. With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said. The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara’s EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa. Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.” President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. “The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people,” he said. “There are hidden agendas and different interests.” Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy’s chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was “leading a crusade” to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Erdogan denounced the use of the word ‘crusade’, blaming those– France chief among them – who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday’s summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign. The dispute over Libya appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. “Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this,” complained Erdogan. “I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France.” While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately, Sarkozy has declared that, culturally, Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East. France has blocked tranches of Ankara’s EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as fit for membership. Libya France Turkey Nicolas Sarkozy Middle East Nato Europe Ian Traynor Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Nicolas Sarkozy, who had clashed with Turkey over role of Nato, says new two-tier military structure will be established Western allies and Turkey have reached a breakthrough deal to put the entire military campaign against Muammar Gaddafi under Nato command by next week, senior UK and French sources have told the Guardian. The deal, being finalised at Nato headquarters in Brussels, gives political oversight of the military action to a committee of international coalition partners involved in the Libyan campaign. President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had tried to diminish the role of Nato, conceded, in the face of determined Turkish opposition, that a new two-tier structure will be established to run the operation. Nato “assets” will be used to co-ordinate all aspects of the military campaign against Libya, including enforcement of the no-fly zone, protecting civilians through air strikes, and enforcing a UN arms embargo. Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, conceded that Nato would be in control of the entire operation. Political oversight will be in the hands of a Nato-led committee, modelled on the body that oversees the International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan. Isaf is led by Nato, but includes countries outside the alliance, such as Australia and New Zealand. The coalition against Libya includes Arab countries, such as Qatar, that are not in Nato. The breakthrough came in a conference call between Hillary Clinton, William Hague, Alain Juppe and their Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu. Turkey and France, which have been involved in bitter exchanges, reached agreement on the new structure. The agreement was put to a meeting of Nato ambassadors in Brussels this afternoon. Diplomatic sources said they “99% there”. One said: “There are a few last minute wrinkles. It has all moved rapidly.” Hague had told MPs he was hopeful of a breakthrough. He said: “On the question of command and control, we are still working some of that out. The simplest and most effective solution is for all of these operations to come under the North Atlantic Council [Nato's main political decision-making body] and for other countries to plug into that, to work with that. “We have made a great deal of progress. “We should understand this is a new coalition, put together very quickly for obvious reasons, and so there are bound to be issues to sort out in its management. But we are getting through those pretty well. I will be discussing the remaining issues with Secretary [Hillary] Clinton and with my French and Turkish counterparts to try to iron out the remaining difficulties on future Nato command and control. The nations involved in this operation – their representatives are able to meet in Brussels on a regular basis.” Earlier, Turkey attacked Sarkozy’s and France’s leadership of the military campaign, accusing the French of lacking a conscience in their conduct of operations. The criticism, from the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the president, Abdullah Gül, followed attacks from the Turkish government earlier this week and signalled an orchestrated attempt by Ankara to wreck Sarkozy’s plans to lead the air campaign against Gaddafi. With France insisting that Nato should not be put in political charge of the UN-mandated air campaign, Turkey has come out emphatically behind sole Nato control of the operations. The row came as France confirmed that one of its fighter jets had destroyed a Libyan air force plane, the first to breach the no-fly zone since it was imposed on 19 March. The Libyan G2/Galeb trainer aircraft was destroyed by an air-to-ground missile just after it landed at an air base near the rebel-held town of Misrata, a French military spokesman said. The clash between Turkey and France over Libya is underpinned by acute frictions between Erdogan and Sarkozy, both impetuous and mercurial leaders who revel in the limelight, by fundamental disputes over Ankara’s EU ambitions, and by economic interests in north Africa. Using incendiary language directed at France in a speech in Istanbul, Erdogan said: “I wish that those who only see oil, gold mines and underground treasures when they look in [Libya's] direction, would see the region through glasses of conscience from now on.” President Gül reinforced the Turkish view that France and others were being driven primarily by economic interests. “The aim [of the air campaign] is not the liberation of the Libyan people,” he said. “There are hidden agendas and different interests.” Earlier this week, Claude Guéant, the French interior minister who was previously Sarkozy’s chief adviser, outraged the Muslim world by stating that the French president was “leading a crusade” to stop Gaddafi massacring Libyans. Erdogan denounced the use of the word ‘crusade’, blaming those– France chief among them – who are opposed to Turkey joining the EU. The Turks are incensed at repeated snubs by Sarkozy. The French failed to invite Turkey to last Saturday’s summit in Paris which presaged the air strikes. French fighters taking off from Corsica struck the first blows. The Turkish government accused Sarkozy of launching not only the no-fly zone, but his presidential re-election campaign. The dispute over Libya appears highly personal, revealing the bad blood simmering between the French president and the Turkish prime minister. Sarkozy went to Turkey last month for the first time in four years as president. But the visit was repeatedly delayed and then downgraded from a state presidential event. He stayed in Turkey for five hours. “Relations between Turkey and France deserve more than this,” complained Erdogan. “I will speak with frankness. We wish to host him as president of France. But he is coming as president of the G20, not as that of France.” While the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is also opposed to Turkey joining the EU, she has voiced her objections moderately, Sarkozy has declared that, culturally, Turkey does not belong in Europe, but in the Middle East. France has blocked tranches of Ankara’s EU negotiations on the grounds that it should not be seen as fit for membership. Libya France Turkey Nicolas Sarkozy Middle East Nato Europe Ian Traynor Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …