Migrants with at least £5m in the bank will have a shorter time to wait and entrepreneurs will get preferential treatment The super-rich are to be offered a fast track to settle in Britain under new immigration rules for high-value investors and entrepreneurs to be unveiled Wednesday. Overseas “super-investors” who are willing to keep £5m in a UK bank account are to be given the right to stay indefinitely in Britain after only three years, two years faster than the five-year wait imposed on every other migrant. An overseas investor who is willing to deposit more than £10m in the UK will win the right to stay even quicker, after only two years. The package of measures to attract the super-rich to Britain, to be unveiled by the immigration minister, Damian Green, at the London Stock Exchange, contrasts sharply with government plans to break the link with the right to settle for those who come to study or work temporarily in the UK. The rules for entrepreneurs are also to be relaxed so that they become eligible for permanent settlement rights in Britain within three years if they have created 10 jobs or achieved an annual turnover of £10m a year for their UK business. This is to encourage promising start-up companies who do not meet the investment criteria. Perhaps more importantly for the overseas super-rich, the number of days they can spend out of the country and still qualify for UK residence rights is to be doubled from 90 to 180. Alex Ruffel of Berkeley Law, who specialise in immigration matters for high net worth individuals, said she expected that the new rules will double the 275 super-wealthy investors and entrepreneurs who came to live in Britain last year. She also reports a recent surge in inquiries about coming to the UK from Middle East clients concerned at current developments in the region. The sliding scale for investors will start at those willing to deposit at least £1m in a British bank account which will secure them the right to settlement after five years, but they will enjoy an exemption from any English language test which now applies to most other routes. Further details are also expected to be announced for the new “exceptional talent” immigration route which will allow up to 1,000 migrants who have “won international recognition in scientific and cultural fields”, or have the potential to do so. Unlike this category there will be no limit on the numbers of investors and entrepreneurs who will be allowed in. Ruffel said that the decision to allow high-worth migrants to be out of the country for six months a year was one of the most important elements of the package: “Currently they have to spend nine months of the year in Britain to qualify for indefinite leave to remain or to extend their visa. This can be a problem for those who are very wealthy and are in business in several countries, including their own country of origin.” The shorter route for settlement will not necessarily mean that the super-wealthy will also get a fast track to a British passport as the qualifying periods for citizenship appear to be left untouched. Those who come will also have to pay UK tax on their British earnings. The announcement comes in advance of the final proposals to make deep cuts in the number of overseas students coming to Britain in order to meet the Conservative manifesto target of reducing net migration below 100,000 a year. The home secretary, Theresa May, told MPs last November that she wanted a new approach that was more selective and brought in more of those who would make a real difference to our economy: “We want to actively encourage entrepreneurs to come. As the prime minister [has] said, we will reform the rules for entrepreneurs so that if you have a great business idea, and you receive serious investment from a leading investor, you are welcome to set up your business in our country.” Immigration and asylum Damian Green Theresa May Entrepreneurs Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The combination of 20 years of reporting conflict, together with scars left by her upbringing prompted Janine di Giovanni to try an intense week-long form of psychoanalysis Many years ago I went to an isolated village in Switzerland to report on a renegade Freudian psychiatrist and analyst called Dr
Continue reading …Actor and filmmaker Harry Shearer, best known for his voice work in 'The Simpsons', blasted the news media in a speech to the National Press Club on Monday. Specifically, he singled out the media's “myth-making” tendency – its constant desire to fit current events into mostly pre-formed narratives. “What I’m calling a ‘template,’ is based on facts. Some facts. A partial collection. The first dusting,” Shearer claimed. “It then becomes adopted as ‘the narrative.' The mental doors lock shut, and no further facts are allowed in.” The Daily Caller's Chris Moody reported Tuesday: He made the case, using coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War and Wikileaks as examples, that once a “template” is set, news practitioners have a hard time diverting from it. On Katrina, he recalled the time NBC News anchor Brian Williams told him that viewers prefer personal feature stories over detailed accounts of why the levies broke during the storm. “A bias toward sob stories is as old as William Randolph Hearst’s first hard on for an actress,” Shearer cracked. He said that the tendency for national news media outlets to “parachute” into an area they know little about for a story, combined with a dash of hubris, makes it difficult for them to rethink whether they even had it right in the first place. “You can’t stay on a story very long, and when you come back, as everybody did to New Orleans for the fifth anniversary last fall, there’s now corporate institutional ego involved in defending the template against the assault of new information. After all, the networks, cable and broadcast bragged big time about the ballsiness of their Katrina coverage,” he said. “Exactly how do you go about retracting a boast?” Veteran journalist W. Joseph Campbell has written at length about media myth-making , including in post-Katrina New Orleans. He discussed much of the media's self-aggrandizing attitude towards its own coverage of Katrina and the aftermath in an interview with NewsBusters . For his part, Shearer stopped short of proclaiming a widespread liberal bias in the news media, Moody reported: On questions of media bias, he said the real slant is not just a liberal vs. conservative issue, but one that bends toward laziness. “Most journalists are vaguely liberal; most media owners are not so vaguely conservative,” he said. “The far more pervasive biases, I suggest, those of logistics of parachuting in and asking cab drivers, ‘what’s the mood here?’” Of course laziness often lends itself to media liberalism, since lazy reporters who (by Shearer's telling) lean left are more likely to incorporate shallow but easily presentable narratives – such as race-centric opposition to Barack Obama or the perpetual “corporation bad, union good” line – into their reporting.
Continue reading …The WikiLeaks founder says he also believes the internet is not a technology that favours freedom of speech The internet is the “greatest spying machine the world has ever seen” and is not a technology that necessarily favours the freedom of speech, the WikiLeaks co-founder, Julian Assange, has claimed in a rare public appearance. Assange acknowledged that the web could allow greater government transparency and better co-operation between activists, but said it gave authorities their best ever opportunity to monitor and catch dissidents. “While the internet has in some ways an ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what government is doing, and to let us co-operate with each other to hold repressive governments and repressive corporations to account, it is also the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen,” he told students at Cambridge University. Hundreds queued for hours to attend. He continued: “It [the web] is not a technology that favours freedom of speech. It is not a technology that favours human rights. It is not a technology that favours civil life. Rather it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen. Or, on the other hand, taken by us, taken by activists, and taken by all those who want a different trajectory for the technological world, it can be something we all hope for.” Assange also suggested that Facebook and Twitter played less of a role in the unrest in the Middle East than has previously been argued by social media commentators and politicians. He said: “Yes [Twitter and Facebook] did play a part, although not nearly as large a part as al-Jazeera. But the guide produced by Egyptian revolutionaries … says on the first page, ‘Do not use Facebook and Twitter’, and says on the last page, ‘Do not use Facebook and Twitter’. “There is a reason for that. There was actually a Facebook revolt in Cairo three or four years ago. It was very small … after it, Facebook was used to round-up all the principal participants. They were then beaten, interrogated and incarcerated.” Assange said that cables released by WikiLeaks played a key role in both fomenting unrest in the Middle East and forcing the US government not to back former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Assange said diplomatic cables concerning US attitudes to the former Tunisian regime had given strength to revolutionary forces across the region. “The Tunisian cables showed clearly that if it came down to it, the US, if it came down to a fight between the military on the one hand, and Ben Ali’s political regime on the other, the US would probably support the military.” He continued: “That is something that must have also caused neighbouring countries to Tunisia some thought: that is that if they militarily intervened, they may not be on the same side as the United States.” Assange, who is appealing against his extradition to Sweden on alleged sex charges, said the WikiLeaks releases had also forced the US to drop their tacit support of Mubarak. “As a result of releasing cables about Suleiman [the vice-president of Egypt under Mubarak], the US and Israel’s preferred option for regime takeover in Egypt, as a result of releasing cables about Mubarak’s approval of Suleiman’s torture methods, it was not possible for Joseph Biden to [repeat his earlier claim that Mubarak was not a dictator]. It was not possible for Hillary Clinton to publicly come out and support Mubarak’s regime.” Responding to a question about Bradley Manning, the US soldier incarcerated for allegedly leaking classified information, Assange said: “We have no idea whether he is one of our sources. All our technology is geared up to make sure we have no idea.” He expressed sympathy for Manning. “He is in a terrible situation. And if he is not connected to us, [then] he is there as an innocent … and if he is in some manner connected to our publications, then of course we have some responsibility. That said, there is no allegation that he was arrested as the result of anything to do with us. The allegation is that he was arrested as a result of him speaking to Wired magazine in the United States.” Assange also criticised the New York Times, which he claimed had suppressed stories about secret American military activity in Afghanistan. Julian Assange WikiLeaks Internet Patrick Kingsley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media The details about Schaeffer Cox, the Alaska militiaman arrested in a plot to kill and kidnap state troopers and local judges, are starting to emerge — and they have a distinctly familiar ring to them. From the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Details emerge in alleged plot to kill Alaska State Troopers judge State court documents made available Friday detail the murders and kidnappings allegedly planned by Schaeffer Cox and militia followers as well as the secret FBI recordings that helped expose the plan. The plan, which members of Cox’s Peacemakers Militia reportedly code-named “241” (two for one), was created as a potential retaliatory response to any attempt by law enforcement to arrest Cox, who had an outstanding bench warrant for not attending a trial over a misdemeanor weapons charge. Under the plan, Cox and other militia members would kidnap two law enforcement officers or court officials for every militia member arrested. They would kill two officials in retaliation for every militia member killed in any conflict with authorities. The document accuses the group of assembling an arsenal that included pineapple grenades allegedly stolen from Fort Wainwright, multiple tripod-mounted machine guns and “dozens of other high-powered assault rifles and pistols.” The court documents don’t say whether search warrants for the weapons were obtained, or if the weapons have been seized. Most of the information in the charging documents come from private militia “command staff” meetings “lawfully recorded by the FBI through technological means available to them.” Four of the five defendants accused of conspiring to murder and kidnap are described discussing the plan in a 17-page criminal complaint. Besides Cox, the co-defendants are Coleman Barney, 36, of the North Pole area and Salcha residents Lonnie Vernon, 55 his wife and Karen Vernon, 66. It’s abundantly clear that Cox is following the career of so many “sovereign citizens” before him — from Gordon Kahl to Randy and Vicki Weaver to Jerry and Joe Kane : You start out as a laughable loony nutcase who believes in an alternative universe constructed of provably untrue conspiracy theories, and you end up a violent, extremist nutcase willing to gun down federal officers. You can observe this gradual but inexorable career arc just in the videos Cox made before his arrest, including the above interview with a fundamentalist pastor made in January. In it, you can hear Cox’s violent fantasies starting to bubble up, even as he claims to have 3,500 members in his Alaska militia organization: COX: If there came a time where they were endangering my family, you bet I would kill those federal agents. And what kind of a father and husband would I be if I wouldn’t? Would I sacrifice my family on the altar of submission to the wicked state? No, that would be despicable, we would highly criticize anybody who did that, stood by and watched in history. And we’ve got to reckon with the fact that that’s our time right now. Now, we have those agents — with 3500 guys we have tremendous resources at our disposal. And we had those guys under 24-hour surveillance — the six trouble-causers that came up from the federal government. And we could have had them killed within 20 minutes of giving the order. But we didn’t because they had not yet done it. Of course, you will notice that since Cox’s arrest, those supposed 3500 militiamen have been pretty nonexistent on the scene, and none of the law-enforcement officers involved in his arrest have been subject to any kind of retaliation at all. You can also hearing him make the usual disclaimers that they kick out any “violent” types from militias — which, as always, are about as reliable as the Minutemen’s similar disclaimers. Dermot Cole at the News-Miner has more details on Cox’s background: Schaeffer Cox told a “National Collective Consciousness Call” in January that law enforcement officers and the court system in Fairbanks always treated him with “total respect” because they feared the firepower of his militia. There is no independent verification of how big or small his group is, but he has repeatedly claimed he had 3,500 members under his command. The 26-year-old Cox said he was treated like a foreign diplomat by the Alaska courts and didn’t have to follow the rules “because I am not of them.” “They never make me take my hat off or say ‘your honor’ or stand up like that. I refer to them as the ‘alleged judge’ or ‘your administrativeness.’ And I don’t do anything. The police are always ‘oh yes sir, yes sir,’ very nice there. “And they’re doing that because they know we’ve got ‘em outmanned and outgunned,” he said on the Jan. 6 conference call, a recording of which is posted on the American Underground Network website http://aunetwork.tv/. He said he told an “alleged judge” last year he could give an order for his militia members to “stand down,” but he couldn’t guarantee they would listen if they thought the case against Cox was politically motivated. “From one father to another father, I don’t want to put my influence to the test while the lives of you and your children are on the line,” he said he told the judge. “I said if you want a bloody fight, if you want a war, then we’ve got one hell of a war with your name on it. But if you want peace, well then that’s what we want too,” Cox said. Likewise, David Holthouse has the full rundown on Alaska’s increasingly unhinged and violent “Patriot” movement scene: As it stands, other Alaska militia leaders are rallying to Cox’s defense in regards to the firearms case, while making no mention of his other legal troubles. “Allow me to state that I am behind Schaeffer Cox 100 percent,” says Norm Olson, leader of the Kenai Peninsula-based Alaska Citizens Militia. “His [sovereign citizen] argument is valid. The court that is claiming jurisdiction is an ‘Admiralty Court’ constructed under statute laws of the corporation known as The State of Alaska. Schaeffer wants to be tried in a court of common law where he can face his accuser directly and try the law as well as the evidence before him. Mr. Cox is fully aware that a jury that is called to listen to the charges has the right and duty to try not only the evidence, but to judge the correctness of the law itself. Schaeffer is not unwilling to be tried, but he wants to plead his case before a common law court with a jury of his peers. Can he expect that in Alaska? Only time will tell.” Before we get into Olson’s reference to Admiralty Courts and Common Law and other Sovereign Citizen gobbledygook, it’s worth airing his take on the militia movement in Alaska. After all, Olson’s a militia O.G. Olson started the Michigan Militia in 1994 and helped turn that state into a hotbed of right-wing extremist activity in the mid-to-late 1990s. Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols attended a Michigan Militia meeting not long before the terrorist attack he carried out with Timothy McVeigh. Asked to assess the current strength of the militia movement in Alaska, Olson offered this response: “Of course I cannot answer that question. To do so would risk compromising our operational objectives and resources. Suffice it to say that we are ‘nowhere and everywhere.’ I will say that any move against one of our units or members is actually a way of bringing central government abuses into the forefront of the community’s awareness. The ongoing persecution of Schaeffer Cox is a boon to our enlistment efforts.” Here are some earlier clips of Cox in action. In these, you can see Cox cocoon himself in the sovereign-citizen alternative universe, and his rhetoric becomes increasingly violent and paranoid: Click here to view this media This is a story that has played itself out a number of times over the past twenty years — I’ve witnessed a number of court hearings involving “sovereign citizens” trying to impose their fabricated “legal” system on the real world — and it never has a happy outcome. Inevitably, as they become hardened in their belief that their legal fantasy is reality, there comes a confrontation with law enforcement. Often, both sides suffer harm — but only one side loses. In my first book, In God’s Country: The Patriot Movement and the Pacific Northwest , I devoted most of the second chapter to describing the dynamics of this alternative universe: The Patriot movement appears to operate in the mainstream world, but truthfully, it does not. Rather, its believers reside in a different universe — one dominated by an evil government and a conspiracy to destroy America. Agents of the dark side lurk in every gathering, pawns embodied in every disbeliever. Proof of this hidden reality can be found in everyday news stories and ordinary documents, if only seen with the right eyes. The alternative reality that becomes life in the Patriot movement is like a big quilt, a patchwork of factual items — United Nations reports, government documents, news stories — that are patched together with other less credible information — black helicopter sightings, suggestions of troop movements, and the like. The thread that weaves them all together is a paranoid belief in the vast conspiracy; even if items don’t appear to fit together, the irrational fear driving the movement will overlook potential conflicts. Everyone is free to make a contribution: a military-vehicle sighting here, an obscure document there. Believers are free to ignore some patches if they happen to disagree with any singular contribution, so long as the quilt itself hangs together as an all-encompassing blanket. The dwellers in this otherworld can be found not just in the wilds of Montana among the most radical believers like the Freemen. They can be found seemingly everywhere in the Northwest: in suburban conference centers, in rural town halls, in small Bible study groups. Step into one of the militias’ organizing meetings — typically held in small community halls in rural areas and towns outlying urban centers — and you will have walked into this world. … By challenging the mainstream view — that the world is essentially a safe place, that the nation is, in general, functional, even if it has problems — the Patriots persuade their followers to place themselves outside the rest of society. Simultaneously, they offer a social structure of their own, drawn together by a Patriot sensibility that informs every aspect of the followers’ lives: legal, religious, even business behavior becomes an expression of their beliefs. This is how people are drawn into the alternative universe of the Patriots, a world in which the same events occur as those that befall the rest of us, but all are seen through a different lens. Anything that makes it into a newspaper or the evening broadcast — say, flooding in the Cascades, or the arrival of U.S. troops in Bosnia — may be just another story for most of us, but to a Patriot, these widely disparate events all are connected to the conspiracy. Believers tend to organize in small local groups. They all have similar-sounding names — Concerned Citizens for Constitutional Law, Alliance for America, and the like. They play host to the touring Patriots, the local leaders nervously introducing their admired guests. These groups operate out of the public limelight, on a low-level communications system: a combination of mailings, faxes and even Internet postings all advertise the meetings locally and regionally. Rarely does an announcement make the local mainstream press. Most of the Patriots’ real recruiting takes place before the meetings, by word of mouth. It usually works like this: John, a Patriot, tells Joe, a co-worker at his plant who’s going through a divorce, that he can find out “what’s really going on’’ by attending a militia meeting. The Patriots, Joe is told, have answers to the moral decay that’s behind the way men get screwed in divorce cases. Joe attends. He thinks the New World Order theories might be possible. He buys a video tape, maybe a book. It all starts to fit together. So this is why he hasn’t been able to get ahead in the world economically, he tells himself. He attends another meeting. Pretty soon he’s getting “Taking Aim’’ in the mail. Joe tells his neighbor Sam about the Patriots. Sam is dubious, but he’s been having a hell of a time paying his taxes, and Joe passes on what he knows about the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve from the Patriot literature he’s read. Sam is intrigued. He reads some of Joe’s material. He goes to the next meeting with Joe. A month or two later, Sam starts drawing up papers to declare himself a “sovereign citizen.’’ Sam goes to a picnic outing at his parents’ house. His older brother Jeff, an engineer at Boeing, asks Sam about the “sovereign citizen’’ stuff. Sam explains. Jeff, too, is dubious, but he also happens to be a gun collector and sometime hunter, and he’s received mailings from the National Rifle Association that lead him to wonder if there isn’t something to this whole militia thing. When Sam starts talking about how the government is out of control, passing unconstitutional laws like the Brady Bill, Jeff tunes in. A month later, he, too, sits in on a Patriot town-hall meeting. One by one it builds. Any of a number of vital issues — land use, property rights, banking, economics, politics, gun control, abortion, education, welfare — can serve as a drawing card. In many cases, they are deeply divisive, polarizing matters that the mainstream fails to adequately address. Once recruits pass through any of these gateways into the Patriot universe, they are drawn further, inexorably. What once seemed like a screwed-up government has become monstrously, palpably evil. Then they learn about Patriot legal theories from people like the Freemen or from Schroder and DeMott: * The Federal Reserve is bankrupt, a front for a phony system, run by private corporations, of printing money that really only helps keep rich bankers awash in cash. * The Internal Revenue Service is illegal. Federal taxes actually are strictly voluntary. * You can exempt yourself from paying federal taxes by filing a statement declaring yourself a “sovereign citizen.’’ This ostensibly frees you from obligation to the United States — which Patriots say is just an illegal corporation based in Washington, D.C. — by nullifying your participation in the federal citizenship status established by the 14th Amendment. * This distinction, arguing that only the 14th Amendment extends federal citizenship to minorities, forms the basis for the Patriots’ contention that only white male Christian property owners enjoy full citizenship under the “organic Constitution.’’ * In fact, the only valid U.S. Constitution is this “organic Constitution’’ — that is, the main body of the Constitution and the first ten amendments, or the Bill of Rights. Patriots believe the remaining amendments either should be repealed or were approved illegally anyway. In any case, they would end the prohibition of slavery (13th Amendment); equal protection under the law (14th Amendment); prohibitions against racial or ethnic discrimination (15th Amendment); the income tax (16th Amendment); direct election of Senators (17th Amendment); the vote for women (19th Amendment); and a host of other constitutional protections passed since the time of the Founders. * Establishing “sovereign citizenship,’’ or “Quiet Title’’ (which similarly declares a person a “freeman’’), exempts a person from the rules of “equity courts,’’ which means you don’t have to pay for licenses, building permits, or traffic citations, not to mention taxes. * The only real courts with power are the “common law’’ courts comprised of sovereign citizens, which have the power to issue rulings and liens against public officials they deem to have overstepped their bounds. If these officials fail to uphold the common-law courts, they can be found guilty of treason, and threatened with the appropriate penalty: hanging. It is at this end of the Patriot universe that much of its deeper agenda is revealed. When Patriots talk about “restoring the Constitution,’’ what they often have in mind is a campaign to roll back protections embodied in a wide range of amendments, as well as establishing a reading of the Second Amendment radically different from the one traditionally accepted by the U.S. court system. It also is at this end of the universe that the charges of divisiveness and racism often leveled at the Patriots take on some weight. Plainly, the constitutional rollbacks would return the American system to a time when racial justice was not a considered concept. Not surprisingly, this is where the Patriots most closely resemble, and arguably are directly descended from, openly racist and anti-Semitic belief systems like those found in the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, and the Posse Comitatus. Most of these views are often dismissed by the mainstream legal profession as simple nonsense promoted by crackpots. And for the most part, the Patriots’ legal theories completely disintegrate when factually examined in the cold light of day. Nonetheless, the movement’s ranks continue to grow, and the mainstream courts, particularly in rural jurisdictions, now are faced with a sudden deluge of “common law’’ documents that throw an already overburdened system into a tangle. All the same, there is no law against being a crackpot. Otherwise, hundreds of Elvis sighters and UFO abductees would be rotting in prison cells alongside the Patriots, most of whom also are quite free to spread their conspiracy theories. The concern, rather, is what happens when the agenda of the Patriots, constructed out of an insular, paranoiac view of reality, tries to assert itself in the mainstream world. If their form of “republic’’ comes to be, most of society’s current protections against racial injustice would vanish. Believers’ attempts to effect this agenda is certain to come into real conflict with mainstream Americans. Moreover, when Patriots begin to threaten public officials with hanging and other kinds of bodily harm, the potential for violence enters into the picture. “What is going on in our society when somebody can come up with an idea like this, and a package of materials like this, and attract 200 people to a community meeting?’’ wonders Ken Toole, director of the Montana Human Rights Network. Toole has attended many of the sessions. “To me, it’s almost like a canary in a coal mine, and it’s very indicative of how negative and hostile we’ve become about ourselves — that somehow these people have managed to objectify the government at all levels, blame it for all kinds of things, and look for a way to kind of focus that anger.’’
Continue reading …Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Tuesday, “The 3,400 members of the mainstream media are part of the Obama press contingent.” Appearing on the “Laura Ingraham Show, ” Bachmann addressed all the liberal hyperventilating that occurred after her gaffe about Lexington and Concord being in New Hampshire rather than Massachusetts (video follows with transcript and commentary): RAYMOND ARROYO, GUEST HOST: Are you surprised by the ferocity of the criticism over this? REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINNESOTA): No, no not at all, because we all know there's a double standard in the media. And of course when President Obama said that there had been a tornado in Kansas, and 10,000 people had been killed, that wasn’t considered newsworthy when he was campaigning for president. And then he said that he was in 57 states and he was on his way to the 58th, and of course that wasn’t considered newsworthy, because as we all know, the 3,400 members of the mainstream media are part of the Obama press contingent. And this is just what we get. So it doesn’t matter which conservative is out there, if, if, if a error is made, in any way, that’s what is stated. They didn’t talk about the great crowds, the standing ovations, the wonderful time that we had in New Hampshire, and that is just the way it goes. I think that that is what we as conservatives understand. ARROYO: Yeah, or when President Obama said the military corpse were before him instead of the mili, the Marine Corps. BACHMANN: Right. ARROYO: But that, too, escaped coverage. BACHMANN: Right, it’s not considered interesting. Right, it’s not, only if a conservative makes a misstep is it considered interesting. Despite her misstep this weekend, Bachmann was spot on with her commentary Tuesday. The microscope conservatives are under – especially female conservatives – is possibly like nothing we've ever seen. If Democrats were judged this keenly, the gaffe machine of Obama-Biden would never have won in 2008. Sadly, this double standard is going to continue, which means that for someone like Bachmann to advance in her political career, she's going to have to pitch a perfect game. That may be asking too much, but in this era of advocacy journalism, it's the harsh reality. (H/T RCP )
Continue reading …Andrew Lansley’s plans for the NHS cause increasing disquiet among doctors as BMA demands he rethink pro-market changes GPs could more than double their income to £300,000 a year under health secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans for the NHS, according to an analysis for the Guardian – sparking calls from top doctors for the government to reverse controversial policies that would appear to reward physicians who ration care. The revelation comes after the British Medical Association voted to scrap the “dangerous” health bill and demanded that Lansley rethink his radical pro-market changes to the NHS. GPs are central to the government’s programme, and by 2013 will have to band together into consortiums before being handed £80bn of NHS funds to commission care for their patients. At the heart of many doctors’ concerns lies the possibility that, under the reforms, GPs’ pay will be linked to rationing patient care; in essence, being rewarded for saving the taxpayer money. Doctors’ leaders warned that the public would view as “unethical” any move towards a GP’s assessment of a person’s medical need being coloured by a profit motive. At the start of a three-part series on the future of the NHS, the Guardian commissioned Kieran Walshe, professor of health policy and management at Manchester Business School and an adviser to the Commons health select committee, to examine how GPs could profit from the reforms. His work shows GPs could more than double their average pay of £105,000 to £300,000 a year as a direct result of the reforms. At present fewer than 3% of GPs earn more than £200,000 – but Walshe suggests such salaries could become the norm. The pay of family doctors has been a source of dispute since a 2004 deal saw the average annual salary rise from £60,000 to more than £100,000. The prospect of more cash for GPs at a time of austerity and government cuts could prove deeply unpopular with the public. According to Walshe, the most lucrative ventures would see GPs setting up private companies that would turn underspends in their annual budget – in effect, savings on patient spending – into profits. He calculates that individual GPs could net more than £140,000 a year in extra income by saving 5% in commissioning costs. Another £55,000 of income each would come from taking on the responsibility of managing their local population’s needs. A quality premium is also on offer – rewarding financial performance of GP consortiums – as well as the chance for family doctors to create businesses to sell treatments to patients. Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, told the Guardian: “GPs and patients share a unique relationship of trust. If the perception of that trusting relationship is undone then that would have serious consequences for patient care.” One of the key motions passed by the BMA – in its first emergency meeting for 19 years – warned that the relationship between doctors and patients “will be threatened if GP practice remuneration is dependent on rationing decisions [or] the requirement to balance commissioning budgets”. The Department of Health insisted consortiums would not be allowed to make profits by underspending. A spokesperson said the bill would see the NHS regulator Monitor and the new NHS national commissioning board intervene “where there are concerns about the fairness of commissioning decisions. A consortium’s commissioning budget must be used exclusively for patient care. We will not allow a situation where profits can be made at the expense of patient care or patient choice.” But the BMA condemned Lansley’s plans as “too extreme and too rushed … [they] will negatively impact on patient care”. Some 400 representatives of local groups of doctors called on Lansley to “call a halt to the proposed top down reorganisation of the NHS [and] withdraw the health and social care bill”. Labour sought to capitalise on the growing opposition to the bill, which burst open at the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference, when its membership voted to amend the NHS bill so that it promoted “co-operation rather than competition” and asked for half the seats on the boards of GP commissioning consortiums to be reserved for local councillors. Ed Miliband will seek a vote on the NHS reforms in parliamenton Wednesday – hoping to draw out Lib Dem rebels. Lib Dem MPs were meeting to decide how to vote in the Commons debate, but were not expected to vote with Labour.No 10 described the BMA’s general meeting as unrepresentative of its membership. Simon Burns, the NHS minister, said “it has been a day of confusing messages from the … BMA. Fortunately our policy of protecting the NHS’s budget and its values remains clear.” NHS Andrew Lansley Health policy Health Randeep Ramesh Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Andrew Lansley’s plans for the NHS cause increasing disquiet among doctors as BMA demands he rethink pro-market changes GPs could more than double their income to £300,000 a year under health secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans for the NHS, according to an analysis for the Guardian – sparking calls from top doctors for the government to reverse controversial policies that would appear to reward physicians who ration care. The revelation comes after the British Medical Association voted to scrap the “dangerous” health bill and demanded that Lansley rethink his radical pro-market changes to the NHS. GPs are central to the government’s programme, and by 2013 will have to band together into consortiums before being handed £80bn of NHS funds to commission care for their patients. At the heart of many doctors’ concerns lies the possibility that, under the reforms, GPs’ pay will be linked to rationing patient care; in essence, being rewarded for saving the taxpayer money. Doctors’ leaders warned that the public would view as “unethical” any move towards a GP’s assessment of a person’s medical need being coloured by a profit motive. At the start of a three-part series on the future of the NHS, the Guardian commissioned Kieran Walshe, professor of health policy and management at Manchester Business School and an adviser to the Commons health select committee, to examine how GPs could profit from the reforms. His work shows GPs could more than double their average pay of £105,000 to £300,000 a year as a direct result of the reforms. At present fewer than 3% of GPs earn more than £200,000 – but Walshe suggests such salaries could become the norm. The pay of family doctors has been a source of dispute since a 2004 deal saw the average annual salary rise from £60,000 to more than £100,000. The prospect of more cash for GPs at a time of austerity and government cuts could prove deeply unpopular with the public. According to Walshe, the most lucrative ventures would see GPs setting up private companies that would turn underspends in their annual budget – in effect, savings on patient spending – into profits. He calculates that individual GPs could net more than £140,000 a year in extra income by saving 5% in commissioning costs. Another £55,000 of income each would come from taking on the responsibility of managing their local population’s needs. A quality premium is also on offer – rewarding financial performance of GP consortiums – as well as the chance for family doctors to create businesses to sell treatments to patients. Dr Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, told the Guardian: “GPs and patients share a unique relationship of trust. If the perception of that trusting relationship is undone then that would have serious consequences for patient care.” One of the key motions passed by the BMA – in its first emergency meeting for 19 years – warned that the relationship between doctors and patients “will be threatened if GP practice remuneration is dependent on rationing decisions [or] the requirement to balance commissioning budgets”. The Department of Health insisted consortiums would not be allowed to make profits by underspending. A spokesperson said the bill would see the NHS regulator Monitor and the new NHS national commissioning board intervene “where there are concerns about the fairness of commissioning decisions. A consortium’s commissioning budget must be used exclusively for patient care. We will not allow a situation where profits can be made at the expense of patient care or patient choice.” But the BMA condemned Lansley’s plans as “too extreme and too rushed … [they] will negatively impact on patient care”. Some 400 representatives of local groups of doctors called on Lansley to “call a halt to the proposed top down reorganisation of the NHS [and] withdraw the health and social care bill”. Labour sought to capitalise on the growing opposition to the bill, which burst open at the Liberal Democrats’ spring conference, when its membership voted to amend the NHS bill so that it promoted “co-operation rather than competition” and asked for half the seats on the boards of GP commissioning consortiums to be reserved for local councillors. Ed Miliband will seek a vote on the NHS reforms in parliamenton Wednesday – hoping to draw out Lib Dem rebels. Lib Dem MPs were meeting to decide how to vote in the Commons debate, but were not expected to vote with Labour.No 10 described the BMA’s general meeting as unrepresentative of its membership. Simon Burns, the NHS minister, said “it has been a day of confusing messages from the … BMA. Fortunately our policy of protecting the NHS’s budget and its values remains clear.” NHS Andrew Lansley Health policy Health Randeep Ramesh Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Radiation hits harmful levels at Fukushima plant • Prime minister urges public to remain calm • Struggle to supply food, fuel, water and medicine Fears of a catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan escalated following a third explosion and a fire in another reactor that caused radiation to rise to harmful levels. Fifty to 70 technicians were left to struggle with the possible breach of the containment vessel in reactor No 2, where meltdown is feared. All but non-essential staff were ordered away from the plant. That blast is thought to be the most serious yet because it may have damaged the crucial containment vessel that surrounds the nuclear core and prevents radiation from leaking out. Any damage to the reactor’s steel containment system caused by the explosion increases the risk that radiation will be released from the core, though IAEA officials said the damage is minor and there appeared to be no immediate danger of radiation escaping. The explosion was followed by a fire at a storage pond at reactor 4, where spent fuel rods were being cooled. Although the fire was extinguished, officials were concerned that the pool could boil dry and expose fuel rods to the atmosphere. The fire led to a brief spike in radiation that reached a dose known to be dangerous to health, although levels dropped substantially later in the day. While the disaster has become the biggest nuclear accident since Chernobyl and one that is more serious than Three Mile Island, experts stressed that even the worst-case scenario would still be on a fraction of the scale of the 1986 disaster in the Ukraine. Japan’s prime minister, Naoto Kan, urged the public to remain calm in a televised address, but ordered anyone still within the 13-mile (20km) exclusion zone to leave immediately, and the 140,000 residents within 19 miles to stay indoors. Officials said that health risks to anyone further than 13 miles from the plant were minimal, but the escalating problems have diminished public confidence. Survivors within the disaster zone expressed distrust in officials and the power station’s operators. Several airlines cancelled services to Tokyo, and flights out of Japan quickly sold out as foreigners fled the country. The prime minister, already embattled before the disaster, is under pressure over his handling of the crisis, particularly over the way the nuclear situation has spiralled despite reassurances from officials. The struggle to ensure supplies of food, water, fuel and medicine to an area stricken by Friday’s earthquake and tsunami left the government facing battles on two fronts. The number confirmed dead or missing by police rose above 10,000, Japan’s largest death toll in a natural disaster since the Great Kanto earthquake of 1923, Kyodo news agency said. Forecasters have warned that temperatures are dropping to mid-winter levels across the disaster zone, with snow predicted in several areas. Half a million people have been displaced by the disaster and evacuation from the nuclear zone, with Save the Children saying 100,000 children are affected. Shelters and hospitals are running low on fuel and blankets. In Ishinomaki, Patrick Fuller of the International Federation of Red Cross said: “The tsunami engulfed half the town and many lie shivering uncontrollably under blankets. They are suffering from hypothermia having been stranded in their homes without water or electricity.” The Chinese government said last night it was organising a mass evacuation of its citizens from the north-east of Japan. Tokyo was shaken by a 6.2 magnitude earthquake , but it was not immediately clear if it was an aftershock. It was centred in Shizuoka prefecture, hundreds of miles south-west of the capital and inland. It was not immediately clear if it was related to last Friday’s tremor. . Japan earthquake and tsunami Natural disasters and extreme weather Japan Nuclear power Energy Utilities Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …