• Email tom.lutz@guardian.co.uk with all your musings • Press F5 to refresh this page or use our auto-refresher • Follow Tom on Twitter if that’s your thing • Watch World Cup video highlights, interviews and more 56 min: Romania retain the pressure after a scrum-five. Various forwards attempt to crash over but England hold firm. The ball eventually finds its way to England off a stray Romanian boot but they caused England problems for far too long then. 55.04 min: Armitage is on for Foden at full-back. 55 min: Romania have another line-out near the England line but lose out again. They have been pathetic in that area today. Romania continue to pressure though. “This seems a tiny bit better from England, though the way the ITV commentators are going on you’d think it was France they were thrashing,” says Dan Lucas. “I find myself shouting (tweeting) ‘I don’t care what Phil Vickery thinks’, then realising that sentiment suggests that Phil Vickery is capable of thought.” Yup, England are playing well now but this is a second-string Romania side. The cheerleading when England were struggling early on was odd. 52 min: Pressure from Romania, who get within five metres of England’s line. They can’t win the line-out though and England clear. Moody’s lost his contact lens which is floating somewhere behind his eyeball. He’ll need to get a scalpel on that later. 50 min: Mears is on for Thompson. TRY!!!! England 44-3 Romania: Foden gets the score. England win the line-out, the ball comes to Tuilagi, who crashes through the Romania line. Foden’s finish is simplicity itself. Flood gets the conversion to make it England 46-3 Romania . 48 min: England decide to run it, which they do but backwards. Flood eventually clears. Hang on, why are they clearing if they’re on the run? 46 min: May be tougher for England in the second-half. Romania have brought on a few of their better players – they were rested in the first-half that they’d decided they couldn’t win. 45 min: Romania miss the penalty, Dumbrave from distance. 44 min: Romania find some space and look half-threatening but drop the ball. They then win a penalty – they weren’t back 10 metres. TRY!!! England 39-3 Youngs romps home. Manu Tuilagi breaks and hands off to Youngs, who trots home. Not a Romanian tackle to be seen. Flood misses the conversion. 41 min: Wilton is on for Cole and Flood is in for Wilkinson. Half-time: Romania have a good chance to score at the end of the half. Thompson is caught offside after Romania nearly break through following a clever chip. Dumbrava takes the kick from the resulting penalty but hits the post. Like many of the big sides playing against the minor nations this World Cup, England started very slowly but their wingers made the difference. 40 min: Moody’s getting treatment after colliding with a team-mate. Romania have another penalty but miss from long-distance. 37 min: Romania get points on the board after Dumbrava slots over the penalty. That’s how England opened the scoring, so there’s still hope yet. England 34-3 Romania . TRY!!!! England 32-0 Romania: Ashton gets his second. Youngs draws his man, Thompson has a wee run before passing to Ashton who has a straight run for the try. Wilkinson then makes in England 34-0 Romania with the conversion. 34 min: Much, much better from England in the last 10 minutes or so. Although Poparlan nearly intercepts a pass which, in all probability, would have led to a try. TRY!! England 25-0 Romania: Line-out for England. Haskell unloads to Ashton who fends off his man before nipping between two and touching down. Wilkinson gets the conversion England 27-0 Romania . 29 min: Brief scare for England as Dumitras chunters through their line but Romania are eventually stutter after they fail to release the ball. TRY!!!! England 20-0 Romania: England nick the ball from a ruck and flow up the pitch. Cueto gets the final pass and dives over for his hat-trick, or is it? It’s referred to replay, there was doubt he touched down but it’s given. Wilkinson can’t make the conversion from way over on the left. 25 min: Wilkinson chips the ball to Ashton, the first attempt at showboating and a welcome one too. TRY!!!!! England 13-0 Romania: England steal possession after the Romania line-out. Youngs takes a quick tap after England spread the play and Cueto breaks over the line after a few nice dummies. Wilkinson’s conversion is successful: England 15-0 Romania . 20 min: Romania are a sloppy side, which makes England’s failure to break them down consistently disappointing. Poparlan gets treatment from the medic, which consists of water being poured on his head. It works too. 18 min: I had to check it was Ashton who had set up that try, he almost seemed to be playing at centre. England: the maverick’s workhorses. TRY!!!! England 8-0 Romania: Cueto dives home. Ashton created it, speeding through a hole in the Romania defence and Cueto had the easiest of finishes. Wilkinson drags the conversion wide. 15 min: Romania don’t release and Wilkinson finds touch from the kick. England have a line-out a few metres out. Croft is penalised for obstruction though – Johnson raises his eyes to the heavens. On the plus side, England are winning. 12 min: Sirbu, the Romanian scrum-half, has a nice jinking run then produces a kick behind that is nearly run down by a team-mate. England clear though. 11 min: Romania give away a penalty but Wilkinson can’t find touch. England really haven’t been too impressive in terms of doing the simple things right yet. 8 min: England penalised again as they attack. Not the most disciplined of starts. Romania’s line-out didn’t look straight to me but no matter England soon win possession but a forward pass disrupts their momentum. Well, stops it. 6 min: England surge towards the Romania line, but they’re done for not releasing a few metres from the line and their opponents clear. 4 min: Interesting that Australia didn’t attempt a single kick at goal yesterday against USA, while England took the three points at the first opportunity. 3 min: Romania attempt an early attack down the ground, which lasts about 5 metres. England are soon on the attack and win a penalty, which they decide to kick at goal. Jonny splits the posts. England 3-0 Romania. “Ulysses?!” splutters Peter Gibbs. ” This is more exciting . 1 min: We’re off. Having just walked through King’s Cross at 6am I can report the atmosphere is electric: just saw loads of kids pouring out of a club, their eyes shining, their jaws working furiously as they chewed gum, presumably to relieve the tension. This match has gripped people who don’t even look like rugby fans. 6.53am: Dressing room watch: Romania are in a huddle. Steve Thompson tries to form one in the England dressing room but everyone ignores him. Ah, hang on Lewis Moody just joined him. Good captaincy. 6.51am: The only thing more exciting on a Saturday morning than an England pool match: 6.47am: “This match was a bit hard to get up for,” says Peter Gibbs. Not if your bedtime is 9pm anyway, Peter! “Predictions?” I will say England 56-7 Romania and Martin Johnson’s team still to get criticised by the press. 6.40am: A few facts and figures for you. • England are assured of a quarter-final place if they win today and Argentina fail to beat Scotland on Sunday • England have not lost a World Cup match against European opponents since 1995, when they were beaten by France. Romania aren’t as good as France. • England have never lost a World Cup match against a team from outside the Tri Nations and Six Nations. Romania are not part of the Tri Nations or Six Nations. • After two matches at this World Cup, Romania were one of two teams not to produce a single clean line break. Samoa were the other. • In their first two matches, Romania conceded 26 penalties. Only Australia conceded more (27) in their first two matches. That means lots of opportunities for kicks at goal, the choice of the discerning neutral. Morning. First up, your teams for today: England: 15 Ben Foden, 14 Chris Ashton, 13 Manu Tuilagi, 12 Mike Tindall, 11 Mark Cueto, 10 Jonny Wilkinson, 9 Ben Youngs, 1 Alex Corbisiero, Steve Thompson, 3 Dan Cole, 4 Louis Deacon, 5 Tom Palmer, 6 Tom Croft, 7 Lewis Moody (capt), 8 James Haskell. Replacements: 16 Lee Mears, 17 David Wilson, 18 Simon Shaw, 19 Tom Wood, 20 Richard Wigglesworth, 21 Toby Flood, 22 Delon Armitage. Romania: 15 Florin Adrian Vlaicu, 14 Stefan Eugen Ciuntu, 13 Ionel Cazan, 12 Iulian Dumitras, 11 Adrian Marian Apostol, 10 Marin Danut Dumbrava, 9 Lucian Mihai Sirbu, 8 Ovidiu Tonita, 7 Cosmin Aurel Ratiu, 6 Sandu Stelian Burcea, 5 Cristian Constantin Petre (capt), 4 Valentin Poparlan, 3 Silviu Florea, 2 Bogdan Zebega Suman, 1 Nicolae Nere. Replacements: 16 Marius Tincu, 17 Paulica Ion, 18 Mihai Macovei, 19 Daniel Gabriel Ianus, 20 Valentin Nicolae Calafeteanu, 21 Csaba Minya Gal, 22 Catalin Marius Nicolae. Mike Tindall, who has apparently been in the news of late, returns to the team as do Jonny Wilkinson, Mark Cueto, Steve Thompson, Alex Corbisiero, Tom Croft and Louis Deacon. England will, of course win this game, but it’s the manner of victory that’s important. The fact is that people back home want entertainment at ridiculously early times on a Saturday morning. Down the years Ceefax has provided it, the Open University has provided it, Ulysses 31 has provided it. Why can’t England? Rugby World Cup 2011 England rugby union team Romania rugby union team Rugby union Tom Lutz guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
To his critics, he’s guilty of turning pop into factory farming, mocking the afflicted, skewing the values of a generation. To his fans, he is an
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media You just can’t please some people. In the eyes of National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, President Barack Obama’s decision not to pursue gun control legislation is a “massive conspiracy,” and just another reason not to give him a second term. “[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.” “But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.” “Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared. “Sotomayor, Kagan, Fast & Furious, the United Nations, executive orders. Those are the facts we face today… President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners. Some in the liberal media, they are already probably blogging about it. But we don’t care because the lying, conniving Obama crowd can kiss our Constitution!” Gun control advocates have criticized the president for not pushing for new gun control legislation in the wake of a January shooting that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-AZ) in serious condition and six others dead.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was on CNN this morning, promoting the latest outrage: $16 muffins at Department of Justice conferences. CNN was only too happy to provide a forum for his nonsense. Kevin Drum at Mother Jones looked into this “scandal” and was unsurprisingly underwhelmed. So did DOJ really pay $16 for muffins? Of course not. In fact, it’s obvious that someone quite carefully calculated the amount they were allowed to spend and then gave the hotel a budget. The hotel agreed, but for some reason decided to divide up the charges into just a few categories instead of writing a detailed invoice for every single piece of food they provided. This is unremarkable. In fact, I’m here to tell you that this happens All. The. Time. I’ve been involved in what feels like a thousand conferences of this kind, and I’d be shocked if it happened any other way. –snip– None of this is to say that DOJ didn’t overspend on its conferences. In fact, it sounds like they did — though in some cases this was just an artifact of applying overhead costs to the food instead of accounting for it separately. But the $16 muffin? That’s a myth. It’ll never die now that it’s been delivered to posterity thanks to some enthusiast in the OIG who broke out a calculator and mistakenly assumed they could calculate actual costs this way, but it’s still a myth. And reading through the report (pgs 32-33) it takes about 5 seconds to realize where the money went. ($39,500 ÷ 5 days) ÷ 534 attendees, and not surmise that a whole more than 300 muffins were eaten that entire week. Chuck Grassley may be the biggest horse’s patoot in a senate replete with them. Or it could just be that he’s a wily old codger who just knows how to play the game with the media with this bit of foolishness, as even a cursory examination of the facts would have shown. Whatever the case, CNN and the rest get pwned yet again. (note: The entire segment lasted well over 6 minutes but I didn’t feel I could in good conscience subject you to that, Dear Readers, so I’ve cut in down to 3. Feel free to listen to the Frank Zappa song below if you need to get the bad taste out after the CNN video above.) UPDATE: WASHINGTON — The government did not pay $16 apiece for breakfast muffins at a Justice Department conference, no matter what the department’s inspector general thinks. So says Hilton Worldwide, which hosted the 2009 legal training conference in Washington. Even the IG’s own report issued this week acknowledges that for the price paid, they also got some free fruit and drinks. Hilton Worldwide, which manages and franchises hotels including the Capital Hilton where the conference took place, says the price included not only breakfast baked goods but also fresh fruit, coffee, tea, soft drinks, tax and tips. It says the report misinterpreted its invoices, which often use shorthand and don’t reflect the full menu and service provided.
Continue reading …
Popular British reality singing competition “The X Factor” aired in the U.S. Sept. 21 to a TV audience of roughly 12 million , all tuning in to hear the raw pipes of undiscovered talent. But the studio audience, judges and Fox TV viewers got more than they bargained for, when an unassuming contestant let it all out on stage. Much in the vein of American Idol, “The X Factor” show is a reality singing competition in which a panel of judges (including Simon Cowell and Paula Abdul from the original “American Idol” panel) determines which singer or group has “The X Factor” and can continue each week based on their live singing performances. For comedic relief, producers allow a handful of not-so-talented contestants to get through the initial rounds in order to embarrass themselves in front of the audience and judges. In the spirit of American Idol, it makes for great TV. (Who doesn't remember “Pants on the Ground”?) But the judges and audience members were shocked and outraged when contestant Geo Godley performed an original song titled “I'm a Stud” with accompanying pants-less choreography. When Godley got to the chorus and sang “I'm a stud! Roll out the red carpet, I'm a stud!” he dropped his pants and wiggled around, his crotch exposed, on stage for approximately 50 seconds. No one attempted to stop him. The music continued for more than a minute. The camera showed audience members covering their mouths and eyes wide. Others were seen walking out. One of those who refused to watch was judge Paula Abdul. An appalled Abdul pushed back her chair, stood up, and left the theater during Godley's performance. At least the TV audience was spared actually having to see Godley's genitals; an “X Factor” logo blocked them on-screen. The original studio audience wasn't so lucky. If Godley had dropped his pants and exposed his private area to a random passerby on the street, he'd be arrested. But when he was on stage at FOX, he was celebrated as a crazy contestant. “Factor” producers knew children were present, (even hosting a 13-year-old competing against Godley!) and yet they allowed the behavior to continue, uninterrupted for close to a minute – long after any genuine “surprise” in the act. What's worse, producers not only allowed him to continue beyond a reasonable expectation of the performance being a genuine but they then aired the full performance to viewers during the season premiere. This “The X Factor” aired at 8 p.m., to more than 12 million viewers, and boasts contestants as young as 12 years old. After Abdul's protest 45 seconds into the routine, the first bit of verbal reprimand came from judge Antonio “L.A.” Reid, a full 56 seconds after Godley's performance ended. “Ok so listen,” Reid began. “That was offensive. Disgusting. Distasteful. Upsetting. Get him outta the building, please.” The audience cheered Reid's remarks, but Fox didn't find it “disgusting,” “distasteful” or “upsetting” enough not to air the pre-taped performance. The Parents Television Council filed a protest with the FCC . But, as of 24 hours later, the silence from the media was deafening. FOX aired the indecent exposure of a man's genitals to minors during a prime-time season premiere, during which viewership is high, and they have faced no scrutiny from the mainstream media. Is the liberal media that jaded?
Continue reading …Spending cuts causing public backlash against coalition, says opinion poll
September 23, 2011 No Comment
• Guardian/ICM poll: 62% say austerity measures harm economy • Half of voters unimpressed by coalition’s record • Only half Labour voters think Ed Miliband would be good PM The tide of public opinion has turned against coalition spending cuts, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which shows a majority of voters now believe excessive austerity is doing more harm than good to the economy. The research – carried out this week before Labour’s annual conference – finds overwhelming public concern about the speed and pace of cuts in the face of the return to economic crisis and fears of a double-dip recession. Only 32% agree with the statement “the government’s tax increases and public spending cuts are essential to protect Britain’s economy”. Almost twice as many, 62%, now agree ‘the cuts are too deep and too fast, they will harm Britain’s economy more than they help it”. Among voters only Conservatives are largely in favour of the coalition’s programme – with 67% of definite Lib Dem and 87% of Labour supporters opposed. The results suggest fear of cuts is rising fast. In March 2011 , in answer to a differently worded question which allowed people also to suggest cuts should go further, only 35% said cuts were going too far, against 28% who agreed with their scope and 29% who wanted more. In October 2010, the results were 48% too far, 36% right and 8% further. Despite this, a year after he won the leadership, voters, including Labour supporters, express doubt about Ed Miliband’s suitability for the job. Only 30% of all voters – and crucially just 49% of Labour supporters – agree with the statement ‘the party has the right leader in Ed Miliband’. In a further question, only 28% say he has “the right qualities to make an effective prime minister” – while 60% disagree. Only 51% of definite Labour supporters think he has the right qualities to run Britain. However, the poll shows that the public is also cooling on the coalition, with only 39% saying it is doing a good job, against 51% who say bad – a net negative rating of 12 points. In March this year, on the same question, the score was -5. This is the first ICM poll to find a majority of voters disapprove of the coalition’s record. Asked whether they think leading political figures are doing a good or bad job, David Cameron scores a net positive rating of four points, up from -5 in July. George Osborne is on -6, up from -10. Nick Clegg – perhaps benefiting from exposure during the Liberal Democrats’ conference week – is on -8, up from -21. Among Labour figures, Ed Miliband is on -14, up from -16. Ed Balls, included for the first time, is on -18. Even among Labour voters he scores -4. This month’s poll finds little variation in support for the main parties, with a small increase in Labour support pushing the party back into a one-point lead. This month, Labour is on 38%, up two on August’s Guardian/ICM poll , the Conservatives are unchanged on 37% and the Lib Dems down three to 14%. Support for other smaller parties is a collective 12%. A year ago this month – immediately after Ed Miliband’s election to the leadership– Labour was one point lower than today, the Conservatives two points lower and the Lib Dems four points higher. • ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 20-21 September 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Economic policy Opinion polls Liberal-Conservative coalition Ed Miliband Labour Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron George Osborne Conservatives Economic growth (GDP) Economics Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Douglas Alexander: time for Labour to stop losing the economic argument
September 23, 2011 No Comment
Tories won the initial exchanges on economy, but the political terms of trade are shifting, says shadow foreign secretary With Labour at least three years from power and the eyes of the world trained on tumbling global markets, Labour’s conference in Liverpool, the first in two decades without the imposing presence of either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, might seem a moment of political irrelevance. Douglas Alexander , the shadow foreign secretary, admits that for 18 months the electorate has sought only two qualities from Labour: silence and humility. But now he sees the political framework for this parliament fracturing, and the conference, as a consequence, as a moment of heavy responsibility. “The economy is more fluid so the politics is more fluid. The terms of trade for British politics are shifting … and it is not yet clear whether [George] Osborne will be able to reframe his argument more effectively than Labour.” Alexander, long admired for his strategic analysis, has travelled from archetypal backroom boy for Brown to increasingly vociferous critic of the style of politics championed by Blair and Brown. Most recently, a book by Alistair Darling lays bare the extent to which Alexander too saw Brown’s failings, and also the case for a coup. But speaking for the first time about whether he shared Darling’s regret that they had not moved against Brown, he says not: “My judgment was that even in the most difficult days, you can make a bad situation worse.” The economic crisis, he argues, is making voters revise their assumptions about the causes of the turmoil. Voters may be prepared to rethink some now hardwired assumptions about Labour’s responsibility for the crisis, but only if Labour shows it too is rethinking and reflecting, including about what it did wrong. He explains: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of the time is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation here in Britain, in Europe and globally means now is such a moment. To seize that moment this week coming in Liverpool we don’t need to shout louder, but explain more. Explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will deal with social justice with less money around.” He is remarkably open that Labour has been losing the argument on the economy for three years. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis, and that helps explain the election defeat. I think we got the policy response right to recession, but the politics wrong in allowing our opponents to suggest that we were in denial about the consequences of the crisis. Taxpayers and voters were worried that we did not get it.” But now the likelihood of flat growth in the foreseeable future, caused by an international crisis, is gnawing at that three-year Tory supremacy. “[Osborne's] political strategy is being undone by his economic judgment. He hoped to argue that somehow it is all Labour’s fault, that somehow the crash of Lehman’s was due to the fact that we built too many schools and hospitals. He then wanted to deliver sustained economic growth, a falling share of GDP taken by the state and then produce tax cuts.” Alexander predicts a change of tack from the Tories: “We got a sign of that last week when for the first time [Osborne] referred to the falling growth by reference to what is happening in the world economy. That is a pretty different account to the one he was offering in 2008, when as shadow chancellor he said growth was falling due to Labour policies. So the political frame for the parliament is fracturing sooner than we thought.” He pauses to stress that the shift in the conversation should not create complacency inside Labour. “We will be making a big error if we believe deteriorating economic numbers for the Conservatives guarantees rising political numbers for Labour.” The party, he says, needs to show it can produce a credible alternative. Nothing is going to fall into its lap. It may still be in thrall to a deep-seated misjudgment. “After two decades in which the centre-left was beating the right, the centre-right is beating the left because the left made a historic misjudgment. We thought after the crisis that the collapse of confidence in the market was matched by, and leads to, a rising confidence in the state. That has been disproved in voting patterns in country after country. We are not entitled to succeed the Conservatives, we have to earn that right. “Labour has to offer both a convincing account of where growth will come from and to confirm the seriousness with which we recognise the challenge of deficit reduction. They will be the central, defining arguments about political economy in the year ahead.” Rehearsing arguments he has doubtless made more bluntly in the shadow cabinet, he says: “We have a big responsibility to show we get it – in our understanding of the need for the state to be efficient in the spending of public money; in terms of how we talk about taxation, and the need for fiscal balance; to confirm that we understand the aspirations people have for themselves and for their communities. “There is not going to be a Treasury overflowing with cash, so we have to reimagine what social democracy looks like in a post-recession state.” Labour, as an advocate of the necessity of the state, has a special duty to prevent waste, he says. With no model of a progressive government in an age of austerity, he asks: “How do you define a role for a welfare state or an active industrial state, and how do you continue to offer a credible politics of hope when the dominant public sentiment is anxiety and pessimism?” The conversation turns, as it will all week, to Ed Miliband’s leadership. Alexander says Miliband has made a very good start but, pointedly, he says it is important that his most important shadow colleagues do more. “My feeling is that politics is a team sport and so while people will look to Ed this week, I’ve got a responsibility, Ed Balls has a responsibility, Yvette Cooper has a responsibility. This is the first conference in 20 years that isn’t dominated by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and we – as a new generation of politicians leading the economy – have shown that we’re united.” “In one recent poll 35% of people thought I was Andy Burnham. I was very chuffed about that, but it does reinforce the point that we’ve all got a part to play.” Douglas Alexander Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Douglas Alexander: time for Labour to stop losing the economic argument
September 23, 2011 No Comment
Tories won the initial exchanges on economy, but the political terms of trade are shifting, says shadow foreign secretary With Labour at least three years from power and the eyes of the world trained on tumbling global markets, Labour’s conference in Liverpool, the first in two decades without the imposing presence of either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, might seem a moment of political irrelevance. Douglas Alexander , the shadow foreign secretary, admits that for 18 months the electorate has sought only two qualities from Labour: silence and humility. But now he sees the political framework for this parliament fracturing, and the conference, as a consequence, as a moment of heavy responsibility. “The economy is more fluid so the politics is more fluid. The terms of trade for British politics are shifting … and it is not yet clear whether [George] Osborne will be able to reframe his argument more effectively than Labour.” Alexander, long admired for his strategic analysis, has travelled from archetypal backroom boy for Brown to increasingly vociferous critic of the style of politics championed by Blair and Brown. Most recently, a book by Alistair Darling lays bare the extent to which Alexander too saw Brown’s failings, and also the case for a coup. But speaking for the first time about whether he shared Darling’s regret that they had not moved against Brown, he says not: “My judgment was that even in the most difficult days, you can make a bad situation worse.” The economic crisis, he argues, is making voters revise their assumptions about the causes of the turmoil. Voters may be prepared to rethink some now hardwired assumptions about Labour’s responsibility for the crisis, but only if Labour shows it too is rethinking and reflecting, including about what it did wrong. He explains: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of the time is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation here in Britain, in Europe and globally means now is such a moment. To seize that moment this week coming in Liverpool we don’t need to shout louder, but explain more. Explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will deal with social justice with less money around.” He is remarkably open that Labour has been losing the argument on the economy for three years. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis, and that helps explain the election defeat. I think we got the policy response right to recession, but the politics wrong in allowing our opponents to suggest that we were in denial about the consequences of the crisis. Taxpayers and voters were worried that we did not get it.” But now the likelihood of flat growth in the foreseeable future, caused by an international crisis, is gnawing at that three-year Tory supremacy. “[Osborne's] political strategy is being undone by his economic judgment. He hoped to argue that somehow it is all Labour’s fault, that somehow the crash of Lehman’s was due to the fact that we built too many schools and hospitals. He then wanted to deliver sustained economic growth, a falling share of GDP taken by the state and then produce tax cuts.” Alexander predicts a change of tack from the Tories: “We got a sign of that last week when for the first time [Osborne] referred to the falling growth by reference to what is happening in the world economy. That is a pretty different account to the one he was offering in 2008, when as shadow chancellor he said growth was falling due to Labour policies. So the political frame for the parliament is fracturing sooner than we thought.” He pauses to stress that the shift in the conversation should not create complacency inside Labour. “We will be making a big error if we believe deteriorating economic numbers for the Conservatives guarantees rising political numbers for Labour.” The party, he says, needs to show it can produce a credible alternative. Nothing is going to fall into its lap. It may still be in thrall to a deep-seated misjudgment. “After two decades in which the centre-left was beating the right, the centre-right is beating the left because the left made a historic misjudgment. We thought after the crisis that the collapse of confidence in the market was matched by, and leads to, a rising confidence in the state. That has been disproved in voting patterns in country after country. We are not entitled to succeed the Conservatives, we have to earn that right. “Labour has to offer both a convincing account of where growth will come from and to confirm the seriousness with which we recognise the challenge of deficit reduction. They will be the central, defining arguments about political economy in the year ahead.” Rehearsing arguments he has doubtless made more bluntly in the shadow cabinet, he says: “We have a big responsibility to show we get it – in our understanding of the need for the state to be efficient in the spending of public money; in terms of how we talk about taxation, and the need for fiscal balance; to confirm that we understand the aspirations people have for themselves and for their communities. “There is not going to be a Treasury overflowing with cash, so we have to reimagine what social democracy looks like in a post-recession state.” Labour, as an advocate of the necessity of the state, has a special duty to prevent waste, he says. With no model of a progressive government in an age of austerity, he asks: “How do you define a role for a welfare state or an active industrial state, and how do you continue to offer a credible politics of hope when the dominant public sentiment is anxiety and pessimism?” The conversation turns, as it will all week, to Ed Miliband’s leadership. Alexander says Miliband has made a very good start but, pointedly, he says it is important that his most important shadow colleagues do more. “My feeling is that politics is a team sport and so while people will look to Ed this week, I’ve got a responsibility, Ed Balls has a responsibility, Yvette Cooper has a responsibility. This is the first conference in 20 years that isn’t dominated by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and we – as a new generation of politicians leading the economy – have shown that we’re united.” “In one recent poll 35% of people thought I was Andy Burnham. I was very chuffed about that, but it does reinforce the point that we’ve all got a part to play.” Douglas Alexander Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Douglas Alexander: time for Labour to stop losing the economic argument
September 23, 2011 No CommentTories won the initial exchanges on economy, but the political terms of trade are shifting, says shadow foreign secretary With Labour at least three years from power and the eyes of the world trained on tumbling global markets, Labour’s conference in Liverpool, the first in two decades without the imposing presence of either Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, might seem a moment of political irrelevance. Douglas Alexander , the shadow foreign secretary, admits that for 18 months the electorate has sought only two qualities from Labour: silence and humility. But now he sees the political framework for this parliament fracturing, and the conference, as a consequence, as a moment of heavy responsibility. “The economy is more fluid so the politics is more fluid. The terms of trade for British politics are shifting … and it is not yet clear whether [George] Osborne will be able to reframe his argument more effectively than Labour.” Alexander, long admired for his strategic analysis, has travelled from archetypal backroom boy for Brown to increasingly vociferous critic of the style of politics championed by Blair and Brown. Most recently, a book by Alistair Darling lays bare the extent to which Alexander too saw Brown’s failings, and also the case for a coup. But speaking for the first time about whether he shared Darling’s regret that they had not moved against Brown, he says not: “My judgment was that even in the most difficult days, you can make a bad situation worse.” The economic crisis, he argues, is making voters revise their assumptions about the causes of the turmoil. Voters may be prepared to rethink some now hardwired assumptions about Labour’s responsibility for the crisis, but only if Labour shows it too is rethinking and reflecting, including about what it did wrong. He explains: “There are moments in politics when the common sense of the time is up for grabs. The deteriorating economic situation here in Britain, in Europe and globally means now is such a moment. To seize that moment this week coming in Liverpool we don’t need to shout louder, but explain more. Explain what we got right and wrong before the crash, explain how we would get the economy growing and so deal with the deficit, and explain how we will deal with social justice with less money around.” He is remarkably open that Labour has been losing the argument on the economy for three years. “Frankly, after the crisis in 2008, the Conservatives were more successful than Labour in framing a public language that made more sense of the economic crisis, and that helps explain the election defeat. I think we got the policy response right to recession, but the politics wrong in allowing our opponents to suggest that we were in denial about the consequences of the crisis. Taxpayers and voters were worried that we did not get it.” But now the likelihood of flat growth in the foreseeable future, caused by an international crisis, is gnawing at that three-year Tory supremacy. “[Osborne's] political strategy is being undone by his economic judgment. He hoped to argue that somehow it is all Labour’s fault, that somehow the crash of Lehman’s was due to the fact that we built too many schools and hospitals. He then wanted to deliver sustained economic growth, a falling share of GDP taken by the state and then produce tax cuts.” Alexander predicts a change of tack from the Tories: “We got a sign of that last week when for the first time [Osborne] referred to the falling growth by reference to what is happening in the world economy. That is a pretty different account to the one he was offering in 2008, when as shadow chancellor he said growth was falling due to Labour policies. So the political frame for the parliament is fracturing sooner than we thought.” He pauses to stress that the shift in the conversation should not create complacency inside Labour. “We will be making a big error if we believe deteriorating economic numbers for the Conservatives guarantees rising political numbers for Labour.” The party, he says, needs to show it can produce a credible alternative. Nothing is going to fall into its lap. It may still be in thrall to a deep-seated misjudgment. “After two decades in which the centre-left was beating the right, the centre-right is beating the left because the left made a historic misjudgment. We thought after the crisis that the collapse of confidence in the market was matched by, and leads to, a rising confidence in the state. That has been disproved in voting patterns in country after country. We are not entitled to succeed the Conservatives, we have to earn that right. “Labour has to offer both a convincing account of where growth will come from and to confirm the seriousness with which we recognise the challenge of deficit reduction. They will be the central, defining arguments about political economy in the year ahead.” Rehearsing arguments he has doubtless made more bluntly in the shadow cabinet, he says: “We have a big responsibility to show we get it – in our understanding of the need for the state to be efficient in the spending of public money; in terms of how we talk about taxation, and the need for fiscal balance; to confirm that we understand the aspirations people have for themselves and for their communities. “There is not going to be a Treasury overflowing with cash, so we have to reimagine what social democracy looks like in a post-recession state.” Labour, as an advocate of the necessity of the state, has a special duty to prevent waste, he says. With no model of a progressive government in an age of austerity, he asks: “How do you define a role for a welfare state or an active industrial state, and how do you continue to offer a credible politics of hope when the dominant public sentiment is anxiety and pessimism?” The conversation turns, as it will all week, to Ed Miliband’s leadership. Alexander says Miliband has made a very good start but, pointedly, he says it is important that his most important shadow colleagues do more. “My feeling is that politics is a team sport and so while people will look to Ed this week, I’ve got a responsibility, Ed Balls has a responsibility, Yvette Cooper has a responsibility. This is the first conference in 20 years that isn’t dominated by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and we – as a new generation of politicians leading the economy – have shown that we’re united.” “In one recent poll 35% of people thought I was Andy Burnham. I was very chuffed about that, but it does reinforce the point that we’ve all got a part to play.” Douglas Alexander Labour conference 2011 Labour Labour conference Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Army chief tells America to stop playing the ‘blame game’ as he hit back against claims his country is secretly supporting Taliban The bloodstained theatrics of Afghanistan’s power game continued to play out as Hamid Karzai’s government buried its main peace envoy while Pakistan’s army chief hit back at American accusations that his country is secretly supporting the Taliban. In Kabul, shots rang out over the coffin of Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former president who was assassinated by a suicide bomber on Tuesday , during an emotional and sometimes rowdy funeral on a city hillside. Angry mourners shouted “death to Karzai” and “death to the ISI”, highlighting the growing isolation of the president who appointed Rabbani, and public anger towards the Pakistani spy agency many Afghans blame for his death. Amrullah Saleh, a former spy chief and rising political star, made a fiery speech to supporters outside the graveyard. “The government doesn’t have the right to talk with enemies any more. Nothing will come of so much talking,” he said. “Just wait for a call. Very soon we will come to the streets.” Hours later, Pakistan’s army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, denied allegations that he was waging a “proxy war” in Afghanistan through the Haqqani network, a ruthless militant outfit which the US military chief, Admiral Mike Mullen, described as a “veritable arm” of the ISI . “Admiral Mullen knows fully well which countries are in contact with the Haqqanis. Singling out Pakistan is neither fair nor productive,” Kayani said in a terse statement issued 24 hours after Mullen’s stinging comments to the US Congress. Kayani called on the US to stop the “blame game” and “give way to a constructive and meaningful engagement for a stable and peaceful Afghanistan”. Senior American officials have issued an extraordinary series of verbal assaults on the Pakistani military since Haqqani militants carried out an audacious attack on the US embassy in Kabul on 13 September. Citing phone intercepts, US officials said they had linked fighters at the scene of the 20-hour battle to ISI officials in Pakistan, a senior Pakistani official said. The US also accuses the ISI of orchestrating a truck bomb attack on a US base near Kabul on 10 September that wounded 77 US soldiers – one of the highest casualty tolls against western forces in the 10-year conflict. The defence secretary, Leon Panetta, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, and the CIA chief, David Petraeus, have all called on Pakistan to cut its links to the Haqqanis. Pakistan denies the links exist. But it was Mullen’s harsh comments on Thursday that sent ripples through political circles in Islamabad, where some worry the frayed relationship is edging towards violent confrontation. “This is very serious and I’m extremely worried,” said Talat Masood, a retired general and veteran commentator. “One side has to pull back or change course. If they continue
Continue reading …