Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 82)
Scientists track falling satellite expected to hit Earth this week

Nasa estimates the odds of someone being struck by a falling part of the spacecraft at one in 3,200 The world’s major space agencies, armed forces and security officials have come together to monitor the heavens for a bus-sized spacecraft that will fall to Earth this week. In an event prompted by the rule that what goes up must come down, the defunct satellite will plummet through the atmosphere, burn and break apart, and scatter hunks of steel, aluminium and titanium over a distance of hundreds of miles. Much of Nasa’s nearly six-tonne Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) will disintegrate as it hurtles through the atmosphere, but the space agency anticipates that 26 potentially hazardous parts, weighing a total of 532kg, could remain intact and impact on the surface. The debris will spread over an estimated 500 miles. Among the parts expected to survive the fiery re-entry are four titanium fuel tanks, four steel flywheel rims and an aluminium structure that alone weighs 158kg. Depending on their size and shape, the components will strike at speeds of between 55mph (90kph) and 240mph (385kph). Radar stations around the world, including RAF Fylingdales in north Yorkshire, are tracking the object and expect it to re-enter the atmosphere between Thursday and Saturday, but there is little chance of predicting with any accuracy where the debris will fall. An update from Nasa on Wednesday said the satellite was 120 miles above the Earth and due to impact on Friday US time. The agency will issue further updates 24 hours before re-entry, then at 12, six and two hours before re-entry . The spacecraft’s orbit puts a great swathe of the planet in its path between the latitudes of 57 degrees north and south. Mainland Britain lies between 50 and 60 degrees North. The satellite spends more time at higher latitudes, so there is a slightly higher risk in those regions. Most likely by far is that the remains of the satellite will drop into the ocean, or be strewn across one of the planet’s most desolate regions, such as Siberia, the Australian outback or the Canadian tundra. Noting that safety was its top priority, Nasa declared the odds of someone being struck by a falling part of the spacecraft at one in 3,200. There are no confirmed injuries from man-made space debris and no record of significant property damage from a falling satellite. “Most of the Earth’s surface is covered by water or is uninhabited, so nobody tends to even see this kind of debris when it does land,” Hugh Lewis, a space debris expert at Southampton University , told the Guardian. “Those pieces that do survive re-entry have slowed down a lot, but they are still travelling quite fast. Because of their size, they would do significant damage if they hit a structure or a person, but the chances of that happening are remote,” he added. When Nasa’s Skylab fell to Earth in 1979, the space agency put the risk of personal injury at 1 in 152, with the odds of the defunct space station striking a city much higher. The partially-controlled Skylab missed its expected impact site in South Africa and crash-landed in Australia. An organisation of major space agencies known as the Inter-agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) takes a lead role in monitoring threats from falling space junk and is running back-to-back simulations to work out when, and roughly where, the spacecraft’s remains will impact. If the IADC or the Ministry of Defence, via RAF Fylingdales, found that the UK was at risk, they would inform the Cabinet Office civil contingencies committee , which is responsible for alerting the emergency services. “There is a limit to what you can do in response, because you cannot give categorical information on where something is going to land. It would be irresponsible to order an evacuation, because you would put more people at risk than would ever be in danger from falling space debris,” said Richard Crowther, a space surveillance expert at the UK Space Agency . “Fortunately, we are a small target compared with other landmasses.” Predicting where the debris will land is difficult for two main reasons. Unpredictable rises in the sun’s activity warm the atmosphere and make it expand, which causes the spacecraft to experience more drag and re-enter more quickly. Another problem comes from uncertainties in the tracking of how the spacecraft disintegrates, which means that even just a few hours before impact, the region at risk will cover several thousand kilometres. Under an international treaty, governments are obliged to return any parts of the satellite that are found to the owner, in this case Nasa. The space agency urged anyone who suspected they had found debris from the spacecraft not to touch it and inform the local police. The satellite was launched in 1991 aboard the space shuttle Discovery and decommissioned in 2005. Wherever the spacecraft lands, it will give the relevant authorities valuable experience ahead of a potentially more dangerous event in early November, when the German Rosat satellite re-enters at 28,000kph . The German space agency, DLR, said up to 30 pieces of the spacecraft might survive re-entry, with a combined mass of more than one-and-a-half tonnes. Satellites Space Nasa Ian Sample guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Julian Assange publishers to release autobiography without his consent

Canongate to publish ‘unauthorised first draft’ of WikiLeaks founder’s autobiography it has secretly printed and shipped Julian Assange’s publishers will tomorrow publish “the unauthorised first draft” of his autobiography without his consent, months after the WikiLeaks founder withdrew from a million-pound contract for his memoirs. In a dramatic move, Canongate has defied Assange’s wishes and secretly printed thousands of copies of The Unauthorised Autobiography, by Julian Assange, copies of which have been shipped amid strict security to booksellers in preparation for imminent release. The enormous security operation put in place by the publishers, according to a source, was in order to stop the author blocking publication. Assange signed a high-profile deal, reportedly worth a total of £930,000, with the Edinburgh-based publisher and the US firm Alfred A Knopf in December. The manuscript was subsequently sold in 35 countries. Assange said at the time he believed the book would beocme “one of the unifying documents of our generation”. But after seeing a first draft in March, the WikiLeaks founder told his publishers that he no longer intended to write the book, believing it could give ammunition to US prosecutors seeking his extradition over possible espionage charges relating to the WikiLeaks cable release. He formally withdrew from his contract on 7 June. According to the Independent, which has announced it is to serialise the book, starting tomorrow, the publisher and Assange have been locked in a bitter dispute since then over the contract and his £500,000 advance, which he has not returned. Assange, requiring funds for his legal fight against extradition to Sweden on rape and sexual assault charges, is understood to have placed the advance in escrow, meaning that his legal team have first claim on any assets.The Independent said Andrew O’Hagan, Assange’s ghostwriter, had asked for his name to be removed from the book. Neither Assange, O’Hagan, nor his current or former lawyers were available for comment. “Despite sitting for more than 50 hours of taped interviews and spending many late nights at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk (where he was – and still is – living under house arrest) discussing his life and the work of WikiLeaks with the writer he had enlisted to help him, Julian became increasingly troubled by the thought of publishing an autobiography,” Canongate said in a statement. “After reading the first draft of the book that was delivered to the publishers at the end of March, he declared, ‘All memoir is prostitution’. “On 7 June 2011, Julian told Canongate he wanted to cancel his contract. However, he had already signed his advance over to his lawyers to settle his legal bills and has not repaid the advance owed since. So the contract still stands and Canongate has decided to honour it and publish the autobiography.” According to the Independent, Canongate, faced with a financial crisis, gave Assange two months to work on the manuscript, and, finally, a 12-day window to seek an injunction, which expired on Monday. But, according to a source, the top secrecy around publication had been in order to stop “the author” blocking publication. In his memoir, the paper says, Assange writes of the Swedish allegations that he had been warned by a source in an unnamed intelligence agency that the US government had been planning to set him up. He admits to sleeping with the two women, and to being “an unreliable boyfriend”. “The international situation had me in its grip, and although I had spent time with these women, I wasn’t paying enough attention to them, or ringing them back, or able to step out of the zone that came down with all these threats and statements against me in America,” he states. “One of my mistakes was to expect them to understand this? I wasn’t a reliable boyfriend, or even a very courteous sleeping partner, and this began to figure. Unless, of course, the agenda had been rigged from the start.” In a preface to the book, Canongate explains its reasons for defying Assange’s wishes. “We disagree with Julian’s assessment of the book. We believe it explains both the man and his work, underlining his commitment to the truth. Julian always claimed the book was well written; we agree, and this also encouraged us to make the book available to readers.” The volume, Canongate said, “fulfils … the promise of the original book proposal and is, like its author, passionate, provocative and opinionated”. Julian Assange WikiLeaks Biography Esther Addley guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US drone bases in Africa to focus on al-Qaida targets and Somalia

American unmanned vehicles based in Ethiopia, Seychelles and Arabian peninsula to target piracy and terrorism A network of drone bases in east Africa, designed to carry out attacks on al-Qaida targets and for gathering intelligence, is being constructed by the US, according to American reports. One base is being set up in Ethiopia , a key US ally in the Horn of Africa, the Washington Post said. Another installation has reopened in the Seychelles after a test “anti-piracy” programme proved unmanned “hunter-killer” craft could effectively patrol Somalia from there. Drones flown from a US military site in Djibouti have already been used in counter-terrorism missions in Somalia and Yemen. A new base to enable more flights over Yemen is under construction in the Arabian peninsula. The launch of the aggressive campaign around the Horn of Africa reflects increasing concern about the dangers posed by al-Qaida-linked affiliates in the region. By establishing several drone bases, the US hopes to create a wide ring of surveillance to monitor potential targets. ” We do not know enough about the leaders of the al-Qaida affiliates in Africa ,” a US official told the Wall Street Journal. “Is there a guy out there saying, ‘I am the future of al-Qaida’? Who is the next Osama bin Laden?” While al-Qaida operatives have used lawless Somalia as a hideout for more than 10 years, the current threat comes from the Islamist rebels trying to take over the country. Ethiopia has led the military response on the ground, invading Somalia in 2006 with the US providing intelligence, logistical help and financing. But al-Shabaab, a more militant, Islamist force, emerged, establishing links with al-Qaida and attracting hardened foreign jihadis and Somali men from the diaspora to its cause. The US has been talking to Ethiopia for several years about building a drone base. It also relies on Ethiopian linguists

Continue reading …
Milwaukee FBI Investigation Draws A Little Bit Closer To Our Favorite Wingnut Governor

enlarge This just gets better and better . Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy — except maybe Paul Ryan: When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker took a  phone call that he thought was from billionaire campaign donor David Koch , he described the secret meeting of his cabinet at which he outlined the “budget repair bill” that stripped collective bargaining protections from public employees and teachers, replaced civil servants with political cronies and made it possible to sell off public utilities in no-bid deals with out-of-state corporations. Walker was talking himself up as a new Ronald Reagan, in hopes of impressing one of the primary funders of conservative projects in the United States. But his comments revealed the previously unknown details regarding the political machinations behind a piece of legislation so controversial that it would provoke mass demonstrations, court battles and legislative recall elections. “This is an exciting time,”  the governor told “Koch“ in late February. “This is, you know, I told my cabinet, I had a dinner the Sunday, excuse me, Monday right after the 6th, came home from the Super Bowl where the Packer’s won, that Monday night, I had all my cabinet over to the residence for dinner. Talked about what we were going to do, how we were going to do it, we had already kind of doped plans up, but it was kind of a last hurrah, before we dropped the bomb and I stood up and I pulled out a, a picture of Ronald Reagan and I said you know this may seem a little melodramatic but 30 years ago Ronald Reagan whose 100th birthday we just celebrated the day before um had one of the most defining moments of his political career, not just his presidency, when he fired the air traffic controllers and uh I said to me that moment was more important than just for labor relations and or even the federal budget, that was the first crack in the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism because from that point forward the Soviets and the communists knew that Ronald Reagan wasn’t a pushover and uh, I said this may not have as broad a world implications but in Wisconsin’s history—little did I know how big it would be nationally, in Wisconsin’s history, I said, this is our moment, this is our time to change the course of history and this is why it’s so important that they were all there.” E-mails obtained by  the Center for Media and Democracy reveal that the cabinet was indeed present for the meeting. The secretaries and gubernatorial aides who were present are listed. But so, too, is one other key player in the administration: the individual identified in e-mails from key players in the Walker administration as the “point person” for the governor’s push to radically restructure labor relations and state government—a project so significant to Walker that he declared, “This is our moment.” That person?  Cynthia Archer, the subject of last week’s FBI raid, which removed a crate of documents from her Madison home, collected her computer’s hard drive and revealed to most Wisconsinites that a “Joe Doe” probe has targeted key aides to Walker during his service as county executive and governor. The probe remains secret, but leaks associated with it suggest that the focus is political wrongdoing and corruption. One top donor to Walker’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign has already been put on probation after admitting to felony violations of campaign finance and money laundering rules. The governor says he  does not know anything about the inquiry beyond what he has read “in the press.” But Walker’s campaign, which remains a going endeavor, has hired a former US attorney—with extensive experience dealing with federal investigations—to respond to his a subpoena related to the “John Doe” probe for email and other records. And that attorney’s firm has, according to the  Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , been paid more than $60,000. Meanwhile, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal has this interesting nugget: Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen was asked months ago to assist in a growing secret investigation of former and current aides to Gov. Scott Walker, but Van Hollen’s office declined , sources familiar with the request said Tuesday. Van Hollen’s agency assisted with at least one previous John Doe investigation run by the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office, lending a hand during the probe of then Milwaukee Ald. Michael McGee. State Department of Justice officials would not say why they chose not to assist with the investigation of Walker’s former county staffers. Sources said the request was made around the time of the November 2010 election. Also on Tuesday, state attorneys filed a motion to withdraw an affidavit by Walker aide Cindy Archer in a major federal case – less than one week after FBI agents and other law enforcement officers raided her Madison home. State officials wouldn’t say if the motion was filed as a result of the raid. EDITOR’S NOTE: That fake Koch brother, Ian Murphy, is now writing for us at C&L .

Continue reading …

On Monday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow attacked the “Beltway media” for ignoring liberals. She said this on a piece of the major media that champions liberals around the clock. To share in her pain, Maddow invited on Michael Moore to announce once again that the American public is “much more liberal than the Beltway pundits give America credit for being.” There’s a small nugget of truth in this big bowl of Silly: while liberals dominate the media, they don’t use the word “liberal” and they often try to pretend Obama doesn’t have a “base” as they express great (fake) concern that the conservative base is tearing the GOP apart. It makes more sense if you replace the word “radical” where Maddow puts “liberal,” that the fringy Daily Kos roots are being ignored: You know, if you listen just to the Beltway media, Democratic Party doesn't really have a base. And liberals don't really function in American politics. I have said before, and I will say again, the way the Beltway media covers liberals in this country is sort of on a good day akin to the way they cover really, really, really foreign news in countries where we don`t have diplomatic relations and on a bad day, it`s like extraterrestrial life. The Beltway media doesn't believe liberals are important. This White House has been able to get away for a long time without believing the loyalty of its base is important, that the left and frankly the center didn`t have anywhere to go, that they were going to support this president and his re-election effort no matter what happened. Seeing the poll numbers on the left and among Democrats soften in recent weeks and in recent months has brought this back to the center, has brought this issue back to the center and has made liberals a relevant point of Beltway discussion for the first time in a very long time — certainly the first time in the Barack Obama presidency. Then Maddow brought on Michael Moore as they expressed some joy that Obama was “finally” waging class warfare. “I wanted to know if you feel better about his tone these days.” MOORE: I felt instantly better. So, it doesn't take much for me. That`s another good thing about liberals. That's just how easy we are. Just a little — you referenced us as being treated sometimes by the mainstream media as extraterrestrials. Well, you put a few of those Reece`s Pieces out in front of us and we got a whole bag of Reese's Pieces today. By the way, the American public loves E.T. So, as beloved as E.T. is, I think the American public is actually, as you've pointed out many times on this show, much more liberal than the Beltway pundits give America credit for being. When you look at the actual issues, the American public takes the liberal position on the majority of them, whether being against the war, whether it`s equal rights for women, whether it`s a strong environmental laws. In last month's poll, for the first time ever, 54 percent of Americans saying that they believe gay marriage should be the law of the land.So, Americans are actually quite liberal even though they may not call themselves that.

Continue reading …
Troy Davis polygraph test refused by Georgia prison officials

Death row inmate’s lawyers had hoped test would convince pardons board to reconsider a decision against clemency Prison officials in Georgia have refused to allow death row prisoner Troy Davis to take a polygraph test in a last-ditch bid to stop his execution for the 1989 murder of a policeman. As the furious campaign to win clemency for Davis continued in the US and Europe, with supporters planning vigils outside Georgia’s death row prison in Jackson and protests at US embassies in Europe, Davis’s lawyers said their request for a polygraph test to prove his innocence had been rejected but that they planned another late appeal, this one aimed at blocking the execution by convincing a judge that some of the original evidence was questionable. Defense lawyer Stephen Marsh told the Associated Press that the Georgia department of corrections denied his request to allow Davis to take a polygraph test. Marsh had said he hoped the polygraph would convince the state pardons board to reconsider a decision against clemency. After winning three delays since 2007, Davis lost his most realistic chance at last-minute clemency this week when the Georgia pardons board denied his request. He is set to be executed by injection at 7pm ET on Wednesday for the 1989 killing of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer who was working as a security guard in Savannah when he was shot dead rushing to help a homeless man who had been attacked. Some witnesses who testified against him at trial later recanted, and others who did not testify came forward to say another man did it. But a federal judge dismissed those accounts as “largely smoke and mirrors” after a hearing Davis was granted last year to argue for a new trial, which he did not win. Davis refused a last meal. He planned to spend his final hours meeting with friends, family and supporters. According to an advocate who met him late Tuesday, he was upbeat, prayerful and expected last-minute wrangling by attorneys. “He doesn’t want to spend three hours away from his family on what could be the last day of his life if it won’t make any difference,” Marsh said. Davis has received support from hundreds of thousands of people, including a former FBI director, former president Jimmy Carter and Pope Benedict XVI. Some of his backers resorted to urging prison workers to strike or call in sick, and they considered a desperate appeal for White House intervention. And some of Davis’s supporters were considering whether to ask President Barack Obama to intervene, a move that legal experts said was unlikely. In Europe, where the planned execution has drawn widespread criticism, politicians and activists were making a last-minute appeal to the state of Georgia to refrain from executing Davis. Amnesty International and other groups planned a protest outside the US embassy in Paris later on Wednesday and Amnesty also called a vigil outside the embassy in London. Parliamentarians and government ministers from the Council of Europe, the EU’s human rights watchdog, called for Davis’s sentence to be commuted. Renate Wohlwend of the council’s parliamentary assembly said that “to carry out this irrevocable act now would be a terrible mistake which could lead to a tragic injustice”. The US supreme court gave him an unusual opportunity to prove his innocence last year, but his attorneys failed to convince a judge he didn’t do it. State and federal courts have repeatedly upheld his conviction. Prosecutors have no doubt they charged the right person, and MacPhail’s family lobbied the pardons board Monday to reject Davis’s clemency appeal. The board refused to stop the execution a day later. “He has had ample time to prove his innocence,” said MacPhail’s widow, Joan MacPhail-Harris. “And he is not innocent.” Spencer Lawton, the district attorney who secured Davis’s conviction in 1991, said he was embarrassed for the judicial system that the execution has taken so long. “What we have had is a manufactured appearance of doubt which has taken on the quality of legitimate doubt itself. And all of it is exquisitely unfair,” said Lawton, who retired as Chatham County’s head prosecutor in 2008. “The good news is we live in a civilized society where questions like this are decided based on fact in open and transparent courts of law, and not on street corners.” Davis supporters said they will push the pardons board to reconsider his case. They also asked Savannah prosecutors to block the execution, although Chatham County district attorney Larry Chisolm said in a statement he was powerless to withdraw an execution order for Davis issued by a state superior court judge. “We appreciate the outpouring of interest in this case; however, this matter is beyond our control,” Chisolm said. Davis’s lawyers drew up a late appeal asking a local judge to block the execution over evidence they object to. Defence attorney Brian Kammer told the Associated Press he would file the appeal in superior court in Butts County, home of the state’s death row, when it opens on Wednesday. The motion disputes testimony from a ballistics examiner who claimed that the bullets fired in a previous shooting that Davis was convicted of may have come from the same gun that fired at MacPhail. And it challenged eyewitness testimony from Harriet Murray, a witness who claimed at the trial to have identified Davis as the shooter. It asks the court to vacate Davis’ execution, or at least delay it by 90 days, on grounds that it was “based on false, misleading and materially inaccurate evidence.” MacPhail was shot to death on 19 August 1989, after coming to the aid of Larry Young in a Burger King parking lot. Prosecutors say Davis was with another man who was demanding that Young give him a beer when Davis pulled out a handgun and bashed Young with it. When MacPhail arrived to help, they say Davis had a smirk on his face as he shot the officer to death. Witnesses placed Davis at the crime scene and identified him as the shooter. Shell casings were linked to an earlier shooting that Davis was convicted of. There was no other physical evidence. No blood or DNA tied Davis to the crime and the weapon was never found. Davis’s attorneys say seven of nine key witnesses who testified at his trial have disputed all or parts of their testimony. The state initially planned to execute him in July 2007, but the pardons board granted him a stay less than 24 hours before he was to die. The US supreme court stepped in a year later and halted the lethal injection two hours before he was to be executed. And a federal appeals court halted another planned execution a few months later. The US supreme court granted Davis a hearing to prove his innocence, the first time it had done so for a death row inmate in at least 50 years. At that June 2010 hearing, two witnesses testified that they falsely incriminated Davis at his trial when they said Davis confessed to the killing. Two others told the judge the man with Davis that night later said he shot MacPhail. Prosecutors, though, argued that Davis’s lawyers were simply rehashing old testimony that had already been rejected by a jury. And they said no trial court could ever consider the hearsay from the other witnesses who blamed the other man for the crime. US district judge William T Moore Jr sided with them. He said the evidence presented at the hearing wasn’t nearly enough to prove Davis is innocent and validate his request for a new trial. He said while Davis’s “new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors”. Troy Davis State of Georgia United States Capital punishment Human rights US supreme court guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Nick Clegg’s conference speech – live coverage

All the news from the last day of the Lib Dem conference including Nick Clegg’s keynote address 3.52pm: Clegg is now winding up. After the summer riots, message boards sprang up. They became known as ‘peace walls’. And on the peace wall in Peckham there was a note that simply read: Our home. Our children. Our future. Six words that say more than six hundred speeches. Our home. Our children. Our future. Britain is our home. We will make it safe and strong. These are our children. We will tear down every barrier they face. And this is our future. We start building it today. That’s it. He’s finished. I’ll post a quick round-up of reaction before writing a summary. 3.46pm: Clegg turns to the riots. This summer, we saw the consequences of a society in which some people feel they have no stake at all. He renews his call for a rehabilitation revolution and community payback projects. 3.43pm: Clegg says some people claim that it’s futile trying to extend opportunity. People keep telling me that it’s too hard. That it’s futile to push for fairness into the headwinds of an economic slow down, or that it will just take too long. And that I should find some politically convenient ‘quick wins’ instead. I’ve also encountered fierce resistance from those who do so well out of the status quo. But for liberals the only struggles worth having are the uphill ones . That last sentence is quote from John Stuart Mill, a colleague tells me. (Clegg’s chief of staff, Richard Reeves, has written a biography of Mill.) 3.41pm: Clegg says giving opportunities to children is his passion. Let me tell you what I care most about. My passion is ensuring a fair start for every child. I have a simple, unquenchable belief: That every child can do good things, great things if only we give them the opportunities they deserve. He says he was lucky. I know I have had all the advantages – good school, great parents. I was lucky. But it shouldn’t be about luck. Other children need these opportunities. In terms of opportunity, we are a nation divided. Children from a poor background a year behind in language skills before the age of five; more young black men in prisons than at Russell Group universities. And within one city, two nations: In Hammersmith and Fulham in West London, more than half the children leaving state schools head to a good university. Just thirty minutes east – down the district line to Tower Hamlets – and just 4 percent do. Odds stacked against too many of our children. A deep injustice, when birth is destiny. That’s why I’ve been leading the charge for social mobility – for fairer chances, for real freedom . 3.39pm: Clegg says he has learnt a lot in the last 500 days. In government, every single day brings hard choices. You can quickly lose your way unless you are certain of your cause. That’s why it’s important to remember the convictions that brought you into politics. 3.37pm: Party leaders like to rattle of a list of achievements. Here’s Clegg’s list. Last year I walked through the door of No 10. But we all walked through a kind of door together. To being, once again, a party of national government. So we must move now beyond the reflexes of opposition to the responsibilities of government, and the opportunities of government, too. New social housing. Criminal justice reform. Fixed term parliaments. Keeping our Post Offices open. House of Lords reform. Better mental health care. Safer banks. Income tax down for ordinary workers. Capital gains tax up for the rich. Compulsory retirement scrapped. Pensions protected by a triple lock. ID cards: history. Child detention: ended. He also mentions some of the announcements from this week’s conference. And he says that the Lib Dems have not dropped their commitment to the environment, even though the pollsters say climate change has dropped down people’s list of concerns. 3.35pm: Clegg turns to the Conservatives. He does not mention them by name, but he criticises their stance on the NHS and on the Human Rights Act. We were absolutely right to stop the NHS bill in its tracks. To ensure change on our terms. No arbitrary deadlines. No backdoor privatization. No threat to the basic principles at the heart of our NHS. We are right to stand up for civil liberties. No retreat to the illiberal populism of the Labour years. We are right to insist on keeping the tax system fair. Asking the most of the people who have the most. And we will always defend human rights, at home as well as abroad. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are not, as some would have you believe, foreign impositions. These are British rights, drafted by British lawyers. Forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. Fought for by Winston Churchill. So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I’ll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay. 3.34pm: Clegg offers a challenge to Miliband. Labour is in hock to the trade union barons: After their government stipend, 95% of Labour’s money comes from unions. Most of it from just four of them. Let me be clear: The values of trade unionism are as relevant as ever. Supporting workers. Fighting for fairness at work. But I don’t think the unions should be able to buy themselves a political party. Ed Miliband says he wants to loosen the ties between Labour and the union barons who helped him beat his brother. Let’s see him put his money where his mouth is. Let’s see if he’ll support radical reform of party funding. Every previous attempt has been blocked by the vested interests in the other two parties. That’s a reference to the recommendations we’ll be getting from the committee on standards in public life, which is publishing a report on party funding later this autumn. 3.31pm: Clegg turns on Labour again. Of all the claims Ed Miliband has made, the most risible is that his party is the enemy of vested interests. While we were campaigning for change in the banking system, they were on their prawn cocktail offensive in the City. While we’ve led the charge against the media barons, Labour has cowered before them for decades. The most shocking thing about the news that Tony Blair is godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch’s children is that nobody was really shocked at all. (There’s a surprising amount of anti-Miliband rhetoric in this speech. He seems to have mentioned Miliband more than almost all the other conference speeches put together.) 3.30pm: Clegg says the Lib Dems predicted the problems that would afflict establishment institutions like the City, the media and parliament. I was brought up to know that it is not polite to say ‘I told you so’. But I’m sorry: We did. In 2006 when Vince Cable warned that “bad debts were growing” and that bank lending levels were “recklessly irresponsible”. In 2002 when Tom McNally said: “The Government must guard the public interest as assiduously as Mr Murdoch guards his shareholder interests.” And in 1996 when Paddy said that Parliament had become “A rotten mess…a dishevelled, disfigured old corpse of what was once called the Mother of Parliaments.” Free to tell it like it really is because we are in nobody’s pocket. 3.29pm: Clegg says the Lib Dems act for the whole nation. They are not in the pocket of vested interests, he says. In our long, proud liberal history, we have never served: the media moguls, the union barons or the bankers. We do not serve, and we will never serve, vested interests. We are in nobody’s pocket. That’s why the Lib Dems can take decisions in the national interes, he says. “Not easy, but right.” (That’s the refrain running through the speech.) 3.27pm: Clegg says the new economy must be run for ordinary people, not big finance, “after the so-called masters of the universe turned out to be masters of destruction instead”. That’s why Clegg wants to see a payback to every citizen when shares in the nationalised banks are eventually sold. 3.25pm: Clegg says the government’s biggest concern is the economy. The recovery is fragile. Every worker, every family knows that. There is a long, hard road ahead. Clegg says the government will do “more for growth and for jobs”. And he cites some of the stepts being taken by Lib Dem ministers. We are here to build a new economy. A new economy safe from casino speculation. That’s why a Liberal Democrat business secretary [Vince Cable] is putting a firewall into the banking system. Protecting the people who have worked hard and saved. A new economy that safeguards the environment. That’s why a Liberal Democrat environment secretary [Chris Huhne] is creating the world’s first Green Investment Bank, spending three billion pounds to create green jobs. A new economy where the lowest-paid get to keep the money they earn. That’s why a Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury [Danny Alexander] has put two hundred pounds into the pocket of every basic rate taxpayer and taken almost a million workers – most of them women – out of income tax altogether 3.24pm: Clegg pays tribute to Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader. We should all take a leaf out of Simon Hughes’ book – who has been busting a gut as the government’s advocate for access. Travelling the country, explaining the new system and finding ways to get young people from all backgrounds to apply to university. Simon didn’t like the decision we made, and for reasons I respect. But rather than sitting back he has rolled up his sleeves and got on with making the new system work. Simon, thank you. 3.23pm: Clegg says the Lib Dems have failed to show people that the new tuition fees system will be “much, much better than people fear”. 3.21pm: Clegg turns to the tuition fees debacle. He says that he saw the anger and that he knows how much damage was done by what happened. Probably the most important lesson I have learned is this: No matter how hard you work on the details of a policy, it’s no good if the perception is wrong. We can say until we’re blue in the face that no one will have to pay any fees as a student, but still people don’t believe it. That once you’ve left university you’ll pay less, week in week out, than under the current system, but still people don’t believe it. That the support given to students from poorer families will increase dramatically, but still people don’t believe it. (This is debatable, to put it politely. The real problem for the Lib Dems was not so much the policy, but the fact that Clegg and others had been photographed before the election signing a National Union of Students pledge saying they would not vote for tuition fees if they were elected.) 3.20pm: Clegg says another term of Labour would have been “a disaster for the economy”. 3.19pm: Clegg says Labour have accused the government of cutting too far and too fast. But if Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, they would have offered too little, too late. Imagine if Ed Miliband and Ed Balls had still been in power. Gordon Brown’s backroom boys when Labour was failing to balance the books, failing to regulate the financial markets, and failing to take on the banks. The two Eds, behind the scenes, lurking in the shadows, always plotting, always scheming, never taking responsibility. At this time of crisis what Britain needs is real leadership. This is no time for the back room boys. (This is an echo of Gordon Brown’s “no time for a novice” speech to the Labour conference in 2008. But I’m not sure it really works. Miliband and Balls were back room boys, but they’re not now. Balls is hardly ever off the airwaves.) 3.16pm: Clegg says people need to know about the character of their party. And they proved something about their character last year when they had to decide whether or not to go into coalition after the election. It would have been “easy” to sit on the opposition benches. And that might have made them more popular in the short term. “But it would not have been right.” So we put aside party differences for the sake of the national interest. People before politics. Nation before party. And while other countries have been riven by political bickering, we have shown that a coalition forged in a time of emergency could be a different kind of government, governing differently. And Clegg launches into a Neil Kinnock moment. Because let me tell you this: You don’t play politics at a time of national crisis. You don’t play politics with the economy. And you never, ever play politics with people’s jobs. It is, of course, a deliberate echo of Kinnock’s anti-Militant speech at the Labour conference in 1985. 3.16pm: Clegg says the government faces hard choices every day. For liberals, the litmus test is always the national interest. Not doing the easy thing. Doing the right thing. And he has a joke about his predecessor (and mentor). And that takes a certain kind of character. One which we’ve seen on display over the last few months. And indeed the last few days here in Birmingham. Brave. Principled. Awkward. Resolute. Optimistic. Unstoppable. No I’m not just talking about Paddy Ashdown. I am talking about everyone in this hall. 3.15pm: Clegg says his party has fought for liberal values for a century and a half. (It’s the second time he has made the point that the Lib Dems are not a new party, but a new incarnation of the Liberal party that emerged in the nineteenth century.) This conference centre is on the site of the old Bingley Hall where William Gladstone stood a hundred and thirty years ago to found the National Liberal Federation. Gladstone observed that day that Birmingham had shown it was no place for ‘weak-kneed Liberalism’. No change there then. 3.14pm: Clegg says liberals are particularly needed now. These may not be easy times for us as a party. But much more importantly: These are not easy times for the country. Economic insecurity. Conflict and terrorism. Disorder flaring up on our streets. Times like these can breed protectionism and populism. So times like these are when liberals are needed most. Our party has fought for liberal values for a century and half: justice, optimism, freedom. We’re not about to give up now. 3.13pm: Clegg says he will not rest until the Lib Dems have won back all the seats they lost in May – “and some more besides.” That receives the first prolonged burst of applause. 3.12pm: Clegg says the Lib Dems are being “vilified like never before”. The Left and the Right didn’t like us much in opposition. They like us a whole lot less in government. The Left accuse us of being powerless puppets, duped by a right wing Conservative clique. The Right accuse us of being a sinister left wing clique, who’ve duped powerless Conservatives. I do wish they’d make up their mind. But “adversity tests the character”, he says. The Lib Dems came out fighting. The Lib Dems are “not doing the easy thing, but doing the right thing.” “Not easy, but right,” he repeats, just for good measure. 3.11pm: Clegg mentions one candidate in particular. After the May elections, Alex Cole-Hamilton, one of our defeated candidates in Edinburgh said that if losing was part payment for ending child detention then, as he said: “I accept it, with all my heart.” That is the liberal spirit and that is something we will never lose. (Actually losing wasn’t part payment for ending child detention. The child detention policy almost certainly had nothing to do with the Lib Dem defeat in the local elections.) 3.09pm: Nick Clegg starts by saying that the Lib Dems have been in government for 500 days. He pays tribute to the councillors who lost their seats in the local elections. I know how painful it has been to face anger and frustration on the doorstep. Some of you may have even wondered: Will it all be worth it in the end? It will be. And today I want to explain why. 3.08pm: Nick Clegg is about to speak now. They are showing a video of what he has been doing in government. 2.59pm: Don Foster is doing a fund-raising appeal. His jokes are at least funnier than Sarah Teather’s. 2.39pm: Nick Clegg is due to start his speech at about 3pm. Tim Farron is doing a warm-up now. I’m following the speech from the TV in the press room. My colleague Paul Owen is watching in the hall and he will be tweeting throughout the speech. You can follow him on the Guardian Politics Twitter feed (@GdnPolitics). 2.03pm: My colleague Paul Owen has just been to an Ipsos Mori event on the Lib Dems’ poll ratings. The crowd of Lib Dem activists in the Hyatt hotel were in a giddy mood, perhaps looking forward to Nick Clegg’s speech this afternoon, but Ipsos Mori soon burst their bubble. Ben Page of the polling organisation said: “When I saw the data I thought: ‘I’m glad I’m not presenting it because I wanted to get out of here in one piece.’” His colleague Gideon Skinner, who was presenting the information, confided that he was “slightly nervous”. Skinner started with the headline figures for September 2011: Labour 37, Conservative 35, Lib Dems 13. The usual cycle was for Lib Dems to go up at election time, and down in between, but even so “your level now is lower than we usual see in peacetime”, Skinner said, “and there is no guarantee that the upside of the cycle … will be repeated next time.” Skinner said 62% of 2010 Labour voters and 61% of 2010 Tories were still planning to vote that way again. But for the Lib Dems the figure was only 30%. Fully 58% of 2010 Lib Dems now said they would not vote for Clegg’s party. This was “not just a random group of voters who have gone”, said Skinner, “it’s a very clearly defined group who have gone. It’s not an age group or a particular class but a group of voters who share a set of values … the soft-left group.” Lib Dem defectors admired Tony Blair the most from a list of recent leaders, while those Lib Dems staying put preferred Margaret Thatcher. 60% of Lib Dem voters agreed that it was more important to stand up for one’s principles than to compromise, and as such, Skinner said, “you’ve lost some of your distinctiveness in terms of being a party in principle … but you haven’t gained on the upside. You’re bottom in terms of parties fit to govern.” He said that the party faced a choice: “Is it about trying to win [the lost voters] back or building a new centre-ground identity?” His conclusion was: “On current standing if there was a snap election the Tories would probably survive it, but I’m not sure the Lib Dems would.” Lib Dem campaign guru Lord (Chris) Rennard said that “trust, once lost, is very hard to regain”. But more important was competence. People stopped trusting Tony Blair after Iraq, he said, but they continued to respect him – and continued to vote for him. Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, said: “Under our system, we win elections by seats not percentages. It’s a bottom-up system whereby we gain territory and hold it.” But his conclusion sounded persuasive: “Everything will depend for us on whether we can help get the country out of this economic mess.” 1.00pm: Here’s a lunchtime summary. • Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader, has said that the debate about the health bill is “by no means over”. In an interview on the BBC’s Daily Politics show he said: “I think we need to absolutely tie down that the private work of the NHS in any hospital cannot become the dominant financial or practical activity. That is most important.” In a debate in the conference hall on the health plans, the Lib Dem MP Andrew George said the Lib Dems could be ruined as a party if there were not further changes to the bill. “I want to do my best to save the NHS from what I believe may be a catastrophic train crash, which I fear may take the party with it,” he said. Another Lib Dem MP, John Pugh, said the health bill plans were taking the Blairite model for the NHS “to its logical, ultimate and slightly disturbing conclusion”. Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg’s chief parliamentary adviser, said that the government was “open to further changes” on the bill. “If the bill can be improved, then that can happen in the House of Lords,” he said. “And remember, what bill goes through the House of Lords these days without getting significantly changes?” • Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has insisted that the government will stick to its deficit reduction plan despite a downgrading of the UK economy growth forecast by the International Monetary Fund . In an interview on the Today programme, he denied that the government was planning a £5bn economic stimulus and said that Britain’s biggest asset was a government with a “clear plan” for getting the country’s deficit under control. Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, has also played down reports that the government is planning a £5bn stimulus. But he said the government needed to be “more creative and imaginative about ideas to boost growth”. (See 9.33am.) • Nick Harvey, the Lib Dem defence minister, has criticised the pace of political development in Afghanistan. Speaking in a Q&A on interntional issues, he said: “I believe we are on task with the development of the Afghan national security forces to make that transfer of power by the end of 2014. But the problem in Afghanistan is a political one and it is only capable of being resolved through a political solution. I am probably more optimistic that we are on course on the timetable for the military aspect of what we are doing than I am confident that we are on timetable on the politics of the situation.” • Kirsty Williams, the Welsh Lib Dem leader, has accused Labour of irresponsible spending in Wales. In her conference speech she said: “Unlike most families and businesses, the Welsh government has the luxury of spending money handed out by others. Like the wayward teenager, left school, still living at home. Frittering money away, but complaining that the regular handouts are too stingy. That is Labour’s devolution. The lack of ability to raise money breeds an irresponsibility about how that money is spent.” • Tim Farron has said that, if he were invited to join the government as a minister, he would refuse because he would want to carry on as Lib Dem president instead. (See 9.20am.) 12.35pm: After five days of prolonged exposure to the Liberal Democrats, I would hate to go home thinking that I hadn’t learnt anything new about where they are as a party, and where they’re going. I’ve been wracking my brains. And here are the 10 things I’ve learnt at the Lib Dem conference. 1. Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems are definitely not “going wobbly” on the coalition. They’re in it for good. After their brutal drubbing in the local elections, you might expect them to have second thoughts. But they’re not. Tim Farron has made it clear that the reference in his speech to the coalition coming to an end after three or four years was not intended to mean that the coalition could collapse, and Lib Dems at all levels of the party are saying – in public and in private – that they are signed up with David Cameron until May 2015. 2. Morale is actually rather good – for reasons that are not particularly obvious. The normal assumption in British politics is that there’s a direct correlation between the morale of a party and its standing in the opinion polls. After this conference, that assumption is going to have to go. They’re actually quite chipper in Birimingham. Some Lib Dems are saying that that’s because they’re now doing better in the polls. For example, Farron said in his speech that the poll ratings had “shot up from absolutely diabolical to just slightly depressing”. If they really believe this, they’re deluded. As you can see from the figures on the YouGov tracker, or the chart showing all this year’s polling numbers on the UK Polling Report website, the Lib Dems have essentially been stuck on very low single figures all year. Perhaps mass insanity explains the positive atmosphere. But I think there are other reasons. Which takes us on to … 3. The Lib Dems are now confident that they exercise real influence within the coalition. At their conference last year the Lib Dems said they were having an impact on coalition decisions, but I’m not sure that they really believed it. Now, after the rewriting of the health bill, they definitely do. The Tory MP Nadine Dorries has helped to persuade them too. There have been numerous references to her question at PMQs earlier this month about how Nick Clegg was too powerful. It’s hard to think of anyone else who has done so much to thrill the Lib Dems with just two sentences. 4. The Lib Dems are showing that being in coalition doesn’t necessarily stop a party asserting its independence. After the coalition was formed there were anguished debates about whether the Lib Dems (or the Conservatives) could advocate their own, distinct policies without undermining the coalition. Not any more. As John Harris explained earlier this week , the Lib Dems still use their conference for proper, hard-edged policy making and this week they have been voting for a raft of non-coalition policies covering issues like welfare, eduction, drugs and nuclear power. We don’t know yet how prominent any of these measures will be in the Lib Dem manifesto. But now they can easily make the case that they’re different. 5. There is no threat to Clegg’s leadership. Any other party that had seen its poll ratings halve over 16 months would awash with people plotting to get rid of the leader. But that has not been happening in Birmingham. If Clegg wants to fight the next election, it seems as if no one is going to stop him. 6. But the thought of standing down before 2015 does seem to have crossed Clegg’s mind. Clegg has issued a very firm denial of the Daily Mail story suggesting that he had promised his wife Miriam that he would only serve one term. Yet we haven’t just had a straightforward denial. We’ve also had a wild attack on the Mail , some odd comments about not being able to predict the future, a refusal to say what he has told his wife about the matter and an over-the-top assertion that the Mail story is “2000% no true”. All of this suggests to me that that there is – or was – something in all this, and whether or not to stand down in 2015 has been a subject of discussion in the Clegg household. 7. If Clegg really does want to get rid of the Lib Dems’ “fluffy bunny” tendency, he still hasn’t entirely succeeded. The “Clegg standing down” suggestion came from a new biography of the Lib Dem leader by the journalist Jasper Gerard which argues that Clegg is trying to turn the Lib Dems from a “fluffy bunny” party for people who like permanent opposition into a centrist party of government. Broadly, this is what is happening. But the Lib Dems haven’t become completely conventional and this week they voted for a review that could lead to a partial decriminalisation of drugs, called for a ban on page 3 girls, spent an hour debating the rules on blood donation for men who have sex with men, and proposed the establishment of a happiness quango. There’s still a streak of non-conformist wackiness in this party that makes it unique. 8. The Lib Dems aren’t getting any closer to Labour. The Lib Dems might feel less warm about the Conservatives than they did last year, but there is no evidence that this is making them any more pro-Labour. They haven’t got anything particularly nice to say about Ed Miliband, and it is hard to imagine any ministers who have signed up to George Osborne’s economic strategy ever working in harmony with Miliband and Ed Balls. That said, there is some obvious potential for policy overlap. If Miliband were to wholeheartedly back the Lib Dem mansion tax idea at Labour’s conference next, the dynamics of British politics could start to look different. 9. If there’s another hung parliament, what the Lib Dems do will be determined by the numbers, and not by ideology. Given that there seems to be a good chance that there will be another hung parliament, journalists have spent the week trying to work out whether the Lib Dems would prefer a coalition with Labour or another term with the Tories. But I’m starting to think that that’s a waste of time. Whenever you ask ministers and MPs about this, they keep coming back to the point that it will depend on the election results and the number of seats each party has in the House of Commons. As far as I can tell, personal and ideological preference will only count for about 20% if the Lib Dems have to take a decision of the kind; 80% of it will be about the numbers. 10. Tim Farron must be favourite to become next Lib Dem leader if the coalition fails. Farron has had fairly good week. Some parliamentary colleagues find him sanctimonious and irritating, but he has now firmly established himself as the pre-eminent candidate from the left in any future leadership contest. If the coalition parties do badly at the next election – perhaps because the economy is still in dire straits, and government ministers are getting the blame – then it is hard to see how Chris Huhne, Vince Cable or anyone else could beat him in a leadership contest. 11.30am: Lord Ashdown (left), the former Lib Dem leader, told the conference during the Q&A on international issues that the Lib Dems should speak out more in favour of internationalism. I’ve taken the quote from PolitcsHome. In our natural and inevitable concentration on domestic issues, we are losing a real trick: internationalism is one of the distinguishing features of our party, and it has never ever ever been more important. There are no solely domestic issues: every issue has an international quotient … We’re losing a trick here. We have got to spend much more effort getting across our international credentials. Ashdown also said that repatriating some powers from the European Union – as advocated by the Tories – would be “a very dangerous move”. 10.34am: Michael Moore , the Scottish secretary, has just delivered his speech to the conference. Here are the main points. • Moore said that the Lib Dems would make a “strong and positive case” for Scotland to remain in the UK. Using hard facts, not hysterical language, to argue for a strong Scotland in a modern UK. And it is right that we should do that. Those who want to turn their backs on Britain are passionate about their cause. We must be equal to that passion, but ahead of them in the arguments. We must show – we will show – that the nations of our country are stronger together and poorer apart. • He said the Scotland Office was setting up a Scottish Trade and Growth Board. It would contribute to the UK growth review, using expertise from representatives of key sections of the Scottish economy, he said. • He said the government would only agree to further changes to the Scotland bill if they had cross-party support and did not prejudice the broader interests of the UK. 9.53am: You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here. As for the rest of the papers, here are two stories that are particularly interesting. • Sam Coates and Roland Watson in the Times says Nick Clegg wants a bigger role for the Lib Dems in the Home Office after the next reshuffle. Nick Clegg is preparing to ask for a bigger role for his party at the Home Office as Liberal Democrats brace themselves for the first major reshuffle. Allies of the Deputy Prime Minister suggest that the party feels exposed over law and order issues, especially after last month’s riots, where the coalition partners’ instincts took them in different directions. The Lib Dems are prepared to trade the senior role occupied in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by their Minister Of State Jeremy Browne for a beefed-up job under Theresa May. • David Laws tells the Independent in an interview that entrepreneurs would leave Britain if they thought the 50p tax rate was not going to be abolished. If you got stuck with the 50p rate of tax for a long period, particularly if people felt it was permanent, then there is a risk not only that some people might decide to resite overseas, but particularly that where firms and leadership teams face a choice of coming to the UK or some other business centre, that they might not opt for the UK. My own view is that they are unlikely to take that decision. 9.33am: Chris Huhne , the energy secretary, has been giving interviews this morning. He has also tried to knock down reports that the government is planning to put a £5bn stimulus into the economy. I certainly don’t recognise any proposals of the nature that’s been reported, that there’s a £5bn or £6bn proposal for any increase in spending. In fact, one of the great achievements of the government has been to get the deficit down and get us out of the danger zone, despite the fact that we have a much bigger budget deficit than a lot of the countries that have been through crises. We have got the credibility to get it down and we haven’t been sucked in to the crisis that has affected Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.That is an enormous achievement and we shouldn’t do anything to imperil that. What we can do is to be more creative and imaginative about ideas to boost growth and that is going on within government. 9.20am: Tim Farron , the Lib Dem president, was also on the Today programme today. He did not get asked about the leadership – we flogged that subject to death yesterday, I suspect – but he had some other interesting things to say. I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome. • Farron said that if he were invited to join the government, he would refuse. But he said this was not because he disapproved of the coalition. [Lib Dem ministers] are making an enormous difference and it is important that I support them, and I do. The way things have worked out I stood to be elected as the party’s president so I am appointed for a two year period. I have chosen that instead of being a minister. • He said that the Lib Dems prevented the election of a majority Conservative government. If they had not gone into coalition, there would have been a second election in 2010 which David Cameron would have won, he said. • He refused to say whether the Lib Dems should form a coalition with Labour or with the Tories in the event of another hung parliament. Next time we do what we did last time. The largest party in a balanced parliament has the right to lead and start negotiations and whoever that is – I would love it to be us – should prevail. 9.02am: It’s the final day of the Lib Dem conference and the economy is dominating the news. Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has just been on the Today programme trying to knock down a BBC report saying that ministers are discussing how to inject an extra £5bn into the economy. “I don’t recognise what they are apparently talking about,” Alexander said. We are not changing our spending plans. These spending plans have been set out in our spending review, they are an integral part of our deficit reduction plan. We have set out the spending plans that we have and we are going to live within them. Given that Vince Cable and Chris Huhne have both been talking up the need to find a way of getting a stimulus into the economy , this could be perceived as an internal Lib Dem row. But Alexander insisted that the government was already committed to getting money into the economy. “As Nick Clegg was saying last week, I am engaged with my cabinet colleagues to make sure that the projects we have funded – for example investment in transport – that those projects are delivered on time and on budget,” Alexander told Today. “We are making sure we are only allocating capital resources to most economically valuable projects.” Nick Clegg is speaking after lunch and that will be the main event of the day. But here’s the full agenda. 9am: Delegates debate changes to internal party election rules. 9.30am: A debate on the Arab Spring. 10.15am: Michael Moore , the Scottish secretary, delivers a speech to the conference. 10.35am: Paddy Ashdown , the former Lib Dem leader, Jeremy Browne , the Foreign Office minister and Nick Harvey , the defence minister, take part in a Q&A session on international issues. 11.20am: Kirsty Williams , the leader of the Welsh Lib Dems, delivers a speech. 11.40am: A debate on the progress of the health bill. But there is no motion, and there will be no vote. 2.30pm: Nick Clegg closes the conference with his keynote speech . As usual, I’ll be covering all the conference news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best comment from the web. I’ll also be putting up a “10 things we’ve learnt from the Lib Dem conference” post. I’ll post a summary at lunchtime, and another after Clegg has finished. Liberal Democrat conference Liberal Democrats Liberal Democrat conference 2011 Nick Clegg Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

The Solyndra scandal is certainly an “embarrassment” for the White House, as some network news reports have called it. But somehow those same reports have still failed to criticize Obama's green jobs programs for fiscal waste, even the government loan program that gave Solyndra millions. To their credit, all three broadcast networks aired stories in September about the California solar company that declared bankruptcy in August after getting a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government in September 2009. But out of 11 network stories on Solyndra this year (most in September), not a single one used the company's failure to criticize the loan program it used to get more than half a billion taxpayer dollars. Although some of those stories mentioned that Solyndra was touted as a stimulus success story, none explicitly used its failure to argue that such green ” investment ” programs were flawed. Unlike the networks, print outlets have been exposing not only Solyndra, but problems with the programs that allowed this scandal to occur. According to job creation figures reported by The Washington Post, the $36.8 billion loan program has created only 5 percent of the 65,000 jobs promised and each job cost more than $5 million. Meanwhile, at least one administration spokesman absurdly claimed the program has been successful in spite of Solyndra's failure. The Washington Examiner quoted Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, who said of Solyndra: ” The project that we supported succeeded. The facility was producing the product it said it would produce, and consumers were buying the product .” What is stunning about that quote was that LaVera said it after the company folded, but it still didn't invite skepticism from network reporters. Lachlan Markay , an investigative reporter for The Heritage Foundation, pointed out the economic problem with defining success in that way, rather than the way private businesses without government assistance would define it. Markay wrote about LaVera's and other statements from administration officials: “The comments underscore the point I was getting at in speaking with ABC: from an economic perspective, the Solyndra loan was a failure. But if the purpose of the loan guarantee program was to get more people to invest in green technology, then Solyndra's failure has no bearing on the program's success. The merit of the program does not depend on companies succeeding or failing.” “The loan guarantee program exists in order to insulate would-be investors from the normal workings of the market, and hence to encourage more investment,” Markay concluded. And that is precisely the problem, one that the networks continue to ignore. Print news outlets including the Post have reported that the loan program is failing to meet expectations, particularly in the area of job creation. But the networks are still refusing to critically examine the overall green technology policies of the Obama administration. Before Solyndra went under, but after a number of stimulus-financed green technology companies had gone out of business, the Business & Media Institute looked at network coverage of “green jobs” and found criticism of those policies was left out of 92 percent of the 52 stories between Jan. 17, 2009, and Aug. 17, 2011. Solyndra's Growing Scandal The networks have admitted that Solyndra's failure reflects poorly on the Obama administration, which approved the loan and touted the company as a model green jobs success. But only one of 11 stories actually mentioned the word “scandal.” A few of the stories downplayed the seriousness by calling it an “embarrassment” or “headache” for the Obama administration. But it is looking more serious than a “headache,” based on recent print news coverage of the investigation of Solyndra. The Hill reported on Sept. 20 that top Solyndra executives will plead the Fifth during a Capitol Hill hearing on Sept. 23 because the Justice Department is in the middle of investigating the bankrupt solar company. Recent print reports have also exposed financial problems at the company going all the way back to 2007. The Associated Press reported Sept. 16 that Solyndra was “hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee …” AP even said that the company's SEC filings showed losses of $114.1 million in 2007, $232.1 million in 2008 and $119.8 million in just nine months of 2009 – suggesting that the company was not a good risk from the beginning. Yet the government approved the loan and Obama and Vice President Biden both praised the company as a success. Earlier this year, according to AP, the Obama administration “restructured” Solyndra's loan to ensure that private investors would be paid ahead of taxpayers if the company defaulted. One of those private investors was Argonaut Ventures LLC, “an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation.” George Kaiser is the head of that foundation and is himself a major Obama donor. ABC and its investigative correspondent Brian Ross have done a much better job than other network reporters by breaking the story of a plant closure and layoffs at Solyndra back in March 2011 and exposing the company's close ties to President Obama. ABC has continued to expose the Solyndra scandal and recently reported emails suggesting the company was not a sound investment and the government knew that. On Sept. 14, Ross told ABC “World News with Diane Sawyer” viewers that “New emails show the California company got its $535 million loan despite deep misgivings inside the government.” One of those emails warned: “… the model runs out of cash in Sept. 2011.” But overall, the print news media are doing a much better job than the networks of exposing flaws not only at Solyndra, but with other companies and the Obama administration's policies on green energy. The Washington Post reported on Sept. 14 that Obama's “green-tech” loan program was struggling to fulfill its job-creation goals. The newspaper said the $38.6 billion loan guarantee program used to finance Solyndra and other companies has fallen seriously short of its 65,000 job creation promise: 61,455 jobs short in fact . The program has only “directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after given out almost half the allocated amount,” The Post wrote. That's more than $5 million per job . Solyndra has been under investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for some time, according to Politico. On Sept. 20, Rep. Darell Issa, R-Calif., announced that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee would begin an investigation of government loan programs to private companies in light of allegations surrounded Solyndra and a wireless company called Lightsquared, The Hill reported. None of this is stopping the Obama administration's efforts to give away billions more in loans to renewable energy companies before the end of the month. Bloomberg reported that $9.2 billion in loan guarantees could be given away by the Sept. 30 deadline. In that report, Bloomberg quoted Department of Energy spokesman Damien LaVera (the same DOE spokesman who said bankrupt Solyndra was a success) who said: “We want to get as many of these done in a way that responsible protects the taxpayers' interest … If they meet conditions set out in the agreement, then they'll close.”

Continue reading …

The Solyndra scandal is certainly an “embarrassment” for the White House, as some network news reports have called it. But somehow those same reports have still failed to criticize Obama's green jobs programs for fiscal waste, even the government loan program that gave Solyndra millions. To their credit, all three broadcast networks aired stories in September about the California solar company that declared bankruptcy in August after getting a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government in September 2009. But out of 11 network stories on Solyndra this year (most in September), not a single one used the company's failure to criticize the loan program it used to get more than half a billion taxpayer dollars. Although some of those stories mentioned that Solyndra was touted as a stimulus success story, none explicitly used its failure to argue that such green ” investment ” programs were flawed. Unlike the networks, print outlets have been exposing not only Solyndra, but problems with the programs that allowed this scandal to occur. According to job creation figures reported by The Washington Post, the $36.8 billion loan program has created only 5 percent of the 65,000 jobs promised and each job cost more than $5 million. Meanwhile, at least one administration spokesman absurdly claimed the program has been successful in spite of Solyndra's failure. The Washington Examiner quoted Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, who said of Solyndra: ” The project that we supported succeeded. The facility was producing the product it said it would produce, and consumers were buying the product .” What is stunning about that quote was that LaVera said it after the company folded, but it still didn't invite skepticism from network reporters. Lachlan Markay , an investigative reporter for The Heritage Foundation, pointed out the economic problem with defining success in that way, rather than the way private businesses without government assistance would define it. Markay wrote about LaVera's and other statements from administration officials: “The comments underscore the point I was getting at in speaking with ABC: from an economic perspective, the Solyndra loan was a failure. But if the purpose of the loan guarantee program was to get more people to invest in green technology, then Solyndra's failure has no bearing on the program's success. The merit of the program does not depend on companies succeeding or failing.” “The loan guarantee program exists in order to insulate would-be investors from the normal workings of the market, and hence to encourage more investment,” Markay concluded. And that is precisely the problem, one that the networks continue to ignore. Print news outlets including the Post have reported that the loan program is failing to meet expectations, particularly in the area of job creation. But the networks are still refusing to critically examine the overall green technology policies of the Obama administration. Before Solyndra went under, but after a number of stimulus-financed green technology companies had gone out of business, the Business & Media Institute looked at network coverage of “green jobs” and found criticism of those policies was left out of 92 percent of the 52 stories between Jan. 17, 2009, and Aug. 17, 2011. Solyndra's Growing Scandal The networks have admitted that Solyndra's failure reflects poorly on the Obama administration, which approved the loan and touted the company as a model green jobs success. But only one of 11 stories actually mentioned the word “scandal.” A few of the stories downplayed the seriousness by calling it an “embarrassment” or “headache” for the Obama administration. But it is looking more serious than a “headache,” based on recent print news coverage of the investigation of Solyndra. The Hill reported on Sept. 20 that top Solyndra executives will plead the Fifth during a Capitol Hill hearing on Sept. 23 because the Justice Department is in the middle of investigating the bankrupt solar company. Recent print reports have also exposed financial problems at the company going all the way back to 2007. The Associated Press reported Sept. 16 that Solyndra was “hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee …” AP even said that the company's SEC filings showed losses of $114.1 million in 2007, $232.1 million in 2008 and $119.8 million in just nine months of 2009 – suggesting that the company was not a good risk from the beginning. Yet the government approved the loan and Obama and Vice President Biden both praised the company as a success. Earlier this year, according to AP, the Obama administration “restructured” Solyndra's loan to ensure that private investors would be paid ahead of taxpayers if the company defaulted. One of those private investors was Argonaut Ventures LLC, “an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation.” George Kaiser is the head of that foundation and is himself a major Obama donor. ABC and its investigative correspondent Brian Ross have done a much better job than other network reporters by breaking the story of a plant closure and layoffs at Solyndra back in March 2011 and exposing the company's close ties to President Obama. ABC has continued to expose the Solyndra scandal and recently reported emails suggesting the company was not a sound investment and the government knew that. On Sept. 14, Ross told ABC “World News with Diane Sawyer” viewers that “New emails show the California company got its $535 million loan despite deep misgivings inside the government.” One of those emails warned: “… the model runs out of cash in Sept. 2011.” But overall, the print news media are doing a much better job than the networks of exposing flaws not only at Solyndra, but with other companies and the Obama administration's policies on green energy. The Washington Post reported on Sept. 14 that Obama's “green-tech” loan program was struggling to fulfill its job-creation goals. The newspaper said the $38.6 billion loan guarantee program used to finance Solyndra and other companies has fallen seriously short of its 65,000 job creation promise: 61,455 jobs short in fact . The program has only “directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after given out almost half the allocated amount,” The Post wrote. That's more than $5 million per job . Solyndra has been under investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for some time, according to Politico. On Sept. 20, Rep. Darell Issa, R-Calif., announced that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee would begin an investigation of government loan programs to private companies in light of allegations surrounded Solyndra and a wireless company called Lightsquared, The Hill reported. None of this is stopping the Obama administration's efforts to give away billions more in loans to renewable energy companies before the end of the month. Bloomberg reported that $9.2 billion in loan guarantees could be given away by the Sept. 30 deadline. In that report, Bloomberg quoted Department of Energy spokesman Damien LaVera (the same DOE spokesman who said bankrupt Solyndra was a success) who said: “We want to get as many of these done in a way that responsible protects the taxpayers' interest … If they meet conditions set out in the agreement, then they'll close.”

Continue reading …

The Solyndra scandal is certainly an “embarrassment” for the White House, as some network news reports have called it. But somehow those same reports have still failed to criticize Obama's green jobs programs for fiscal waste, even the government loan program that gave Solyndra millions. To their credit, all three broadcast networks aired stories in September about the California solar company that declared bankruptcy in August after getting a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government in September 2009. But out of 11 network stories on Solyndra this year (most in September), not a single one used the company's failure to criticize the loan program it used to get more than half a billion taxpayer dollars. Although some of those stories mentioned that Solyndra was touted as a stimulus success story, none explicitly used its failure to argue that such green ” investment ” programs were flawed. Unlike the networks, print outlets have been exposing not only Solyndra, but problems with the programs that allowed this scandal to occur. According to job creation figures reported by The Washington Post, the $36.8 billion loan program has created only 5 percent of the 65,000 jobs promised and each job cost more than $5 million. Meanwhile, at least one administration spokesman absurdly claimed the program has been successful in spite of Solyndra's failure. The Washington Examiner quoted Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, who said of Solyndra: ” The project that we supported succeeded. The facility was producing the product it said it would produce, and consumers were buying the product .” What is stunning about that quote was that LaVera said it after the company folded, but it still didn't invite skepticism from network reporters. Lachlan Markay , an investigative reporter for The Heritage Foundation, pointed out the economic problem with defining success in that way, rather than the way private businesses without government assistance would define it. Markay wrote about LaVera's and other statements from administration officials: “The comments underscore the point I was getting at in speaking with ABC: from an economic perspective, the Solyndra loan was a failure. But if the purpose of the loan guarantee program was to get more people to invest in green technology, then Solyndra's failure has no bearing on the program's success. The merit of the program does not depend on companies succeeding or failing.” “The loan guarantee program exists in order to insulate would-be investors from the normal workings of the market, and hence to encourage more investment,” Markay concluded. And that is precisely the problem, one that the networks continue to ignore. Print news outlets including the Post have reported that the loan program is failing to meet expectations, particularly in the area of job creation. But the networks are still refusing to critically examine the overall green technology policies of the Obama administration. Before Solyndra went under, but after a number of stimulus-financed green technology companies had gone out of business, the Business & Media Institute looked at network coverage of “green jobs” and found criticism of those policies was left out of 92 percent of the 52 stories between Jan. 17, 2009, and Aug. 17, 2011. Solyndra's Growing Scandal The networks have admitted that Solyndra's failure reflects poorly on the Obama administration, which approved the loan and touted the company as a model green jobs success. But only one of 11 stories actually mentioned the word “scandal.” A few of the stories downplayed the seriousness by calling it an “embarrassment” or “headache” for the Obama administration. But it is looking more serious than a “headache,” based on recent print news coverage of the investigation of Solyndra. The Hill reported on Sept. 20 that top Solyndra executives will plead the Fifth during a Capitol Hill hearing on Sept. 23 because the Justice Department is in the middle of investigating the bankrupt solar company. Recent print reports have also exposed financial problems at the company going all the way back to 2007. The Associated Press reported Sept. 16 that Solyndra was “hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee …” AP even said that the company's SEC filings showed losses of $114.1 million in 2007, $232.1 million in 2008 and $119.8 million in just nine months of 2009 – suggesting that the company was not a good risk from the beginning. Yet the government approved the loan and Obama and Vice President Biden both praised the company as a success. Earlier this year, according to AP, the Obama administration “restructured” Solyndra's loan to ensure that private investors would be paid ahead of taxpayers if the company defaulted. One of those private investors was Argonaut Ventures LLC, “an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation.” George Kaiser is the head of that foundation and is himself a major Obama donor. ABC and its investigative correspondent Brian Ross have done a much better job than other network reporters by breaking the story of a plant closure and layoffs at Solyndra back in March 2011 and exposing the company's close ties to President Obama. ABC has continued to expose the Solyndra scandal and recently reported emails suggesting the company was not a sound investment and the government knew that. On Sept. 14, Ross told ABC “World News with Diane Sawyer” viewers that “New emails show the California company got its $535 million loan despite deep misgivings inside the government.” One of those emails warned: “… the model runs out of cash in Sept. 2011.” But overall, the print news media are doing a much better job than the networks of exposing flaws not only at Solyndra, but with other companies and the Obama administration's policies on green energy. The Washington Post reported on Sept. 14 that Obama's “green-tech” loan program was struggling to fulfill its job-creation goals. The newspaper said the $38.6 billion loan guarantee program used to finance Solyndra and other companies has fallen seriously short of its 65,000 job creation promise: 61,455 jobs short in fact . The program has only “directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after given out almost half the allocated amount,” The Post wrote. That's more than $5 million per job . Solyndra has been under investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee for some time, according to Politico. On Sept. 20, Rep. Darell Issa, R-Calif., announced that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee would begin an investigation of government loan programs to private companies in light of allegations surrounded Solyndra and a wireless company called Lightsquared, The Hill reported. None of this is stopping the Obama administration's efforts to give away billions more in loans to renewable energy companies before the end of the month. Bloomberg reported that $9.2 billion in loan guarantees could be given away by the Sept. 30 deadline. In that report, Bloomberg quoted Department of Energy spokesman Damien LaVera (the same DOE spokesman who said bankrupt Solyndra was a success) who said: “We want to get as many of these done in a way that responsible protects the taxpayers' interest … If they meet conditions set out in the agreement, then they'll close.”

Continue reading …