In stance that directly opposes Andrew Lansley’s, Clegg says NHS regulator should protect interests of patients and push collaboration rather than promote competition Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, has set himself on a collision course with the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, by signalling his determination to veto a key plank of the government’s controversial NHS reforms. Clegg has singled out the role of Monitor, the NHS regulator, as the area of the embattled NHS bill that needs the “most substantial changes” and has said descriptions of the body as an economic regulator should be removed on the grounds that the NHS cannot be regulated as if it were just a utility “like electricity or telephones”. In the blueprint of his health and social care bill, Lansley proposed that Monitor, which currently scrutinises hospital finances, is also given the duty of promoting competition in the provision of health services. However, in a stance which directly opposes the one taken by Lansley, Clegg believes Monitor should instead promote and protect the interests of the patient, and push NHS collaboration. Simon Burns, a Conservative health minister, sought to play down the impact of Clegg’s opposition to the idea of an NHS regulatory body, insisting that it would not derail NHS reforms. “No it doesn’t at all,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “As you know, we have a pause at the moment, we are listening, we have set up an independent future forum that is going and talking to and talking to people in the NHS, to the Royal Colleges, others who have an interest and involvement in the National Health Service seeking constructive ideas in which we can continue to improve and strengthen the bill.” Burns said that the idea was one of many put forward as part of the listening exercise designed to improve the bill. “The deputy prime minister had a meeting, I understand, with his members of parliament last night, discussed this, they have come up with some ideas, like a load of other people throughout the NHS, and all those ideas will be considered when listening process is over, and the decision will be taken that will be aimed at improving, strengthening the bill, and making sure that patient care is first class.” Evan Harris, a former Lib Dem MP and vice chairman of the party’s federal policy committee, said Burns was “wrong” to say Clegg’s comments were simply a contribution to the listening exercise. “We have made very clear that there will be no government majority for things not in the coalition agreement, like this mass marketisation of the health service, without Liberal Democrat MPs and peers,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “They will not vote for Monitor to be an economic regulator so this is a veto.” In a presentation by the deputy prime minister to the weekly meeting of his parliamentary party and leaked to the Guardian, a page-long policy document signed by Clegg set out how he believes the regulator should be reconceived. “Instead of having a duty to promote competition, Monitor’s main duty should be explicitly to protect and promote the interests of patients,” Clegg wrote. A new role for Monitor has long been a running sore in the health secretary’s plans. Last week Steve Field, the man appointed by David Cameron to oversee the “pause” in the health legislation, said he also thought the proposed new role for Monitor should be scrapped. Instead, it should promote co-operation and collaboration and the integration of health services. Addressing fellow Liberal Democrat MPs and peers at a meeting last night, Clegg said he would “never let the profit motive get in the way of the essential purposes of the NHS”. The policy document said: “We cannot treat the NHS as if it were a utility, and the decision to establish Monitor as an ‘economic regulator’ was clearly a misjudgment, failing to recognise all the unique characteristics of a public health service, and opening us up to accusations that we are trying to subject the NHS to the full rigours of UK and EU competition law. Tory backbencher Peter Bone accused the Lib Dems of trying to exploit the issue for political reasons, having previously backed the reforms in cabinet and the House of Commons. Bone told Sky news that Clegg’s position as deputy prime minister meant he should be supporting government policy. If a Conservative minister had opposed the NHS reforms as Clegg had done, “he would have been fired by now”, said Bone. “Every minister must support it. If you can’t support the decision, you must resign from the government. Having voted for it in parliament, the only thing that seems to have happened is that the Liberal Democrats lost very badly in the local elections, lost the AV referendum and this seems to be more about shoring up Nick Clegg’s position as party leader rather than anything to do with improving the health bill.” The deputy prime minister should “row in” behind reforms which he said were in the interest of not only the country but of the patient as well. “It is right that we should listen and scrutinise the bill, but the idea that competition does not improve the health service is ridiculous. It drives up efficiency and makes NHS hospitals more effective. “Getting better value for money in the health service, and people getting treated better and quicker must be right. You have a prime minister who loves the NHS who made his first priority the NHS. “You have a health secretary with more experience than any other politician. Those are the people who should be listened to, not someone who is trying to do it for party political reasons, such as the deputy prime minister.” As Clegg seeks to establish a more distinct identity on issues like NHS reform after their dismal poll results earlier this month, former cabinet minister David Laws cautioned his Lib Dem colleagues not to put the coalition at risk by sniping at their Conservative partners. Laws’ comments, in his first interview since being barred from the Commons for seven days on Monday, will be seen as a warning to ministers like Chris Huhne and Vince Cable who have gone public with criticisms of Tory colleagues. Laws, who was suspended after the parliamentary standards commissioner found he breached expenses rules by claiming the rent he paid his male partner of nine years, said: “Our continued effective delivery of policies depends not just on shouting and our public profile, but on a trusting relationship between the key people in the coalition. “We could get our way over one or two key issues by storming off, voting against them, briefing against them, whatever. But when the next key issue is on the table and we need the co-operation of everybody in the coalition, will we get it? Maybe we won’t.” And he added: “The opportunity to make a difference in national politics is a very special one and we shouldn’t be sitting around in the corner of the political room sulking about the fact that we are in government and looking forward to the opportunity when we can return to the splendid irrelevance of opposition.” Health policy Health Public services policy NHS Nick Clegg Andrew Lansley Liberal Democrats Hélène Mulholland Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …In stance that directly opposes Andrew Lansley’s, Clegg says NHS regulator should protect interests of patients and push collaboration rather than promote competition Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, has set himself on a collision course with the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, by signalling his determination to veto a key plank of the government’s controversial NHS reforms. Clegg has singled out the role of Monitor, the NHS regulator, as the area of the embattled NHS bill that needs the “most substantial changes” and has said descriptions of the body as an economic regulator should be removed on the grounds that the NHS cannot be regulated as if it were just a utility “like electricity or telephones”. In the blueprint of his health and social care bill, Lansley proposed that Monitor, which currently scrutinises hospital finances, is also given the duty of promoting competition in the provision of health services. However, in a stance which directly opposes the one taken by Lansley, Clegg believes Monitor should instead promote and protect the interests of the patient, and push NHS collaboration. Simon Burns, a Conservative health minister, sought to play down the impact of Clegg’s opposition to the idea of an NHS regulatory body, insisting that it would not derail NHS reforms. “No it doesn’t at all,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “As you know, we have a pause at the moment, we are listening, we have set up an independent future forum that is going and talking to and talking to people in the NHS, to the Royal Colleges, others who have an interest and involvement in the National Health Service seeking constructive ideas in which we can continue to improve and strengthen the bill.” Burns said that the idea was one of many put forward as part of the listening exercise designed to improve the bill. “The deputy prime minister had a meeting, I understand, with his members of parliament last night, discussed this, they have come up with some ideas, like a load of other people throughout the NHS, and all those ideas will be considered when listening process is over, and the decision will be taken that will be aimed at improving, strengthening the bill, and making sure that patient care is first class.” Evan Harris, a former Lib Dem MP and vice chairman of the party’s federal policy committee, said Burns was “wrong” to say Clegg’s comments were simply a contribution to the listening exercise. “We have made very clear that there will be no government majority for things not in the coalition agreement, like this mass marketisation of the health service, without Liberal Democrat MPs and peers,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. “They will not vote for Monitor to be an economic regulator so this is a veto.” In a presentation by the deputy prime minister to the weekly meeting of his parliamentary party and leaked to the Guardian, a page-long policy document signed by Clegg set out how he believes the regulator should be reconceived. “Instead of having a duty to promote competition, Monitor’s main duty should be explicitly to protect and promote the interests of patients,” Clegg wrote. A new role for Monitor has long been a running sore in the health secretary’s plans. Last week Steve Field, the man appointed by David Cameron to oversee the “pause” in the health legislation, said he also thought the proposed new role for Monitor should be scrapped. Instead, it should promote co-operation and collaboration and the integration of health services. Addressing fellow Liberal Democrat MPs and peers at a meeting last night, Clegg said he would “never let the profit motive get in the way of the essential purposes of the NHS”. The policy document said: “We cannot treat the NHS as if it were a utility, and the decision to establish Monitor as an ‘economic regulator’ was clearly a misjudgment, failing to recognise all the unique characteristics of a public health service, and opening us up to accusations that we are trying to subject the NHS to the full rigours of UK and EU competition law. Tory backbencher Peter Bone accused the Lib Dems of trying to exploit the issue for political reasons, having previously backed the reforms in cabinet and the House of Commons. Bone told Sky news that Clegg’s position as deputy prime minister meant he should be supporting government policy. If a Conservative minister had opposed the NHS reforms as Clegg had done, “he would have been fired by now”, said Bone. “Every minister must support it. If you can’t support the decision, you must resign from the government. Having voted for it in parliament, the only thing that seems to have happened is that the Liberal Democrats lost very badly in the local elections, lost the AV referendum and this seems to be more about shoring up Nick Clegg’s position as party leader rather than anything to do with improving the health bill.” The deputy prime minister should “row in” behind reforms which he said were in the interest of not only the country but of the patient as well. “It is right that we should listen and scrutinise the bill, but the idea that competition does not improve the health service is ridiculous. It drives up efficiency and makes NHS hospitals more effective. “Getting better value for money in the health service, and people getting treated better and quicker must be right. You have a prime minister who loves the NHS who made his first priority the NHS. “You have a health secretary with more experience than any other politician. Those are the people who should be listened to, not someone who is trying to do it for party political reasons, such as the deputy prime minister.” As Clegg seeks to establish a more distinct identity on issues like NHS reform after their dismal poll results earlier this month, former cabinet minister David Laws cautioned his Lib Dem colleagues not to put the coalition at risk by sniping at their Conservative partners. Laws’ comments, in his first interview since being barred from the Commons for seven days on Monday, will be seen as a warning to ministers like Chris Huhne and Vince Cable who have gone public with criticisms of Tory colleagues. Laws, who was suspended after the parliamentary standards commissioner found he breached expenses rules by claiming the rent he paid his male partner of nine years, said: “Our continued effective delivery of policies depends not just on shouting and our public profile, but on a trusting relationship between the key people in the coalition. “We could get our way over one or two key issues by storming off, voting against them, briefing against them, whatever. But when the next key issue is on the table and we need the co-operation of everybody in the coalition, will we get it? Maybe we won’t.” And he added: “The opportunity to make a difference in national politics is a very special one and we shouldn’t be sitting around in the corner of the political room sulking about the fact that we are in government and looking forward to the opportunity when we can return to the splendid irrelevance of opposition.” Health policy Health Public services policy NHS Nick Clegg Andrew Lansley Liberal Democrats Hélène Mulholland Allegra Stratton guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …David Norris and Gary Dobson are accused of being part of a racist white gang that ‘targeted and killed’ black teenager Two men are to stand trial accused of being part of a racist white gang that “targeted and killed” the black teenager Stephen Lawrence because of the colour of his skin, the court of appeal today said. The killing in 1993 in Eltham, south-east London, is one of the most high-profile unsolved murders in Britain. The men charged are David Norris, who has never before been charged over the stabbing, and Gary Dobson, who stood trial previously and was found not guilty. Dobson was acquitted of killing Lawrence, 18, after a private murder prosecution brought in 1996 by the parents of the talented youngster who dreamed of being an architect. A new law established in 2003 abolished the longstanding ban on people being retried for the same crime after being found not guilty, if “compelling” new evidence came to light. The appeal court agreed on Wednesday that new evidence was compelling enough to allow Dobson’s acquittal to be quashed. In effect, the appeal court, in a ruling by the lordchief justice of England and Wales, wiped the legal slate clean. This means Dobson and Norris will stand trial for the murder of Lawrence. Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …David Norris and Gary Dobson are accused of being part of a racist white gang that ‘targeted and killed’ black teenager Two men are to stand trial accused of being part of a racist white gang that “targeted and killed” the black teenager Stephen Lawrence because of the colour of his skin, the court of appeal today said. The killing in 1993 in Eltham, south-east London, is one of the most high-profile unsolved murders in Britain. The men charged are David Norris, who has never before been charged over the stabbing, and Gary Dobson, who stood trial previously and was found not guilty. Dobson was acquitted of killing Lawrence, 18, after a private murder prosecution brought in 1996 by the parents of the talented youngster who dreamed of being an architect. A new law established in 2003 abolished the longstanding ban on people being retried for the same crime after being found not guilty, if “compelling” new evidence came to light. The appeal court agreed on Wednesday that new evidence was compelling enough to allow Dobson’s acquittal to be quashed. In effect, the appeal court, in a ruling by the lordchief justice of England and Wales, wiped the legal slate clean. This means Dobson and Norris will stand trial for the murder of Lawrence. Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Treatment centers are seeing more older drug addicts. Aging baby boomers coupled with an economic downturn are part of the reason why. (May 18)
Continue reading …Treatment centers are seeing more older drug addicts. Aging baby boomers coupled with an economic downturn are part of the reason why. (May 18)
Continue reading …The far left strikes again—- A far left protester disrupted and assaulted Newt Gingrich tonight at his book signing in Minnesota. The activist threw glitter at Newt and his wife Calista at the pro-familiy event. This was just the left’s … Continue reading → Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Gateway Pundit Discovery Date : 18/05/2011 04:19 Number of articles : 5
Continue reading …Olympic Flame will take in Outer Hebrides and six islands during its 8,000-mile 70-day journey to the stadium London 2012′s Olympic torch relay will start in Land’s End and travel as far as the outer Hebrides on an 8,000-mile journey to the stadium, organisers have announced. The Olympic Flame will arrive from Greece in exactly one year and the relay will continue for 70 days and with 8,000 torchbearers until the opening ceremony of the Games on 27 July 2012. London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe said: “The Olympic Flame will shine a light right across every nation and region of the UK and showcase the very best of who we are and where we live. “The first locations on the route confirmed today give a flavour of the reach the Olympic Torch Relay will have around the UK and how extensive the opportunity for starting to celebrate the London 2012 Olympic Games will be.” The relay aims to go within an hour’s travel time of 95% of the population – and there are also plans to take the Olympic Flame to Dublin. There will be six island visits: to the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Shetland, Orkney and the Isle of Lewis. The first 74 locations have been confirmed by organisers taking in famous sports venues, historic sites and places of outstanding natural beauty. On most days of the relay, the Olympic Flame will travel for 12 hours each day ending in an evening celebration event. Olympics minister Hugh Robertson said: “The Olympic Torch Relay brings London 2012 to the doorsteps of the UK giving everybody the chance to celebrate the London Games. It’s a magnificent showcase for the country and a chance to mark the achievements of inspirational people in our communities.” There will be no international torch relay – the International Olympic Committee decided to make it a domestic event after the controversial Beijing torch relay in 2008 where protesters used the event to demonstrate against China’s human rights abuses. Britain’s IOC member Craig Reedie believes that decision will benefit London. “People used the torch as an opportunity for protest when it should really be an opportunity for peaceful celebration,” he said. Reedie said he had been pushing for the torch relay to take in some of Britain’s most famous sporting landmarks as it tours the country. He added: “The intention is to run the torch all around the country – it will go to within an hour’s travel of 95% of the population. “It will also have a British sporting history element to it – so the torch will be run past many of those famous sporting venues such as Wimbledon, Old Trafford, St Andrew’s and of course Much Wenlock (the birthplace of the modern Olympics). “If it does that and encourages young people that will help build up the huge excitement of London.” The torch relay could also prove to be the financial salvation of the cash-strapped British Olympic Association. The settlement of their cash dispute with London 2012 organisers allows them to market two pieces rather than one of Team GB merchandise based around the torch relay. The BOA are not due to announce their torch relay items until early next year but if they get it right it could be worth millions of pounds to the organisation. For example, ahead of last year’s winter Olympics Vancouver sold 3.5m pairs of their famous red mittens – their torch relay merchandise – for CAD$10 (£6.35). Similar sales figures for London would provide a huge financial boost for the BOA. Olympic Games 2012 London Sebastian Coe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As details emerge in the case of International Monetary Fund chief and alleged attacker Dominique Strauss-Kahn, my eye is on how his wrecked political clout is getting all the attention. The brutal assault of a hotel housekeeper that Manhattan District Attorney Artie McConnell described yesterday to a judge, who subsequently ordered that the IMF’s managing director be held without bail at the Rikers Island jail complex? Not so much. The IMF leader was (I think it’s safe to use the past tense here because it’s doubtful he’ll re-emerge in politics, regardless of the outcome of this apparently damning case) a very likely French presidential candidate. In fact, he was widely seen as the Socialist Party’s best hope for unseating French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Within hours of the story breaking, comments about a “Sarkozy setup” flooded the comments sections of online news reports, and soon emerged as their own articles. As this story develops, it’s all about Strauss-Kahn, instead of the woman (whose name is rightly protected) who accuses him of brutally attacking her. At her workplace. This woman, who was cleaning a $3,000-per-night hotel suite, is a human being. She deserves compassion as the global punditocracy conjectures about what’s going happen to the IMF without that French “rockstar” at its helm. My work focuses on the trafficking and exploitation of immigrant domestic workers, many of whom worked for Diplomats and employees of the World Bank and IMF. Of course, I’m reading the news coverage with interest. Over the past days, I have been watching how HER story is covered, in light of her occupation, ethnicity (reporters say that she’s an African immigrant), and status as a crime victim. Usually, housekeepers are treated as silent, anonymous machines of the household, hotel, or office building, if they’re noticed at all. But surely a vicious attack would shed light on the fact that this is a real person… right? While I mostly work with household workers in private homes, the life of a hotel chambermaid is very similar. Being a housekeeper at a hotel (or anywhere else) doesn’t exactly put you on equal footing with the wealthy and powerful when you are in “their” space. So when you’re stuck in a bedroom (or private household) with them, what are your defenses? Statistics about the frequency of sexual assault of hotel maids are difficult to find, but here’s what I know about New York City’s household workers, from a 2006 report by the Data Center and Domestic Workers United: “Thirty-three percent of workers experience verbal or physical abuse or have been made to feel uncomfortable by their employers. One-third of workers who face abuse identify race and immigration status as factors for their employers’ actions.” What we do know about the conditions of hotel housekeepers is that immigrants comprise the majority of that workforce, as do women of color, and that their workplace is dangerous on its own, let alone with the additional risk of sexual assault. Rushing to keep up with demand, hotel housekeepers have an injury rate 40 percent higher than workers in the overall service sector. I have many other questions too. The two that come to mind immediately are: 1- Do Europeans and North Americans just assume that being subjected to sexual aggression is a given if you’re a woman working as a maid in a wealthy man’s home or hotel suite? 2- Why would anyone assume that a working-class woman would lie about a sexual assault to get money from a settlement? I can’t fathom why anyone would believe these things, but here we are in the comments section in Vanity Fair, the New York Times, and ABC News where every fourth word is “setup” and where the maid’s getting very little empathy. I don’t think the people writing these comments or news stories are malicious. It’s just a symptom of the way household workers are treated in the United States and around the world. They are servants, and therefore — for hotel guests and the people who can afford to have them clean their homes — barely human. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyer Benjamin Brafman said that he represents “good people who have gone astray… that doesn’t mean their lives should be destroyed.” The themes of many of the reports and commentaries I have read center around the feeling that it would be a tragedy for this politician’s career, and his removal would put the global economy at risk. Because this “just” involves a hotel housekeeper, there’s not a lot of conjecture about the tragedy she’ll face as she tries to put her own life back together. Even if the reason that reporters aren’t covering her story with humanity is that they want to respect our legal system’s promise of “innocent until proven guilty,” they’re missing the broader point: this storyline isn’t uncommon. No one is talking about the countless other household and hotel workers who have endured sexual harassment and assault at the hands of wealthy (or even middle-class) men around the world. Why? Perhaps because it’s supposed to be a fact of life that poor women’s bodies are collateral damage of war, prizes for global accomplishment, or simply a means to an end. Women who are household workers or “servants” are even more vulnerable to dehumanizing sexual assault than others because their relationships are inherently unequal to their employers. We don’t have scientific studies of the relative risks, but we have hundreds of testimonies of household workers who have been trafficked, exploited, and assaulted, and our common sense that tells us there are many more out there. Of course it isn’t uncommon that famous/wealthy men who assault women usually dominate the news. What will Strauss-Kahn do next? Even when their conduct is deemed improper without being illegal, there’s a lot of hand-wringing over how prominent men such as former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and former Sen. John Edwards, will suffer for their indiscretions. Poor guys. Cross-posted with IPS blog.
Continue reading …For all its processing might , Intel is a non-player in the booming tablet space . Consumers, no longer trapped in the WinTel PC juggernaut, are increasingly opting for devices running software experiences optimized for more power efficient ARM processors. Intel hopes to break back into the market it once dominated with the release of “more than ten new tablets” at Computex later this month. Navin Shenoy, Intel general manager for Asia Pacific, elaborated saying “more than 35″ tablets equipped with Intel chipsets are on track to ship this year. Of course, Intel chief Paul Otellini already told us that he’d have MeeGo, Windows, and Android tablets on display at the big Taiwan event. Just imagine it: Honeycomb on an Oak Trail tablet. We’ll be bringing it to you live when Computex kicks off on May 31st. Intel promises more than 10 new tablets at Computex, including Android and MeeGo versions originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 18 May 2011 04:23:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …