More Old Etonians have entered Who’s Who this year than in any year since 1997, according to research The return of the Conservative party to government has been accompanied by a resurgence in the number of Old Etonian entrants to Who’s Who, long regarded as the definitive guide to the British establishment. More Old Etonians have entered Who’s Who this year than in any year since 1997, according to research by the Guardian. Thirty-one of the 1,008 new entrants attended the school. In total, 1,225 Old Etonians grace the book’s pages – only 20 fewer than 18 years before. The findings also show the resurgence of the UK’s elite universities and members’ clubs, revealing a glacially slow pace of change. Who’s Who – biographical listings of Britain’s senior politicians, judges, civil servants and notable figures from the arts, academia and other areas – is widely seen as the standard reference book for the UK’s governing classes. Eton has long dominated its pages, with roughly four times as many alumni listed as its public-school rival Harrow. But in recent years, the number of Old Etonians entering the listings had been falling, with only 16 in each of the 2009 and 2010 lists. The coalition government is dominated by former public school pupils. Within days of the appointment of the cabinet in May 2010, it was revealed that 16 senior ministers attended public schools. David Cameron and the Commons leader, Sir George Young, went to Eton, as did Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, while 222 alumni of Nick Clegg’s alma mater, Westminster school, have made their way into Who’s Who pages. In total, more than 2,300 people in Who’s Who attended the top five public schools – Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow, Rugby and Marlborough. Oxford and Cambridge graduates also continue to dominate the establishment. A study in the Sunday Times in 1993 found the proportion of new Who’s Who entrants from Britain’s two oldest universities had fallen to 27%. Though fewer than 2% of students attend Oxford or Cambridge, 32% of entrants to Who’s Who in 2011 went to one of the two universities. About one in three people – 11,700 out of 34,210 – listed in Who’s Who attended Oxford or Cambridge. Cambridge, with 5,985 alumni listed, was ahead of Oxford on 5,776. In contrast, Edinburgh, in third place, had just 913 listings. The findings echo comments made last month by the Conservative MP David Davis after the publication of the government’s social mobility strategy. “Britain is probably now the most stratified society in the western world,” he wrote on Politics Home. “Equality of opportunity has been declining for at least four decades, and the postwar ‘golden era’ of social mobility is a rapidly dimming memory.” Cameron and Clegg clashed after the initiative’s launch over the issue of MPs and other public figures giving unpaid internships to the children of friends and relatives. Clegg had attacked internships, saying: “We want a fair job market based on merit, not networks. It should be about what you know, not who you know.” One field in which Who’s Who is gradually changing is the addition of women. While fewer than one in eight people listed are female, the proportion of women entrants has been gradually increasing over the last 15 years, from 11% in 1996 to 23% in 2011 – the largest figure so far. The extracurricular interests of those listed have also changed little in 30 years. The gentleman’s club the Athenaeum was the most-represented institution, with 916 members. The MCC at Lord’s was close behind with 832, followed by the Garrick (626), Royal Automobile (498) and Reform (439) clubs. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the continued dominance of the professions by Oxbridge and private schools highlighted the importance of widening university access. “These findings demonstrate Oxbridge still opens doors in an unparalleled way,” he said. “This makes their failure to really make progress in attracting students from the poorest and non-traditional backgrounds more important than ever. “It is still remarkable that private schools make up 7% of the school population but 50% of Oxbridge. It’s a problem for society as a whole.” Private schools Schools Equality guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
More Old Etonians have entered Who’s Who this year than in any year since 1997, according to research The return of the Conservative party to government has been accompanied by a resurgence in the number of Old Etonian entrants to Who’s Who, long regarded as the definitive guide to the British establishment. More Old Etonians have entered Who’s Who this year than in any year since 1997, according to research by the Guardian. Thirty-one of the 1,008 new entrants attended the school. In total, 1,225 Old Etonians grace the book’s pages – only 20 fewer than 18 years before. The findings also show the resurgence of the UK’s elite universities and members’ clubs, revealing a glacially slow pace of change. Who’s Who – biographical listings of Britain’s senior politicians, judges, civil servants and notable figures from the arts, academia and other areas – is widely seen as the standard reference book for the UK’s governing classes. Eton has long dominated its pages, with roughly four times as many alumni listed as its public-school rival Harrow. But in recent years, the number of Old Etonians entering the listings had been falling, with only 16 in each of the 2009 and 2010 lists. The coalition government is dominated by former public school pupils. Within days of the appointment of the cabinet in May 2010, it was revealed that 16 senior ministers attended public schools. David Cameron and the Commons leader, Sir George Young, went to Eton, as did Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, while 222 alumni of Nick Clegg’s alma mater, Westminster school, have made their way into Who’s Who pages. In total, more than 2,300 people in Who’s Who attended the top five public schools – Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow, Rugby and Marlborough. Oxford and Cambridge graduates also continue to dominate the establishment. A study in the Sunday Times in 1993 found the proportion of new Who’s Who entrants from Britain’s two oldest universities had fallen to 27%. Though fewer than 2% of students attend Oxford or Cambridge, 32% of entrants to Who’s Who in 2011 went to one of the two universities. About one in three people – 11,700 out of 34,210 – listed in Who’s Who attended Oxford or Cambridge. Cambridge, with 5,985 alumni listed, was ahead of Oxford on 5,776. In contrast, Edinburgh, in third place, had just 913 listings. The findings echo comments made last month by the Conservative MP David Davis after the publication of the government’s social mobility strategy. “Britain is probably now the most stratified society in the western world,” he wrote on Politics Home. “Equality of opportunity has been declining for at least four decades, and the postwar ‘golden era’ of social mobility is a rapidly dimming memory.” Cameron and Clegg clashed after the initiative’s launch over the issue of MPs and other public figures giving unpaid internships to the children of friends and relatives. Clegg had attacked internships, saying: “We want a fair job market based on merit, not networks. It should be about what you know, not who you know.” One field in which Who’s Who is gradually changing is the addition of women. While fewer than one in eight people listed are female, the proportion of women entrants has been gradually increasing over the last 15 years, from 11% in 1996 to 23% in 2011 – the largest figure so far. The extracurricular interests of those listed have also changed little in 30 years. The gentleman’s club the Athenaeum was the most-represented institution, with 916 members. The MCC at Lord’s was close behind with 832, followed by the Garrick (626), Royal Automobile (498) and Reform (439) clubs. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the continued dominance of the professions by Oxbridge and private schools highlighted the importance of widening university access. “These findings demonstrate Oxbridge still opens doors in an unparalleled way,” he said. “This makes their failure to really make progress in attracting students from the poorest and non-traditional backgrounds more important than ever. “It is still remarkable that private schools make up 7% of the school population but 50% of Oxbridge. It’s a problem for society as a whole.” Private schools Schools Equality guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …More Old Etonians have entered Who’s Who this year than in any year since 1997, according to research The return of the Conservative party to government has been accompanied by a resurgence in the number of Old Etonian entrants to Who’s Who, long regarded as the definitive guide to the British establishment. More Old Etonians have entered Who’s Who this year than in any year since 1997, according to research by the Guardian. Thirty-one of the 1,008 new entrants attended the school. In total, 1,225 Old Etonians grace the book’s pages – only 20 fewer than 18 years before. The findings also show the resurgence of the UK’s elite universities and members’ clubs, revealing a glacially slow pace of change. Who’s Who – biographical listings of Britain’s senior politicians, judges, civil servants and notable figures from the arts, academia and other areas – is widely seen as the standard reference book for the UK’s governing classes. Eton has long dominated its pages, with roughly four times as many alumni listed as its public-school rival Harrow. But in recent years, the number of Old Etonians entering the listings had been falling, with only 16 in each of the 2009 and 2010 lists. The coalition government is dominated by former public school pupils. Within days of the appointment of the cabinet in May 2010, it was revealed that 16 senior ministers attended public schools. David Cameron and the Commons leader, Sir George Young, went to Eton, as did Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, while 222 alumni of Nick Clegg’s alma mater, Westminster school, have made their way into Who’s Who pages. In total, more than 2,300 people in Who’s Who attended the top five public schools – Eton, Charterhouse, Harrow, Rugby and Marlborough. Oxford and Cambridge graduates also continue to dominate the establishment. A study in the Sunday Times in 1993 found the proportion of new Who’s Who entrants from Britain’s two oldest universities had fallen to 27%. Though fewer than 2% of students attend Oxford or Cambridge, 32% of entrants to Who’s Who in 2011 went to one of the two universities. About one in three people – 11,700 out of 34,210 – listed in Who’s Who attended Oxford or Cambridge. Cambridge, with 5,985 alumni listed, was ahead of Oxford on 5,776. In contrast, Edinburgh, in third place, had just 913 listings. The findings echo comments made last month by the Conservative MP David Davis after the publication of the government’s social mobility strategy. “Britain is probably now the most stratified society in the western world,” he wrote on Politics Home. “Equality of opportunity has been declining for at least four decades, and the postwar ‘golden era’ of social mobility is a rapidly dimming memory.” Cameron and Clegg clashed after the initiative’s launch over the issue of MPs and other public figures giving unpaid internships to the children of friends and relatives. Clegg had attacked internships, saying: “We want a fair job market based on merit, not networks. It should be about what you know, not who you know.” One field in which Who’s Who is gradually changing is the addition of women. While fewer than one in eight people listed are female, the proportion of women entrants has been gradually increasing over the last 15 years, from 11% in 1996 to 23% in 2011 – the largest figure so far. The extracurricular interests of those listed have also changed little in 30 years. The gentleman’s club the Athenaeum was the most-represented institution, with 916 members. The MCC at Lord’s was close behind with 832, followed by the Garrick (626), Royal Automobile (498) and Reform (439) clubs. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the continued dominance of the professions by Oxbridge and private schools highlighted the importance of widening university access. “These findings demonstrate Oxbridge still opens doors in an unparalleled way,” he said. “This makes their failure to really make progress in attracting students from the poorest and non-traditional backgrounds more important than ever. “It is still remarkable that private schools make up 7% of the school population but 50% of Oxbridge. It’s a problem for society as a whole.” Private schools Schools Equality guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Nato says strikes will wipe out threat of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces being able to lay mines All fighting ships of the Libyan navy have been sunk or severely damaged by RAF jets in a strike that Nato said has crippled the ability of Muammar Gaddafi’s forces to lay mines. The ships were hit during a raid on Thursday night on Tripoli and Al Khums. One warship remained afloat but listing at its mooring between two merchant tankers. Fire and smoke were visible from miles away. Of the rest of the fleet, docked out of view in the main port in Tripoli, one vessel was sunk and three severely damaged. All four were raid boats with fast manoeuvrability. At least three appeared to have surface-to-air missile launchers. Another Libyan naval vessel was hit in the port of Al Khums, east of the capital. The RAF said the fleet had been hit to prevent it laying mines or threatening Nato warships enforcing UN-backed restrictions off Libya. None of the ships had been seen putting to sea in daylight during the past three weeks. At least four non-attack vessels, including coastguard cutters, remained unharmed nearby. Ships had only started to arrive in Tripoli in recent days, after three months of sanctions against oil and many household supplies, and port officials said supplies were likely to be halted again following the attacks. “Last night’s attacks have changed our expectations of shipping movements,” said a spokesman for Tripoli ports. “This will be a big disruption to civilian shipping,” it will intensify the sanctions and make our experiences worse. It will return us to square one and stop all movement of goods” Debris from the damaged warships had hit buildings and scattered over hundreds of metres. Nato has in recent days taken its battle to the heart of the capital, striking what it claims to be command and control targets. However, it is coming under increasing criticism that its actions extend beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians. The Libyan government says the navy had not put to sea since Nato started attacking government forces and installations two months ago. Libya Middle East Africa Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest Martin Chulov Peter Beaumont guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former IMF chief released from jail but unable to move into $14,000-a-month flat as building’s residents objected Dominique Strauss-Kahn has been released from jail and sent to an unspecified temporary home in Lower Manhattan where he will be detained under armed guard. An initial location for Strauss-Kahn to be detained had fallen through as although he may have been granted bail he was finding it difficult to find a new home in New York. The former head of the International Monetary Fund was hoping to move into a $14,000 (£8,600) a month apartment in the luxurious Bristol Plaza building in the upper east side of Manhattan after a judge bailed him on Thursday while he fights charges of attempted rape of a hotel chambermaid. Strauss-Kahn’s $1m bail stipulates that he must be kept under house arrest, wear an electronic tag to monitor his movements and hire a $200,000-a-month gun-toting security team authorised to use force if he should attempt to flee. “I expect you will be here when we need you,” Judge Michael Obus said on granting bail. “If there is the slightest problem, we can withdraw conditions.” Strauss-Kahn’s wife, Anne Sinclair, a former journalist, had hired the apartment. But news of this abode attracted a media scrum outside the building and objections from residents. Police had to put up barricades to hold back the TV crews and cameramen. Speaking anonymously, one resident said the media commotion outside was the first news he had heard of Strauss-Kahn’s arrival. “It’s outrageous. You think someone would have told us. I am going to object to this,” he said. Strauss-Kahn, 62, has been in jail since he was seized on an Air France plane at John F Kennedy airport last Sunday just moments before takeoff. Other locals and workers near the Bristol were more circumspect about the prospect of a new neighbour. Oxanna Fitzsimmons, a caretaker at the building, said she would have no problem cleaning Strauss-Kahn’s room. “I am not afraid. Is he crazy? He’s not crazy, he’s a normal person,” she said, adding that she did not believe he was guilty. “A man like that with a housekeeper? It’s unbelievable.” New York University student Alex Salamunouvich said: “I’m kind of indifferent to it. We have film crews here all the time, it’s not such a big deal. There are way more scary things to be concerned about in this city than that guy.” She said the work on the second avenue subway was far more disruptive. The Bristol is in the same street and just a few blocks east of the apartment where convicted financier Bernard Madoff was held under house arrest. “There must be something about this street,” said Ron Anta, who has lived in the neighbourhood for 23 years. “This is the same-sized crowd [of media] that Madoff got but I don’t think they’ll stay here for as long. I don’t think people around here really notice this kind of stuff. We are used to it. This is New York.” Strauss-Kahn will formally answer charges on 6 June. The 32-year-old hotel maid who has accused the former IMF chief of attempted rape is in hiding. She appeared before a grand jury this week and told police she entered his hotel room to clean it, thinking it was empty. He then allegedly jumped from a bathroom naked and attacked her. He denies all charges. Dominique Strauss-Kahn New York United States Renting property Property France Europe Dominic Rushe guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ed Miliband has admitted that the Labour party lost the 2010 general election because it offered a message of ‘fear, not hope’ Ed Miliband breaks with his mentor Gordon Brown tomorrow when he will declare Labour lost the general election last year because it offered a message of “fear, not hope”. In a Guardian article, Miliband challenges his party to accept that Labour will never return to power unless its acknowledges that the last government – and not the electorate – made mistakes. Miliband’s article comes ahead of a speech to the annual conference of the Blairite Progress group. It is designed to answer critics who have suggested that he has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge facing Labour. He will be speaking just over two weeks after Labour’s disastrous performance in the Scottish parliamentary elections and a weak performance in the English local elections. Miliband, who wrote the Labour manifesto for the general election, uses his Guardian article to make clear he understands that Labour lost touch with the electorate. “We lost not just because we made mistakes – on individual issues such as immigration, welfare, banking or even Iraq – but for a much deeper reason,” he writes. “We stopped providing answers to these big concerns.” Miliband writes that Brown and the Labour party were guilty of running a negative campaign. “Our message was far too weighted to fear, not hope. “It was never enough to inspire victory, or to give people a sufficiently clear and positive vision of this country. By the end of our time in government, we had lost the ability to chart the future.” Miliband believes it is important to acknowledge the failings of the last government, of which he was a prominent member, to allow him to deliver his main message – that Labour wins only when it embraces a positive vision of the future. Miliband writes: “At the next general election, we must be the optimists, the party with a positive, patriotic mission for our country. When we have won great victories – in 1945, 1964, 1997 – it has been by defining a new national mission. That is what we can, must and will do again.” Miliband will say this mission will revolve around three key priorities: championing the squeezed middle; tackling growing inequality; and ensuring future generations do not slip behind their parents as Labour works hard to maintain “generational progress”. Ed Miliband Labour General election 2010 Local elections Scottish politics Gordon Brown Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ed Miliband has admitted that the Labour party lost the 2010 general election because it offered a message of ‘fear, not hope’ Ed Miliband breaks with his mentor Gordon Brown tomorrow when he will declare Labour lost the general election last year because it offered a message of “fear, not hope”. In a Guardian article, Miliband challenges his party to accept that Labour will never return to power unless its acknowledges that the last government – and not the electorate – made mistakes. Miliband’s article comes ahead of a speech to the annual conference of the Blairite Progress group. It is designed to answer critics who have suggested that he has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge facing Labour. He will be speaking just over two weeks after Labour’s disastrous performance in the Scottish parliamentary elections and a weak performance in the English local elections. Miliband, who wrote the Labour manifesto for the general election, uses his Guardian article to make clear he understands that Labour lost touch with the electorate. “We lost not just because we made mistakes – on individual issues such as immigration, welfare, banking or even Iraq – but for a much deeper reason,” he writes. “We stopped providing answers to these big concerns.” Miliband writes that Brown and the Labour party were guilty of running a negative campaign. “Our message was far too weighted to fear, not hope. “It was never enough to inspire victory, or to give people a sufficiently clear and positive vision of this country. By the end of our time in government, we had lost the ability to chart the future.” Miliband believes it is important to acknowledge the failings of the last government, of which he was a prominent member, to allow him to deliver his main message – that Labour wins only when it embraces a positive vision of the future. Miliband writes: “At the next general election, we must be the optimists, the party with a positive, patriotic mission for our country. When we have won great victories – in 1945, 1964, 1997 – it has been by defining a new national mission. That is what we can, must and will do again.” Miliband will say this mission will revolve around three key priorities: championing the squeezed middle; tackling growing inequality; and ensuring future generations do not slip behind their parents as Labour works hard to maintain “generational progress”. Ed Miliband Labour General election 2010 Local elections Scottish politics Gordon Brown Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ed Miliband has admitted that the Labour party lost the 2010 general election because it offered a message of ‘fear, not hope’ Ed Miliband breaks with his mentor Gordon Brown tomorrow when he will declare Labour lost the general election last year because it offered a message of “fear, not hope”. In a Guardian article, Miliband challenges his party to accept that Labour will never return to power unless its acknowledges that the last government – and not the electorate – made mistakes. Miliband’s article comes ahead of a speech to the annual conference of the Blairite Progress group. It is designed to answer critics who have suggested that he has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge facing Labour. He will be speaking just over two weeks after Labour’s disastrous performance in the Scottish parliamentary elections and a weak performance in the English local elections. Miliband, who wrote the Labour manifesto for the general election, uses his Guardian article to make clear he understands that Labour lost touch with the electorate. “We lost not just because we made mistakes – on individual issues such as immigration, welfare, banking or even Iraq – but for a much deeper reason,” he writes. “We stopped providing answers to these big concerns.” Miliband writes that Brown and the Labour party were guilty of running a negative campaign. “Our message was far too weighted to fear, not hope. “It was never enough to inspire victory, or to give people a sufficiently clear and positive vision of this country. By the end of our time in government, we had lost the ability to chart the future.” Miliband believes it is important to acknowledge the failings of the last government, of which he was a prominent member, to allow him to deliver his main message – that Labour wins only when it embraces a positive vision of the future. Miliband writes: “At the next general election, we must be the optimists, the party with a positive, patriotic mission for our country. When we have won great victories – in 1945, 1964, 1997 – it has been by defining a new national mission. That is what we can, must and will do again.” Miliband will say this mission will revolve around three key priorities: championing the squeezed middle; tackling growing inequality; and ensuring future generations do not slip behind their parents as Labour works hard to maintain “generational progress”. Ed Miliband Labour General election 2010 Local elections Scottish politics Gordon Brown Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ed Miliband has admitted that the Labour party lost the 2010 general election because it offered a message of ‘fear, not hope’ Ed Miliband breaks with his mentor Gordon Brown tomorrow when he will declare Labour lost the general election last year because it offered a message of “fear, not hope”. In a Guardian article, Miliband challenges his party to accept that Labour will never return to power unless its acknowledges that the last government – and not the electorate – made mistakes. Miliband’s article comes ahead of a speech to the annual conference of the Blairite Progress group. It is designed to answer critics who have suggested that he has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge facing Labour. He will be speaking just over two weeks after Labour’s disastrous performance in the Scottish parliamentary elections and a weak performance in the English local elections. Miliband, who wrote the Labour manifesto for the general election, uses his Guardian article to make clear he understands that Labour lost touch with the electorate. “We lost not just because we made mistakes – on individual issues such as immigration, welfare, banking or even Iraq – but for a much deeper reason,” he writes. “We stopped providing answers to these big concerns.” Miliband writes that Brown and the Labour party were guilty of running a negative campaign. “Our message was far too weighted to fear, not hope. “It was never enough to inspire victory, or to give people a sufficiently clear and positive vision of this country. By the end of our time in government, we had lost the ability to chart the future.” Miliband believes it is important to acknowledge the failings of the last government, of which he was a prominent member, to allow him to deliver his main message – that Labour wins only when it embraces a positive vision of the future. Miliband writes: “At the next general election, we must be the optimists, the party with a positive, patriotic mission for our country. When we have won great victories – in 1945, 1964, 1997 – it has been by defining a new national mission. That is what we can, must and will do again.” Miliband will say this mission will revolve around three key priorities: championing the squeezed middle; tackling growing inequality; and ensuring future generations do not slip behind their parents as Labour works hard to maintain “generational progress”. Ed Miliband Labour General election 2010 Local elections Scottish politics Gordon Brown Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ed Miliband has admitted that the Labour party lost the 2010 general election because it offered a message of ‘fear, not hope’ Ed Miliband breaks with his mentor Gordon Brown tomorrow when he will declare Labour lost the general election last year because it offered a message of “fear, not hope”. In a Guardian article, Miliband challenges his party to accept that Labour will never return to power unless its acknowledges that the last government – and not the electorate – made mistakes. Miliband’s article comes ahead of a speech to the annual conference of the Blairite Progress group. It is designed to answer critics who have suggested that he has failed to appreciate the scale of the challenge facing Labour. He will be speaking just over two weeks after Labour’s disastrous performance in the Scottish parliamentary elections and a weak performance in the English local elections. Miliband, who wrote the Labour manifesto for the general election, uses his Guardian article to make clear he understands that Labour lost touch with the electorate. “We lost not just because we made mistakes – on individual issues such as immigration, welfare, banking or even Iraq – but for a much deeper reason,” he writes. “We stopped providing answers to these big concerns.” Miliband writes that Brown and the Labour party were guilty of running a negative campaign. “Our message was far too weighted to fear, not hope. “It was never enough to inspire victory, or to give people a sufficiently clear and positive vision of this country. By the end of our time in government, we had lost the ability to chart the future.” Miliband believes it is important to acknowledge the failings of the last government, of which he was a prominent member, to allow him to deliver his main message – that Labour wins only when it embraces a positive vision of the future. Miliband writes: “At the next general election, we must be the optimists, the party with a positive, patriotic mission for our country. When we have won great victories – in 1945, 1964, 1997 – it has been by defining a new national mission. That is what we can, must and will do again.” Miliband will say this mission will revolve around three key priorities: championing the squeezed middle; tackling growing inequality; and ensuring future generations do not slip behind their parents as Labour works hard to maintain “generational progress”. Ed Miliband Labour General election 2010 Local elections Scottish politics Gordon Brown Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …