‘Threat to one is a threat to all’ treaty cited in White House report – but open net versus privacy analysis omits WikiLeaks The US has given the broadest hint yet that a cyber-attack on one Nato country will be regarded as an attack on all. It is a potentially dangerous development, as cyber-attacks are increasingly common, with the Pentagon reporting millions of probes a day and actions by more than 100 foreign intelligence agencies. In 2007, Estonia was almost crippled by a cyber-attack thought to originate in Russia. At the time, Estonia, a member of Nato, said it did not know if the alliance covered cyber-attacks, and the US, Britain and others danced round the issue. The development is contained in a report by the Obama administration, International Strategy for Cyberspace, in which the US for the first time sets out a strategy for dealing with the expansion of the internet and what it describes as “arbitrary and malicious disruption”. It notes the growing threats by individual hackers, companies and hostile states, and offers broad proposals on how to tackle these. It suggests that existing US treaties such as the one that set up Nato, which requires an attack on one member state to be treated as an attack on all, also cover cyber-attacks. But it stops short of saying so categorically. “All states possess an inherent right to self-defence, and we recognise that certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners,” it says. The thrust of the report is on how to reconcile the US championing of internet freedom in places such as China and Iran with protection of privacy in the US. The report is thin on how to achieve this. The Obama administration sets out a broad objective: “The US will work internationally to promote an open, inter-operable, secure, and reliable information and communications infrastructure that supports international trade and commerce, strengthens international security, and fosters free expression and innovation.” But the report continues: “The world must collectively recognise the challenges posed by malevolent actors’ entry into cyberspace, and update and strengthen our national and international policies accordingly. Activities undertaken in cyberspace have consequences for our lives in physical space, and we must work towards building the rule of law, to prevent the risks of logging on from outweighing its benefits.” At present, international law largely does not cover the internet, nor do international treaties. But WikiLeaks, though responsible for the biggest security breach in US history, is not mentioned and was not raised by any of the speakers at the launch of the report, including secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Instead, she spoke of a need for consensus: “There is no one-size-fits-all, straightforward route to this goal. We have to build a global consensus about a shared vision for cyberspace.” But what Clinton, who has underscored the centrality of internet freedom to US foreign policy, did highlight was the internet’s role in grassroots mobilisation and attempts by governments to stop this: “While the internet offers new ways for people to exercise their political rights, it also, as we have seen very clearly in the last months, gives governments new tools for clamping down on dissent.” Commerce secretary, Gary Locke, nominated as next US ambassador to China, said he intended to keep pressing “to advance these goals and the broader set of cyberspace issues with our Chinese counterparts”. WikiLeaks was able to obtain a quarter of a million secret US state department files last year, published in the Guardian and other papers. Such a breach would not have been possible without the internet. The report wants states to work together to give better protection. “When cybersecurity incidents demand government action, officials can detect those threats early and share data in real-time to mitigate the spread of malware or minimise the impact of a major disruption – all while preserving the broader free flow of information. When a crime is committed internationally, law enforcement agencies are able to collaborate to safeguard and share evidence and bring individuals to justice,” the report says. While condemning cyber-attacks, at the same time the US, along with Israel, is widely believed to have been responsible for the Stuxnet virus that Iran claims disrupted its nuclear programme. The administration last week sent proposals to Congress to put pressure on companies to improve security. The US funds schemes to develop new technologies and train activists to evade government controls. But activists accuse it of hypocrisy for insisting the internet must also have “rule of law”: a signal that unauthorised breaches such as WikiLeaks will not be tolerated. Internet United States Nato US politics Hillary Clinton Obama administration WikiLeaks Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …‘Threat to one is a threat to all’ treaty cited in White House report – but open net versus privacy analysis omits WikiLeaks The US has given the broadest hint yet that a cyber-attack on one Nato country will be regarded as an attack on all. It is a potentially dangerous development, as cyber-attacks are increasingly common, with the Pentagon reporting millions of probes a day and actions by more than 100 foreign intelligence agencies. In 2007, Estonia was almost crippled by a cyber-attack thought to originate in Russia. At the time, Estonia, a member of Nato, said it did not know if the alliance covered cyber-attacks, and the US, Britain and others danced round the issue. The development is contained in a report by the Obama administration, International Strategy for Cyberspace, in which the US for the first time sets out a strategy for dealing with the expansion of the internet and what it describes as “arbitrary and malicious disruption”. It notes the growing threats by individual hackers, companies and hostile states, and offers broad proposals on how to tackle these. It suggests that existing US treaties such as the one that set up Nato, which requires an attack on one member state to be treated as an attack on all, also cover cyber-attacks. But it stops short of saying so categorically. “All states possess an inherent right to self-defence, and we recognise that certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners,” it says. The thrust of the report is on how to reconcile the US championing of internet freedom in places such as China and Iran with protection of privacy in the US. The report is thin on how to achieve this. The Obama administration sets out a broad objective: “The US will work internationally to promote an open, inter-operable, secure, and reliable information and communications infrastructure that supports international trade and commerce, strengthens international security, and fosters free expression and innovation.” But the report continues: “The world must collectively recognise the challenges posed by malevolent actors’ entry into cyberspace, and update and strengthen our national and international policies accordingly. Activities undertaken in cyberspace have consequences for our lives in physical space, and we must work towards building the rule of law, to prevent the risks of logging on from outweighing its benefits.” At present, international law largely does not cover the internet, nor do international treaties. But WikiLeaks, though responsible for the biggest security breach in US history, is not mentioned and was not raised by any of the speakers at the launch of the report, including secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Instead, she spoke of a need for consensus: “There is no one-size-fits-all, straightforward route to this goal. We have to build a global consensus about a shared vision for cyberspace.” But what Clinton, who has underscored the centrality of internet freedom to US foreign policy, did highlight was the internet’s role in grassroots mobilisation and attempts by governments to stop this: “While the internet offers new ways for people to exercise their political rights, it also, as we have seen very clearly in the last months, gives governments new tools for clamping down on dissent.” Commerce secretary, Gary Locke, nominated as next US ambassador to China, said he intended to keep pressing “to advance these goals and the broader set of cyberspace issues with our Chinese counterparts”. WikiLeaks was able to obtain a quarter of a million secret US state department files last year, published in the Guardian and other papers. Such a breach would not have been possible without the internet. The report wants states to work together to give better protection. “When cybersecurity incidents demand government action, officials can detect those threats early and share data in real-time to mitigate the spread of malware or minimise the impact of a major disruption – all while preserving the broader free flow of information. When a crime is committed internationally, law enforcement agencies are able to collaborate to safeguard and share evidence and bring individuals to justice,” the report says. While condemning cyber-attacks, at the same time the US, along with Israel, is widely believed to have been responsible for the Stuxnet virus that Iran claims disrupted its nuclear programme. The administration last week sent proposals to Congress to put pressure on companies to improve security. The US funds schemes to develop new technologies and train activists to evade government controls. But activists accuse it of hypocrisy for insisting the internet must also have “rule of law”: a signal that unauthorised breaches such as WikiLeaks will not be tolerated. Internet United States Nato US politics Hillary Clinton Obama administration WikiLeaks Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Senator Scott Brown Embraces House GOP’s Plan to Gut Medicare, What about Others?
May 16, 2011 No CommentSo earlier today we wondered whether Speaker John Boehner is going to directly lobby his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate to walk with him on Paul Ryan’s road to recession. As everyone knows, things are not going too well for Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” debacle . Apparently Ryan was so much on the defensive during his speech at the Economic Club of Chicago that he ended up conceding the point that it was President George W. Bush who wrecked America’s economy. With this backdrop it is going to be interesting to see which Senate Republicans will step up to embrace Ryan’s roadmap to recession. We have heard that Senator Susan Collins does not want any part of it . Senators Rob Portman and Lamar Alexander backed off from it as well. So which Senate Republican is going to embrace Ryan? Enter Senator Scott Brown. Apparently Scott Brown is saying “Thank God” for Paul Ryan’s budget plan : “Finally we had congressman Ryan come forth with a budget proposal, thank God, because we haven’t had one in a couple years and that now has forced the debate and forced the President actually to come forth with his budget proposal,” Brown said. There is no going back for Brown at this point. His words, blessing Ryan’s plan to gut Medicare should be tagged on his forehead from here on out. As Steve Benen wonders in amusement : Are Massachusetts voters aware of this? Keep in mind, we’re talking about a right-wing budget agenda that, among other things, ends Medicare, cuts taxes on millionaires, eliminates safeguards on Wall Street, and guts funding on everything from food stamps to infrastructure to education. Brown could easily oppose this — his centrist GOP colleague, Susan Collins, already has — but he’s nevertheless defending it. Also note, just two months ago, Brown, an alleged moderate, also voted for the House Republican budget for the current fiscal year, which, among other things, cut funding on medical research, job training, health care, and homeland security. Scott Brown does realize that Massachusetts isn’t Mississippi, doesn’t he? “Dan Quayle in a barn coat” is looking more and more apt all the time. It looks like Massachussets Democrats to their credit are already on Brown’s case . Now the question becomes: What about other guys? What about Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee? What about Mark Kirk from Illinois? What about Lisa Murkowski from Alaska? How about Olympia Snowe? Are they also going to step out and offer Paul Ryan a bear hug in public or are they going to hide from the public? How about Boehner? While the country is grappling with the expiration of debt ceiling is he going to be relaxing in yet another recess or is he going to walk the walk of talking up supporting “Path to Prosperity” ? I mean Boehner shares the same state with Senator Portman, who as mentioned above is unsure about the Ryan plan. It shouldn’t be that hard for Boehner to publicly call out Portman through the Ohio press that he should embrace the Ryan plan. No? The traditional media should not let Boehner hide during this recess. If they want to track him down, they can probably just look for him at the local golf courses or tanning salons.
Continue reading …Senator Scott Brown Embraces House GOP’s Plan to Gut Medicare, What about Others?
May 16, 2011 No CommentSo earlier today we wondered whether Speaker John Boehner is going to directly lobby his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate to walk with him on Paul Ryan’s road to recession. As everyone knows, things are not going too well for Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” debacle . Apparently Ryan was so much on the defensive during his speech at the Economic Club of Chicago that he ended up conceding the point that it was President George W. Bush who wrecked America’s economy. With this backdrop it is going to be interesting to see which Senate Republicans will step up to embrace Ryan’s roadmap to recession. We have heard that Senator Susan Collins does not want any part of it . Senators Rob Portman and Lamar Alexander backed off from it as well. So which Senate Republican is going to embrace Ryan? Enter Senator Scott Brown. Apparently Scott Brown is saying “Thank God” for Paul Ryan’s budget plan : “Finally we had congressman Ryan come forth with a budget proposal, thank God, because we haven’t had one in a couple years and that now has forced the debate and forced the President actually to come forth with his budget proposal,” Brown said. There is no going back for Brown at this point. His words, blessing Ryan’s plan to gut Medicare should be tagged on his forehead from here on out. As Steve Benen wonders in amusement : Are Massachusetts voters aware of this? Keep in mind, we’re talking about a right-wing budget agenda that, among other things, ends Medicare, cuts taxes on millionaires, eliminates safeguards on Wall Street, and guts funding on everything from food stamps to infrastructure to education. Brown could easily oppose this — his centrist GOP colleague, Susan Collins, already has — but he’s nevertheless defending it. Also note, just two months ago, Brown, an alleged moderate, also voted for the House Republican budget for the current fiscal year, which, among other things, cut funding on medical research, job training, health care, and homeland security. Scott Brown does realize that Massachusetts isn’t Mississippi, doesn’t he? “Dan Quayle in a barn coat” is looking more and more apt all the time. It looks like Massachussets Democrats to their credit are already on Brown’s case . Now the question becomes: What about other guys? What about Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee? What about Mark Kirk from Illinois? What about Lisa Murkowski from Alaska? How about Olympia Snowe? Are they also going to step out and offer Paul Ryan a bear hug in public or are they going to hide from the public? How about Boehner? While the country is grappling with the expiration of debt ceiling is he going to be relaxing in yet another recess or is he going to walk the walk of talking up supporting “Path to Prosperity” ? I mean Boehner shares the same state with Senator Portman, who as mentioned above is unsure about the Ryan plan. It shouldn’t be that hard for Boehner to publicly call out Portman through the Ohio press that he should embrace the Ryan plan. No? The traditional media should not let Boehner hide during this recess. If they want to track him down, they can probably just look for him at the local golf courses or tanning salons.
Continue reading …Senator Scott Brown Embraces House GOP’s Plan to Gut Medicare, What about Others?
May 16, 2011 No CommentSo earlier today we wondered whether Speaker John Boehner is going to directly lobby his Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate to walk with him on Paul Ryan’s road to recession. As everyone knows, things are not going too well for Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” debacle . Apparently Ryan was so much on the defensive during his speech at the Economic Club of Chicago that he ended up conceding the point that it was President George W. Bush who wrecked America’s economy. With this backdrop it is going to be interesting to see which Senate Republicans will step up to embrace Ryan’s roadmap to recession. We have heard that Senator Susan Collins does not want any part of it . Senators Rob Portman and Lamar Alexander backed off from it as well. So which Senate Republican is going to embrace Ryan? Enter Senator Scott Brown. Apparently Scott Brown is saying “Thank God” for Paul Ryan’s budget plan : “Finally we had congressman Ryan come forth with a budget proposal, thank God, because we haven’t had one in a couple years and that now has forced the debate and forced the President actually to come forth with his budget proposal,” Brown said. There is no going back for Brown at this point. His words, blessing Ryan’s plan to gut Medicare should be tagged on his forehead from here on out. As Steve Benen wonders in amusement : Are Massachusetts voters aware of this? Keep in mind, we’re talking about a right-wing budget agenda that, among other things, ends Medicare, cuts taxes on millionaires, eliminates safeguards on Wall Street, and guts funding on everything from food stamps to infrastructure to education. Brown could easily oppose this — his centrist GOP colleague, Susan Collins, already has — but he’s nevertheless defending it. Also note, just two months ago, Brown, an alleged moderate, also voted for the House Republican budget for the current fiscal year, which, among other things, cut funding on medical research, job training, health care, and homeland security. Scott Brown does realize that Massachusetts isn’t Mississippi, doesn’t he? “Dan Quayle in a barn coat” is looking more and more apt all the time. It looks like Massachussets Democrats to their credit are already on Brown’s case . Now the question becomes: What about other guys? What about Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee? What about Mark Kirk from Illinois? What about Lisa Murkowski from Alaska? How about Olympia Snowe? Are they also going to step out and offer Paul Ryan a bear hug in public or are they going to hide from the public? How about Boehner? While the country is grappling with the expiration of debt ceiling is he going to be relaxing in yet another recess or is he going to walk the walk of talking up supporting “Path to Prosperity” ? I mean Boehner shares the same state with Senator Portman, who as mentioned above is unsure about the Ryan plan. It shouldn’t be that hard for Boehner to publicly call out Portman through the Ohio press that he should embrace the Ryan plan. No? The traditional media should not let Boehner hide during this recess. If they want to track him down, they can probably just look for him at the local golf courses or tanning salons.
Continue reading …Frothing Chris Matthews Denounces Tea Partiers as Haters Ten Times in Under Two Minutes
May 16, 2011 No Comment
MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Monday excoriated the Tea Party as full of “hate,” using the term 10 times in less than two minutes. Comparing the alliance between the Republican Party and the Tea Party to a union, he mocked, “Why would anyone marry for hate rather than love?” The Hardball host derided, ” …The marriage between the Republicans and the Tea Party is based on hatred, hatred of government, hatred of the Democrats, hatred of Barack Obama. ” In one minute and 57 seconds, Matthews used the word “hate or “hatred” ten times. [Video to appear shortly] He summarized the lack of support for some GOP presidential candidates as being “Republicans [who] will not say what the Tea Parties live for, the hatred of government, of the Democrats, of President Obama.” Of course, many liberals and Democrats worked up a pretty good hatred for George W. Bush. But, perhaps Matthews has forgotten that. A transcript of Matthews' May 16 commentary can be found below: 5:58 CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the disastrous marriage of the Republicans and the Tea Party. Would anyone marry for hate rather than love? It's a hell of a question, isn't it? Terrible question. Why would you even ask it?
Continue reading …
Finance ministers agree €78bn for Portugal at meeting overshadowed by absence of IMF head Strauss-Kahn European governments are wrestling with the prospect of a fresh bailout for Greece a year after they committed €110bn (£125bn) to Athens, under pressure from Washington and Beijing to calm the markets and stabilise the euro. The meeting of the 17 finance ministers of the eurozone was overshadowed by the absence of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund and French presidential hopeful, who is facing sexual assault charges in New York. Strauss-Kahn has been a key player in the Greek drama and had been due to attend the first-night dinner in Brussels. The ministers – along with the 10 EU finance ministers from outside the single currency, including chancellor George Osborne – agreed on a €78bn bailout for Portugal, the third rescue of a eurozone country in a year. They also signed off on the permanent eurozone bailout fund, the European stability mechanism, which is to shore up the currency from 2013. They were expected to agree that Mario Draghi of Italy be appointed the next head of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. With governments reeling from French socialist Strauss-Kahn’s arrest on charges of attempted rape, the meeting in Brussels was also the first chance for ministers to discuss who would be the next head of the IMF in Washington; the post is traditionally held by a European. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was the first to say that Europe should retain its prerogative over the post, amid calls that it was time the IMF job went to someone from the emerging economies. “We know that in the mid-term, developing countries have a right to the post of IMF chief and the post of World Bank chief,” she said. “I think that in the current situation, when we have a lot of discussions about the euro, that Europe has good candidates to offer.” During the past year, Strauss-Kahn has been a decisive advocate of the bailouts, influential in the Greek emergency through his close relationship with socialist prime minister George Papandreou. Merkel surprised the rest of Europe last year by insisting the IMF play a central role in the bailouts, with the fund putting up a third of the €750bn rescue pot. While Greece was expected to plead for more help last night, no decisions were expected for several weeks. The European commission said new “arrangements” were possible, with the options including a combination of cutting the interest rate on the bailout money, extending the repayment terms and topping up the loans by up to €60bn. But the emphasis in Brussels and EU capitals was on first urging greater austerity on Athens. Papandreou has been told he will have to show convincingly that he is committed to selling off Greek public assets through a radical privatisation programme before the eurozone will return to his rescue. “We will discuss Greece but not conclusively,” said Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg’s prime minister and president of the eurozone grouping. “We will be informed by the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission and then we will see.” This troika has been in Greece for the past week assessing the government’s adherence to the savage programme of spending cuts and is said to be unhappy with what it has found. The next tranche of the bailout, €12bn, is due to be disbursed next month but there are threats it could be withheld. The threats prompted Greek media reports at the weekend that pensions and teachers’ and civil servants’ wages could go unpaid next month if the money did not arrive. But eurozone governments have repeatedly emphasised in the past fortnight that Greece will not be allowed to default on its mountain of debt, making it unlikely that the €12bn will be retained. Diplomats in Brussels and German officials made it clear the US and China were stepping up pressure on the EU to resolve the Greek dilemma, exasperated by the mixed signals from European capitals that have led to turmoil on markets and fresh questions about the euro’s viability. An emergency, supposedly secret, meeting in Luxembourg 10 days ago of the French, German, Spanish and Italian finance ministers, which sparked a panic about a possible Greek default, was said to have been the direct result of transatlantic pressure. At meetings of global finance officials in Washington last month, according to diplomats in Brussels, the Americans, Chinese and Canadians voiced their irritation with European indecision and demanded action to calm the markets. “The US, Canada, and Beijing told the EU: You’ve got to get this done to stop the speculation,” a diplomat said. European debt crisis IMF Economics Currencies Euro Global economy Dominique Strauss-Kahn Europe Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Talking Points Memo A more interesting post than the one I’m about to write might be one that examines the inevitable mockery that will come as a result of Trump’s ego-stroking nonsense over the past couple of months. But I suppose it must be said: Donald Trump is not running for President . Not only is he not running, but he is certain he would win if he did run. No, really: After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. Evidently Mark Halperin and his ilk agree and think he could have been a Very Serious Candidate if he didn’t love business so much. Watch him treat Trump like a serious candidate while providing his “expert analysis” of the situation. Of course, they mentioned nothing about the fact that his Celebrity Apprentice show was renewed by NBC and announced yesterday.That “expert analysis”, by the way, included his contention that Trump’s withdrawal from the race leaves the door wide open for Sarah Palin to step through. Click here to view this media In his wet dreams, maybe. Palin is a non-contender and so is Bachmann. My guess at this point (and I am not one of the Very Serious Villagers) is that Mitt Romney has it locked in, health care plan or no health care plan. Newt’s stupid run at it, along with his dog-whistling ways, are just part of the usual GOP effort to consolidate their base and let them believe they have a chance at putting one of their candidates in the drivers’ seat. In the end, they’ll run Mitt as a “centrist”, and he’ll lose. The more interesting question is who they’ll choose as the vice presidential candidate. We do live in interesting times. Text of Trump’s statement: After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector. I want to personally thank the millions of Americans who have joined the various Trump grassroots movements and written me letters and e-mails encouraging me to run. My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician’s thoughts. My ability to bring important economic and foreign policy issues to the forefront of the national dialogue is perhaps my greatest asset and one of the most valuable services I can provide to this country. I will continue to push our President and the country’s policy makers to address the dire challenges arising from our unsustainable debt structure and increasing lack of global competitiveness. Issues, including getting tough on China and other countries that are methodically and systematically taking advantage of the United States, were seldom mentioned before I brought them to the forefront of the country’s conversation. They are now being debated vigorously. I will also continue to push for job creation, an initiative that should be this country’s top priority and something that I know a lot about. I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don’t have a medium through which to articulate. I look forward to supporting the candidate who is the most qualified to help us tackle our country’s most important issues and am hopeful that, when this person emerges, he or she will have the courage to take on the challenges of the Office and be the agent of change that this country so desperately needs Thank you and God Bless America! Donald J. Trump
Continue reading …So she’s married to the son of the man known as the Carlyle Group’s ultimate fixer, James A. Baker 3d. Well, that makes it all perfectly clear! The new senior vice president of government affairs for Comcast Corp. in Washington, Meredith Attwell Baker, faces a host of lobbying limits because of her position on the Federal Communications Commission when the agency approved the cable company’s $30 billion merger with NBC Universal Inc. in January. She cannot lobby the FCC or any executive agency until the end of the Obama administration – which, if President Obama wins a second term, will be six years – and she is permanently barred from lobbying the FCC on issues related to the NBCUniversal transaction, which she voted to approve in the 4-1 vote. Baker said Friday that she was surprised that Comcast still wanted to hire her after learning of these restrictions because she would be “completely useless” dealing with the FCC. “I want people to understand that I haven’t done anything wrong,” Baker said. “I have done everything to comply with the rules.” A lawyer with deep Republican ties in Texas and Washington, the 42-year-old Baker is the daughter-in-law of James A. Baker 3d, a former chief of staff for both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush . She joined the regulatory agency after former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin resigned when Obama took office in 2009. U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat and Comcast critic, said she had concerns about Baker’s departure coming only months after the NBCU vote. “I feel strongly that the process was compromised,” Waters said of the agency’s review of the Comcast/NBCU deal. “I do not believe that there were no discussions of her going to work for Comcast before the deal was approved. I think she knew when she took that vote that she would be going to work for Comcast.” Added Waters, “She may deny there were discussions, but I don’t believe her.” Baker said there were “absolutely no conversations.” Baker is quite possibly telling the truth. After all, some things are just understood.
Continue reading …
Prime minister admits in speech to NHS staff that government has not explained planned changes well David Cameron has warned that the NHS will face a funding crisis without major changes and insisted reform was the only way to save the health service. The prime minister’s intervention, in a speech to NHS staff at Ealing hospital in west London, was seen by ministers as an attempt to reassure Tory MPs who fear the government’s NHS “listening exercise” is being driven by the Liberal Democrats. Cameron reached out to the medical profession by admitting the government had not explained its reforms effectively, and professed his love for the NHS. But he said the twin challenges of an ageing population and the need to save £20bn in NHS spending over the next four years – identified by the previous government – meant the status quo could not be maintained. He said the government would respond to the findings of Prof Steve Field’s “listening exercise” by the end of next month and indicated that ministers would take on board one of the main recommendations from a recent report by the Commons health select committee. Stephen Dorrell, the former health secretary who chairs it, has called for the “full institutional and managerial integration” of the NHS and social care in England. Cameron said: “Change … must tackle the longstanding and damaging divide between health and social care, including the bed blocking that still afflicts so many of our hospitals. It must assist with the challenge to increase efficiency, raise productivity and keep costs down so we can go on meeting everyone’s needs.” Other changes to the health and social care bill outlined by government include: • Wider membership for the GP-led consortiums which will replace primary care trusts. Hospital doctors and nurses will be more closely involved. • Competition will not be introduced to the NHS “for its own sake”, and there “will be choice for patients”, with no cherry-picking of services by private firms. • The changes will be evolutionary, not revolutionary. At the end of the process, the NHS will look reasonably similar and will not become a “space age institution”. • A controversial element of the bill to allow “any willing provider” will be changed to a “properly qualified provider”. The prime minister said: “Sticking with the status quo and hoping we can get by with a bit more money is simply not an option. If we stay as we are, the NHS will need £130bn a year by 2015 – meaning a potential funding gap of £20bn. “The question is, what are we going to do about that? Ignore it? No – because we’d see a crisis of funding in the NHS, overcrowded wards and fewer treatments. Borrow more so we can chuck more money at it? No – because we can’t afford to. “Ask people to start paying at the point of delivery for it? No – because, as I said, the NHS must always be free to those who need it. There’s only one option we’ve got, and that is to change and modernise the NHS to make it more efficient and more effective and, above all, more focused on prevention, on health, not just sickness.” Cameron added: “We save the NHS by changing it. We risk its long-term future by resisting change now.” The prime minister, who admitted that the government had failed to explain its reforms well, attempted to reassure the medical profession and voters who fear he plans to dismantle the NHS. “I know that some people still have concerns. They might be listening to this and thinking: ‘OK – but if you love the NHS so much, if you don’t want to take any risks with it, why do you want to change it? “But this is the point. It’s because I love the NHS so much that I want to change it, because the fact is the NHS needs to change. It needs to change to make it work better today and it needs to change to avoid a crisis tomorrow.” The prime minister said the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, accepted the need for change, adding that the government’s plans were a “logical development” of Labour’s reforms. These include payment by results, foundation trusts and the use of independent providers. Clinical commission has been around for two decades, he added. Cameron said: “The difference [with Labour's reforms] is that we plan to make these changes effective across our NHS. As I said – evolution, not revolution. That’s why, when I think about what our NHS will look like in five years’ time, I don’t picture some space age institution, a million miles away from what we have now. Let me make clear: there will be no privatisation, there will be no cherry-picking from private providers, there will be no new upfront costs people have to pay to get care. “Absolutely not. These are red lines we will not cross. Instead, our NHS will be much like what we have today.” Cameron wanted to use the speech to show that changes will be introduced to the social care bill and also to reassure Conservative MPs – who raised concerns at a meeting of the 1922 committee last week – that he is not being forced to change tack under pressure from the Liberal Democrats. The prime minister told that meeting he, and not the Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, had decided to pause the bill. Cameron also commended Field, who was present for the speech, for his independence of thought after he raised concerns about the original health reforms. Field praised the prime minister for sanctioning a “real listening exercise”.Field, chair of the NHS Future Forum, dismissed a Downing Street health adviser’s claim that the NHS would be reshaped into a provider of state health insurance. He said Mark Britnell – an NHS boss who now works for the accountancy firm KPMG – was “wrong” to back the idea of patients being charged to use the NHS and to predict it would be turned into “a state insurance provider, not a state deliverer”. Field told a “listening” event for Guardian readers held at the newspaper’s London offices: “If he’s saying that this is going to be a system that’s insurance-led then I haven’t heard any intention from anyone in government that this is what they want to do. I don’t think that politicians want to dismember the NHS in any way.” David Cameron is personally committed to the NHS, he stressed. A final report will be produced at the start of June by the forum of 44 experts examining the bill. “We will say something strong about the pace of change in some areas,” said Field. He also voiced concerns about the wide variation in the quality of care provided by some GPs, who under the health secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans are due to start commissioning £60bn of care for patients from 2013. NHS data could be used to help tell patients who were the better or worse-performing family doctors, Field added. Patients also needed to have much more of a say in the NHS, he said. NHS David Cameron Andrew Lansley Health Nicholas Watt Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …