Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1187)
AV turnout higher than predicted

Join us for live coverage as the votes are counted in the referendum on the alternative vote 5.00pm: This is what the pollsters were predicting on AV. YouGov (pdf). This is their figure based on those certain to vote. Yes: 40% No: 60% ComRes Yes: 34% No: 66% ICM Yes: 32% No: 68% Angus Reid Yes: 39% No: 61% 4.54pm: The AV results are being counted by “voting area”. In England and Northern Ireland these are local authority areas, and in Wales and Scotland they are parliamentary constituencies. There are 440 of them. Two have counted so far, and the votes are dividing: yes – 39%; no – 61%. 4.51pm: The first AV referendum results are in. And it looks as if the pollsters are not going to have too much to worry about. Here they are, from the Isles of Scilly Yes 288 (34.70%) No 542 (65.30%) No maj 254 (30.60%) Electorate 1,737; Turnout 830 (47.78%) You can see the results as they come in on the Electoral Commission’s website. 4.44pm: Ray Mallon, the former police officer nicknamed Robocop for his tough stance on crime, has won a third term as mayor of Middlesbrough. In other mayoral elections, Gordon Oliver, a Conservative, has been as the new mayor of Torbay. He beat the incumbent Nick Bye, an independent. And in Mansfield Tony Egginton, an independent, was re-elected as mayor. 4.40pm: They’ve been crunching the AV numbers at the BBC and think that the winning side will need 9.8m votes to win. Or to get “first past the post”, as you could put it. 4.30pm: In Northern Ireland the election turnout appears to be lower than usual. My colleague Henry McDonald has sent me a note on this. One Queen’s University Belfast academic Dr Peter Shirlow has interpreted the lower than usual turn out in the Northern Ireland election as a sign that Ulster society is becoming more normal. In the past elections have been tribal contests where voters turned out in large numbers to keep the “other side” out. Thirty years ago more than 80% of the electorate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone turned out to vote in a Westminster by-election when IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands was elected as an MP even though he was dying in the Maze prison. Dr Shirlow may have a point here about these new turn out figures. Arguably the figure of around 55% indicates that Northern Ireland is becoming more like the rest of the UK and the Republic. 4.28pm: Here’s some more on those AV turnout figures. No one was making any firm predictions about turnout in the AV referendum, but these figures are certainly higher than I was expecting. I thought the London turnout could well fall below 30%. The turnout in London was higher than it was when Londoners voted in 1998 in a referendum on whether to have a mayor. The turnout then was 34.1%. But the turnout in the North East was lower than the 47.7% turnout in 2004 in the referendum on whether to have North East Assembly. 4.26pm: Iain Gray has announced that he will resign as Labour’s leader in Scotland in the autumn. Ed Miliband said that he respected Gray’s decision and that he wanted to thank him for everything he had done. 4.02pm: For the last 18 hours officials have been counting the votes cast for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and almost 300 English councils. But it’s only now that they are starting to count the results in the referendum on the alternative vote. This was the only election open to everyone in the UK and potentially it could change the British constitution in an important way – but only if the pollsters have collectively made the most enormous mistake in British polling history. Assuming they haven’t, the no team will win easily. But this is an important story too, possibly quashing hopes of electoral reform for a generation and producing long-term challenges for the Lib Dems. Here is what the Electoral Commission has been saying about the turnout figures. 4 of the 12 regions have yet to provide figures, and the Commission will announce these shortly. Counting Officers will begin counting the Yes and No votes from 4pm today. The provisional turnout for each referendum region received to date is: Region Turnout As percentage of registered voters London 1.86 million 35.4 % South West 1.80 million 44.6% Eastern 1.84 million 43.1% West Midlands 1.63 million 39.8% Yorkshire and the Humber 1.53 million 39.9% North West 2.05 million 39.1% North East 0.76 million 38.7% Scotland 1.98 million 50.7% I’ll be focusing on the AV results for the rest of the day, although I’ll also be covering elections results as they continue to come in. 4.00pm: For all the election results and reaction to them up until 4pm on Friday, do read our earlier live blog. Alternative vote AV referendum David Cameron Conservatives Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
AV turnout higher than predicted

Join us for live coverage as the votes are counted in the referendum on the alternative vote 5.00pm: This is what the pollsters were predicting on AV. YouGov (pdf). This is their figure based on those certain to vote. Yes: 40% No: 60% ComRes Yes: 34% No: 66% ICM Yes: 32% No: 68% Angus Reid Yes: 39% No: 61% 4.54pm: The AV results are being counted by “voting area”. In England and Northern Ireland these are local authority areas, and in Wales and Scotland they are parliamentary constituencies. There are 440 of them. Two have counted so far, and the votes are dividing: yes – 39%; no – 61%. 4.51pm: The first AV referendum results are in. And it looks as if the pollsters are not going to have too much to worry about. Here they are, from the Isles of Scilly Yes 288 (34.70%) No 542 (65.30%) No maj 254 (30.60%) Electorate 1,737; Turnout 830 (47.78%) You can see the results as they come in on the Electoral Commission’s website. 4.44pm: Ray Mallon, the former police officer nicknamed Robocop for his tough stance on crime, has won a third term as mayor of Middlesbrough. In other mayoral elections, Gordon Oliver, a Conservative, has been as the new mayor of Torbay. He beat the incumbent Nick Bye, an independent. And in Mansfield Tony Egginton, an independent, was re-elected as mayor. 4.40pm: They’ve been crunching the AV numbers at the BBC and think that the winning side will need 9.8m votes to win. Or to get “first past the post”, as you could put it. 4.30pm: In Northern Ireland the election turnout appears to be lower than usual. My colleague Henry McDonald has sent me a note on this. One Queen’s University Belfast academic Dr Peter Shirlow has interpreted the lower than usual turn out in the Northern Ireland election as a sign that Ulster society is becoming more normal. In the past elections have been tribal contests where voters turned out in large numbers to keep the “other side” out. Thirty years ago more than 80% of the electorate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone turned out to vote in a Westminster by-election when IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands was elected as an MP even though he was dying in the Maze prison. Dr Shirlow may have a point here about these new turn out figures. Arguably the figure of around 55% indicates that Northern Ireland is becoming more like the rest of the UK and the Republic. 4.28pm: Here’s some more on those AV turnout figures. No one was making any firm predictions about turnout in the AV referendum, but these figures are certainly higher than I was expecting. I thought the London turnout could well fall below 30%. The turnout in London was higher than it was when Londoners voted in 1998 in a referendum on whether to have a mayor. The turnout then was 34.1%. But the turnout in the North East was lower than the 47.7% turnout in 2004 in the referendum on whether to have North East Assembly. 4.26pm: Iain Gray has announced that he will resign as Labour’s leader in Scotland in the autumn. Ed Miliband said that he respected Gray’s decision and that he wanted to thank him for everything he had done. 4.02pm: For the last 18 hours officials have been counting the votes cast for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and almost 300 English councils. But it’s only now that they are starting to count the results in the referendum on the alternative vote. This was the only election open to everyone in the UK and potentially it could change the British constitution in an important way – but only if the pollsters have collectively made the most enormous mistake in British polling history. Assuming they haven’t, the no team will win easily. But this is an important story too, possibly quashing hopes of electoral reform for a generation and producing long-term challenges for the Lib Dems. Here is what the Electoral Commission has been saying about the turnout figures. 4 of the 12 regions have yet to provide figures, and the Commission will announce these shortly. Counting Officers will begin counting the Yes and No votes from 4pm today. The provisional turnout for each referendum region received to date is: Region Turnout As percentage of registered voters London 1.86 million 35.4 % South West 1.80 million 44.6% Eastern 1.84 million 43.1% West Midlands 1.63 million 39.8% Yorkshire and the Humber 1.53 million 39.9% North West 2.05 million 39.1% North East 0.76 million 38.7% Scotland 1.98 million 50.7% I’ll be focusing on the AV results for the rest of the day, although I’ll also be covering elections results as they continue to come in. 4.00pm: For all the election results and reaction to them up until 4pm on Friday, do read our earlier live blog. Alternative vote AV referendum David Cameron Conservatives Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Michael Moore describes Bush’s seven minute fail pretty accurately in the above video. You’ve probably heard and seen that Bush didn’t show up for the Ground Zero memorial today even after Obama invited him: The White House says Obama’s trip will include a private meeting with family members of 9/11 victims, a meeting with first responders that will be open to some news coverage, and a wreath-laying at the 9/11 memorial. Obama invited former President George W. Bush to accompany him, but Bush declined. “President Bush will not be in attendance on Thursday,” The New York Times quoted his spokesman David Sherzer as saying . “He appreciated the invite, but has chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight. He continues to celebrate with Americans this important victory in the war on terror.” Bush, whose presidency was defined by the al-Qaida-led Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, has largely maintained a low public profile since leaving office. It’s not surprising that Bush wouldn’t want to be there since he had a chance to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora, but didn’t even though those actions contradicted his bullhorn speech. Digby writes: Yes. Actually it’s quite easy to picture a petulant and jealous Junior Bush not wanting to be part of a ceremony that highlights his failure to achieve his most cherished desire. — Bush froze in the spotlight when told the United States was under attack and that ‘s the equivalent of deliberate decision making in a military operation. But hey, you can’t blame them. When you have to rely on a second grader’s interpretation of events you know you’re reaching — that and a bullhorn is all they’ve got left of their mighty, macho warrior president and it’s got to hurt. They really care about that crap. Fox News and the right-wing propaganda machine have gone to great lengths to try and rehabilitate Bush’s image after those seven minutes. Now, the wingnuts are pouncing on a news report out by the New York Daily News’ Thomas DeFrank: Little Boy George didn’t go today because he had a hissy fit. Little Green Footballs: This, of course, is delicious red meat for people like Jim “Dim” Hoft (aka “Gateway Pundit”): Bush Wises Up… Won’t Be Prop For Obama’s Victory Lap | The Gateway Pundit DERPBush wises up. President Obama was wrong on waterboarding, renditions, the Iraq War, the Surge, Gitmo, military tribunals, and the Patriot Act. Now he wants to take full credit for getting Osama Bin Laden and wants to use George W. Bush as a prop. Bush ain’t going for it. Bush policies kept America safe and led us to Osama Bin Laden. (History.com) The former president feels Obama is ignoring the Bush Administration’s role in the strike on the Osama Bin Laden compound. He won’t be a prop for Obama at Ground Zero today. There’s just one teensy problem with this idiots’ narrative. It’s completely false: Wife: Bush skips 9/11 NY event to keep low profile . Laura Bush told The Associated Press on Thursday that she and her husband were out to dinner Sunday night when they received word that Obama wanted to speak with him. The former president went home to take the call informing him that U.S. military forces had killed Osama bin Laden in a raid of his compound in Pakistan, Laura Bush said. The former first lady told the AP that her husband declined an invitation to attend Thursday’s event in New York because “that’s for President Obama to do at this point.” She said she and her husband both felt great pride for military and intelligence personnel after hearing the news. “It was risky and it was dangerous for our members of the military,” Laura Bush said at a Dallas elementary school where she announced grants from her foundation for school libraries. I guess they don’t believe the former First Lady.

Continue reading …
Ken Macdonald

Barack Obama ruled out a drone bombing of Osama bin Laden to save civilian life. But such scruples are all too rare Whatever the legality of Osama bin Laden’s apparent execution, he was certainly a murderer, probably a war criminal, and his demise flowed, albeit bloodily, from a carefully planned and targeted attack – the greatest care being taken to avoid the horror of innocent casualties. President Obama himself, it is said, vetoed a bombing raid: the risk that innocents would die in full view of the watching world was too much to contemplate. Predator drones, launched by technicians in California, were too crude a weapon because hearts and minds, the president well understood, matter almost as much as bombs. So it’s a shame that these presidential scruples don’t always translate to other areas of attack in that struggling part of the world. Western television viewers may not always be watching, but in Karachi and Lahore they are glued to their screens. In the four years between 2004 and 2007, there were just nine US drone strikes in north-west Pakistan, with around 25 deaths a year; in 2010, there were 118 , with estimates of up to 1,000 people killed. But how many of these dead were innocent? When President George W Bush announced his experimental policy of neoconservative kidnap in Guantánamo Bay , he reassured an anxious world that the 779 prisoners being held there – many seized from Pakistan’s Afghan border areas – were the “worst of the worst” and deserved no legal rights. Nine years later, just over 600 of those men have been released, each one of them found to pose “no threat to the United States or to its coalition partners”. It seems that tossing a dime would be a better way of identifying a “high value terrorist” than relying on US military intelligence. Guantánamo proves the tragic inability of the US military to differentiate between an enemy and an incidental bystander, and if you live in north west Pakistan, that matters very much. History reflects an unfortunate precedent: when he was asked, during the Albigensian crusade in the 13th century, how to distinguish Cathar heretics from ordinary, decent believers, the pope’s emissary is said to have replied: “Kill them all. God will know his own.” Leaving omniscience tactfully to one side, we can all understand the US point of view, that drone attacks reduce the human cost of military action to the nation that sends them humming out over the horizon and into other people’s houses. Americans may care little for the expense of their technology; but they do, reasonably enough, care a great deal about the deaths of their servicemen. Naturally, this means that Washington is more likely to take violent action where no American lives are at stake. So while no sane person would wish any harm on American soldiers, an obvious danger of drone warfare is that it encourages reckless military activity, risking a high likelihood of innocent civilian death – with the hapless victims, including the very young, remaining faceless with no meaning at all to the military planners pressing their buttons several thousand miles away. Yet, these victims, young and old, have great significance in Pakistan, and their collateral destruction will surely have unintended consequences, coming back to haunt us soon enough. It may be quite true, as the research suggests, that as many as 33 important militant leaders have been killed by American drones over the past seven years, and the value of this is not to be lightly dismissed. But it is equally true that the same research shows what we might have already guessed: several hundred innocent people of all ages have also died most violently in their wake. Yet hypocrisy is a dangerous quality, particularly in a superpower. So in the shadow of Bin Laden’s death, the question for the west may be whether it is time at last for a different kind of campaign: one based less upon the skilful delivery of random and sudden death, and a little more focused on the democratic values on which we lecture our enemies. Otherwise, it seems safe to assume that these horribly unjust killings, limb blasted from damaged limb, and delivered so pitilessly, will set off a rancid hatred, lasting for long, bitter generations. Once again, a strategy designed to make us all safer seems likely to risk, in the long run, a tragically contrary effect. Osama bin Laden US foreign policy al-Qaida Pakistan Obama administration US military Ken Macdonald guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Ken Macdonald

Barack Obama ruled out a drone bombing of Osama bin Laden to save civilian life. But such scruples are all too rare Whatever the legality of Osama bin Laden’s apparent execution, he was certainly a murderer, probably a war criminal, and his demise flowed, albeit bloodily, from a carefully planned and targeted attack – the greatest care being taken to avoid the horror of innocent casualties. President Obama himself, it is said, vetoed a bombing raid: the risk that innocents would die in full view of the watching world was too much to contemplate. Predator drones, launched by technicians in California, were too crude a weapon because hearts and minds, the president well understood, matter almost as much as bombs. So it’s a shame that these presidential scruples don’t always translate to other areas of attack in that struggling part of the world. Western television viewers may not always be watching, but in Karachi and Lahore they are glued to their screens. In the four years between 2004 and 2007, there were just nine US drone strikes in north-west Pakistan, with around 25 deaths a year; in 2010, there were 118 , with estimates of up to 1,000 people killed. But how many of these dead were innocent? When President George W Bush announced his experimental policy of neoconservative kidnap in Guantánamo Bay , he reassured an anxious world that the 779 prisoners being held there – many seized from Pakistan’s Afghan border areas – were the “worst of the worst” and deserved no legal rights. Nine years later, just over 600 of those men have been released, each one of them found to pose “no threat to the United States or to its coalition partners”. It seems that tossing a dime would be a better way of identifying a “high value terrorist” than relying on US military intelligence. Guantánamo proves the tragic inability of the US military to differentiate between an enemy and an incidental bystander, and if you live in north west Pakistan, that matters very much. History reflects an unfortunate precedent: when he was asked, during the Albigensian crusade in the 13th century, how to distinguish Cathar heretics from ordinary, decent believers, the pope’s emissary is said to have replied: “Kill them all. God will know his own.” Leaving omniscience tactfully to one side, we can all understand the US point of view, that drone attacks reduce the human cost of military action to the nation that sends them humming out over the horizon and into other people’s houses. Americans may care little for the expense of their technology; but they do, reasonably enough, care a great deal about the deaths of their servicemen. Naturally, this means that Washington is more likely to take violent action where no American lives are at stake. So while no sane person would wish any harm on American soldiers, an obvious danger of drone warfare is that it encourages reckless military activity, risking a high likelihood of innocent civilian death – with the hapless victims, including the very young, remaining faceless with no meaning at all to the military planners pressing their buttons several thousand miles away. Yet, these victims, young and old, have great significance in Pakistan, and their collateral destruction will surely have unintended consequences, coming back to haunt us soon enough. It may be quite true, as the research suggests, that as many as 33 important militant leaders have been killed by American drones over the past seven years, and the value of this is not to be lightly dismissed. But it is equally true that the same research shows what we might have already guessed: several hundred innocent people of all ages have also died most violently in their wake. Yet hypocrisy is a dangerous quality, particularly in a superpower. So in the shadow of Bin Laden’s death, the question for the west may be whether it is time at last for a different kind of campaign: one based less upon the skilful delivery of random and sudden death, and a little more focused on the democratic values on which we lecture our enemies. Otherwise, it seems safe to assume that these horribly unjust killings, limb blasted from damaged limb, and delivered so pitilessly, will set off a rancid hatred, lasting for long, bitter generations. Once again, a strategy designed to make us all safer seems likely to risk, in the long run, a tragically contrary effect. Osama bin Laden US foreign policy al-Qaida Pakistan Obama administration US military Ken Macdonald guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Pics of the month

Audio slideshow: May’s best photo shows and books, with works by Bruce Davidson, Lartigue and Herb Ritts Jim Powell Antonio Olmos The Observer

Continue reading …
Russian neo-Nazi gets life sentence

Conviction hailed as rare victory for justice by activists who say long sentences have brought down number of racist attacks Human rights activists in Russia have hailed a rare victory for justice after a court in Moscow sentenced an extreme nationalist to life in prison for killing a prominent lawyer and a young journalist . Nikita Tikhonov was jailed for shooting dead lawyer Stanislav Markelov, 34, and Anastasiya Baburova, 25, a trainee reporter at the Novaya Gazeta newspaper, in January 2009 on a side street in the Kropotkinskaya district of central Moscow. Tikhonov’s girlfriend, Yevgeniya Khasis, was also tried and sentenced to 18 years in a penal colony for helping co-ordinate the attack by mobile phone. A jury at Moscow’s city court found the pair guilty late last month after hearing they had targeted Markelov because of his work on prosecutions of neo-Nazis. At the time of his death the lawyer and Baburova were walking to a metro station after a press conference. Tikhonov shot Markelov in the back of the head with a pistol from close range and then shot Baburova when she tried to grab his arm. In contrast to the disputed trials surrounding other high profile murders such as those of journalists Paul Klebnikov in 2004 and Anna Politkovskaya in 2006, family and colleagues of the victims said they were satisfied with the outcome. “The court process was honest, fair and carried out with dignity,” said Baburova’s mother, Larisa. “We are certain they were the killers; we have no doubt. They executed a terrible crime and must answer for their actions.” Sergei Sokolov, the editor in chief of Novaya Gazeta, told the Ekho Moskvy radio station the investigation had been “impeccable”. He praised the judge in the case for putting the Tikhonov and Khasis – who “posed a real danger to society” – behind bars for a lengthy sentence. Alexander Cherkasov, an activist with the Memorial rights group, said he and others had “studied the whole process very thoroughly, evaluated the evidence very critically, and come to the conclusion that the defendants on the bench were exactly the people who should be punished for the murders”. According to witnesses in the courtroom the killers laughed and smiled as the sentence was read. Tikhonov had initially confessed but both later claimed they were not responsible for the deaths. During a trial lasting three and a half months, the jurors heard that Tikhonov, 31, and Khasis, 26, were involved with an ultra-right group called Russky Obraz. Tikhonov had a motive to seek revenge on Markelov because the lawyer represented the family of a 19-year-old antifascist activist who was murdered in 2006. A search warrant was issued for Tikhonov in connection with that killing and although he was not captured, three accomplices to the crime received heavy prison sentences as a result of Markelov’s efforts. Tikhonov and Khasis fell under police suspicion in autumn 2009 and officers bugged their apartment, recording the pair discussing the murder. They were arrested in November that year. Three pistols and a Kalashnikov were found in the apartment. One of the pistols, a 1910 Browning, matched bullets found at the murder scene. Neo-Nazis have already written posts on online forums threatening the judge in the trial. However Natalya Yudina of Sova Centre, a group that tracks nationalist aggression, expressed hope the outcome would act as a deterrent. “In the last year there has been an increase in guilty verdicts for neo-Nazi hate crimes and we’ve seen a corresponding drop in the number of violent racist attacks,” she said. “Long sentences undoubtedly have an effect, and today’s court decision is one more step in the right direction.” Tikhonov and Khasis’s lawyers have said they will appeal. Russia Europe Human rights Tom Parfitt guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Once again, proof that the central issue in the Affordable Care Act for insurers is the pre-existing conditions emerges in the form of a bill that Maine Republicans worked hard to steamroll through the legislature, hoping the element of surprise would cover up what they are doing, not to mention breaking their own rules about reading the bill before voting. What makes this effort so incredibly evil? Maine Republicans substituted a 29-page amendment to their original 4-page bill just before bringing it to the floor for a vote. A week after the supposed public hearing on LD 1333, the amended version — a 29-page replacement of the original four-page bill — was still not available online to the public Wednesday afternoon. It is made available here by the BDN, although the bill was amended again late Wednesday and that version is not available to the public. Ultimately, it was that substitution that has slowed down passage of the bill. Democrats objected to the second reading of the bill, arguing that it had not been posted or made available to the public. The original 4-page version expanded existing rate bands for age and smoking from 1.5x the base to 3x the base rate. That was all it did. The amendment, which I just downloaded from the Maine legislative site, is actually 42 pages long. It does substantially more. Here are some highlights, gleaned on my first pass through it: Expands rate bands for age and geographical location from 1.5 times base to 5 times base in 2015. This rate spread is 2 times greater than the maximum under the Affordable Care Act. Rating for geographical location is not permitted at all under the ACA. Permits out-of-state insurers from Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island to sell insurance in Maine. Creates a mechanism to track and keep names of those with pre-existing conditions in a database by forcing insurers to obtain a “health statement” in order to participate in a state reinsurance pool. Forces those with pre-existing conditions into high-risk pools, separating them from the healthy insured population. Those pools will be reinsured by the state paid for via an assessment on insurers of $4 per month per insured, which of course will be passed through to insureds. Allows insurers to file rate increases without prior approval, provided they claim a Medical Loss Ratio equal to 80% of premiums paid. There is more. Much more, but it’s quite complicated and relies on existing law which I haven’t reviewed. Yet, Maine GOP legislators expected the Assembly to vote on this today, almost as soon as it was published. Portland Press-Herald : L.D. 1333 allows out-of state insurance companies to sell plans here with fewer benefits. It allows higher premiums for older people and requires the sick to get coverage in separate plans . Proponents say getting the sick out will lower premiums for all, but offer no data. To support this scheme, L.D. 1333 disrupts the market and raises taxes on every man, woman and child who has health insurance. In his remarks today on the Assembly floor, Rep. Treat read some sobering statistics about how premiums would rise for those age 48 and older in Maine. 4.9% of the Individual Market will see an average rate increase of 29.9% 42% will receive premium increases of some amount; the average age of the policyholders who will see rate hikes is age 48 Maine people living in the North will experience on average a 19% rate increase Maine people living in Down East will experience a 22% rate increase Maine people who want to keep the insurance policy they currently have will see price increases rise as high as 170 percent over the next 3 years And these increases don’t even account for the $48 dollar per head annual tax ($292 for a family of four) on anyone who buys health insurance. It is so interesting to watch these health insurance debates play out in the states. We will see polar opposites play out in New England if this passes. This bill contains all of the ‘reforms’ proposed by House and Senate Republicans during the national health care debate — selling across state lines, carving out those with pre-existing conditions and placing them into high-risk pools, and wide premium differentials across age and geographical locations. In Vermont, a simple single-payer plan was chosen. In California, single payer is winding its way through the system once again, after passing the Assembly and Senate twice before, only to be met with a veto. I assume Maine’s legislation will indeed become law at some point, and that we will have an opportunity to see the differences between Maine’s insurance structure and Vermont’s in action. That is, unless everyone over the age of 48 and under age 65 in Maine decides to move to Vermont.

Continue reading …

“If

Continue reading …
Goal to halve LDCs in next 10 years

Ahead of next week’s conference in Turkey on the world’s least developed countries, some leading participants outline plans and targets to reduce poverty Halving the number of least developed countries – the world’s 48 poorest states – in the next 10 years is a realistic goal, according to a top UN official, despite a marked lack of progress in the last decade. Cheick Sidi Diarra , a UN special representative for LDCs, outlined the ambition ahead of next week’s UN conference on LDCs in Istanbul, Turkey . Bringing together about 50 heads of state or prime ministers and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general. “It’s not unrealistic because several LDCs have made strong progress in terms of economic growth and social inclusion,” Diarra said, “for example Equatorial Guinea, Vanuatu, Angola, Tuvalu, Samoa and some others have been making strides, which make us believe they will be graduating during the next decade.” It’s brave talk considering the meagre advances so far. Since the establishment of the category in 1971, only three countries have “graduated” from the list: Botswana in 1994, Cape Verde in 2007 and Maldives in January this year. Diarra said next week’s conference – which takes place every 10 years – will assess the progress made by LDCs and development partners under the last action plan set out in Brussels in 2001. The Turkish president, Abdullah Gül, warned that a situation in which 900 million people lived in poverty, with most of them living on $1.25 a day, was not sustainable. “It is an alarming situation, in moral and political terms,” said Gül. “During previous times, communications were not so well-developed – but now everyone is aware of the amount of wealth in other countries and that makes the situation unsustainable. We want this meeting to give warning signals and we would like to see measures taken.” Gül said Turkey was keen to introduce mechanisms at the conference to ensure that decisions and commitments would be followed up – unlike in the past three LDC conferences. “When I talk about follow-up, I mean not just from donor countries but also from LDCs,” he said, “as their leadership capacity and institutions are not well established enough to realise their commitments.” The UK is also emphasising the importance of following up previous commitments, and wants all parties – donors, LDCs and others – to reconfirm their commitment to meet the millennium development goals of eradicating extreme poverty, last made at the MDG summit in September last year. Stephen O’Brien, the UK international development minister for Africa, said the conference must not miss the chance to give much-needed impetus to the stalled Doha trade negotiations . The so-called Doha development round that began in 2001 was supposed to bring benefits to the developing world but has stalled as key players – the US, the EU, China, Brazil and India – have refused to make concessions. “We cannot miss the chance to progress the Doha agreement to bring free and fair market access to the developing world and boost growth in the world economies,” said O’Brien. “If the entire G20 extended duty and quota-free access to their markets and goods, this would increase the amount of bilateral trade and lift an estimated 3 million people out of poverty at very little cost to these nations.” Whether the goal of halving the number of LDCs is realistic or not, aid groups believe it is important for the conference to set out ambitious targets to shake people out of their complacency, codify good practices, and mobilise political will. Barry Coates, executive director of Oxfam, New Zealand, who will attend the conference as part of the NGO community, called for immediate steps from rich countries that would help LDCs. Echoing O’Brien, Coates said a good first step would be to allow duty free access for LDC exports, which account for only 1% of world trade. Coates also argues for further debt cancellation. There was some debt cancellation in 2009, but new debts have also been taken on, particularly in response to the global financial crisis. The UN said as of late last year, 20 least developed countries were in a situation of “debt distress”. The financial crisis, it said, has caused the debt burden to rise. In arguing for a predictable source of finance, Coates said a tax on financial transactions – the so-called Tobin tax – was gaining real political traction . For Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, managing director at the World Bank, who will be attending the conference as an observer, it was important that the meeting should focus on helping LDCs grow at a robust rate. “The issue is whether they are performing economically,” she said “We need to focus on the sources of growth. Those that have been conflict-affected, the question is how do we help them deal with post-conflict. Those countries that are stable, the question is how do we help them grow.” Okonjo-Iweala said African countries – which make up 33 of the 48 LDCs – should use agriculture to create employment. “Fifty percent of arable land is on the African continent,” she said. “They have the potential to provide food for themselves and can go beyond that, modernise their agriculture and adding value. Instead of just exporting the raw material, process the food and add value to it on the continent. Instead of simply exporting the mangoes and pineapples, turn them into fruit juices. ” Mali is a good example with mangoes and has doubled its exports of mangoes. Ethiopia is trying to do that with coffee and Rwanda is moving along the same lines. We should concentrate on specific steps these countries should take and what concrete steps developed countries should take.” There are 48 least developed countries Africa: 33 countries. Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauretania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, Tanzania, and Zambia. Asia and the Pacific: 14 countries Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, Kiribati, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, Nepal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Yemen. Latin America and the Caribbean: 1 country Haiti Characteristics of LDCs Average income of less than $475 (£288) a person a year. Weak human resources as measured by nutrition, infant mortality, secondary school environment and adult literacy. High economic vulnerability as measured by factors such as population size, remoteness, share of agriculture, and homelessness due to natural disasters. A country “graduates” from LDC status if the figure hits $900. Main challenges facing LDCs High levels of poverty: more than half the 800 million people in the LDCs live on less than a dollar a day. Women in LDCs have a one in 16 chance of dying in childbirth, compared to one in 3,500 in North America. Food insecurity: More than 300 million Africans are food insecure. Economic vulnerability: LDCs are highly dependent on external sources of funding, including official development assistance, workers’ remittances and foreign direct investment. This overly exposes them to external shocks such as the global financial crisis. Environmental vulnerability: While they contribute least to climate change, LDCs are among the groups of countries most affected by it. Many LDCs are also small islands whose very survival is threatened by rising sea levels. Source: UN Turkey Liz Ford Mark Tran guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …