Argentinian wins for portfolio of images taken when living with islanders living in the Paraná river delta over two years An Argentinian photographer who began his career on local papers last night picked up one of his art form’s leading awards for a portfolio of pictures he took while living with islanders in the Paraná river delta, Argentina. Alejandro Chaskielberg’s dramatically luminous images of a community going about their daily lives won him photographer of the year – known as L’Iris D’Or – at the Sony World Photography Awards, presented last night at a gala ceremony at the Odeon Leicester Square in London. Chaskielberg, 34, spent two years with the islanders, immersing himself in their daily lives and taking photographs of precisely staged scenes at night. The chairman of this year’s judges, critic Francis Hodgson, said of Chaskielberg’s High Tide series: “These carefully directed pictures tell solid truths – about toil and community and marginal survival – in a splendidly allusive way.” Buenos Aires-born Chaskielberg, who took his first job on a local newspaper aged 18, said of the project: “Using photography, I have been able to present another version of the Paraná river delta and its community that has been photographically ignored throughout the years.” The photographer wins $25,000, new camera equipment, and of course considerable acclaim, joining previous Iris d’Or winners David Zimmerman, Vanessa Winship and Tommaso Ausili as a member of the World Photography Academy. He beat considerable competition, with 105,000 images entered from 162 countries. Other winners at the ceremony, which was held in London for the first time – it has previously been held in Cannes – included a Hong Kong jewellery manufacturer who taught himself basic photography skills using books and the internet. Chan Kwok Hung was named overall winner in the amateur categories, picking up $5,000 as Open Photographer of the year for his dramatic picture Buffalo Race, which he took in Indonesia. There were 13 more winners named in various professional categories covering everything from sport to travel to conceptual. Briton Adam Hinton won the campaign section of the commercial awards for his photographs for Saatchi & Saatchi and Spaniard Javier Arcenillas, shortlisted in four categories, won in two – current affairs and contemporary issues. The truly big name at last night’s awards was American photographer Bruce Davidson, 77, who received the outstanding contribution to photography award. He arrived ahead of two shows of his work in London – a selling exhibition at Chris Beetles gallery opening next week and a retrospective being shown as part of the World Photography Festival at Somerset House. Photography book awards were also given out as part of the proceedings with the best photography book going to a special volume of David Goldblatt’s TJ – images of Johannesburg shot over 40 years – which had married with Ivan Vladislavic’s novel Double Negative. Matthew Solomon’s book Disappearing Tricks, on early theatrical magic and silent film, won the best moving image book award and German publisher Gerhard Steidl was given an outstanding contribution award. Photography Awards and prizes Mark Brown guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Cameron hails quarterly rise of 0.5% but official figures show economy has hit plateau since last summer Britain’s recovery stalled over the last six months, according to official figures that showed key sectors of the economy struggled to make up lost ground after last year’s snow-induced shutdown. A lacklustre rise in GDP of 0.5% in the first three months of the year reversed a fall of 0.5% in the last quarter of 2010, to leave the economy with zero growth since last September. A sharp slowdown in the construction sector, which slumped 4.7% in the quarter, was the main reason. The services sector, which makes up 75% of the economy, grew by just 0.9%. Manufacturing, which grew at 1.1%, was the best performer. The Office for National Statistics said its analysis of figures stretching further back showed that the underlying trend for the economy had plateaued since last summer. In the House of Commons, the prime minister, David Cameron, dismissed critics of the government’s handling of the economy and hailed the positive growth figure as a sign of the economy’s improving health. Speaking at prime minister’s questions, Cameron said it was “clearly a success that the economy has grown”. He told MPs the opposition was talking down the economy to justify its warning of a double-dip recession. Cameron, who pointed to the positive news from the manufacturing sector and private sector job growth, demanded Labour leader Ed Miliband apologise. Labour said a closer study of the ONS data showed the coalition’s first budget last June had undermined business and consumer confidence after it jettisoned plans for growth in favour of spending cuts. Miliband accused the prime minister of “terrible complacency”, adding that the chancellor, George Osborne, was wrong to tell the cabinet on Tuesday that the economy was “on track” when he knew it would fall short of the 0.8% growth predicted last month by the Office for Budget Responsibility. “It’s not me who is talking down the economy – it’s your austerity rhetoric that has led to the lowest levels of consumer confidence in history in this country,” he argued. Several economists added their voices to fears that businesses were preparing for a difficult year as spending cuts began to bite and exports markets slowed down. A survey by GfK NOP found that consumer confidence in April fell to its lowest level since mid-2008 – in the midst of the banking crisis. Echoing previous surveys of household spending, the poll found a dramatic fall in the number of respondents prepared to make spending commitments over the next six months. Spokesman Nick Moon said: “Coming after six months of stagnant economic growth, this is a significant drop. It suggests that attempts to spur growth in last month’s budget have failed to convince the public, and this may well be sorely felt on the already beleaguered high street.” The economies of France, Germany and other eurozone countries have already slowed, fuelling fears for British exports. Manufacturing figures this week pointed to a more muted growth rate over the next year. Social tensions could also be exacerbated by a lack of job opportunities, especially outside the south-east. Several measures of economic activity reveal a widening gap with the rest of the country. While pockets of the country dependent on manufacturing have prospered as businesses exploit the low pound and turn to export markets for growth, large parts of the country could be described as still in recession . Ian Brinkley, of The Work Foundation, said the lack of growth would affect job creation over the next few months, “making any hope of an early reduction in unemployment remote”. John Hawksworth, chief economist at the accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers, said the risk of a double dip recession had increased. “The figures show that the UK is still teetering on the edge of a double dip recession and, in these circumstances, it would be premature in our view for the Bank of England to raise interest rates in the near future while the recovery remains so fragile. With a big fiscal squeeze still only in its early stages, monetary policy needs to remain very loose to support the economic recovery,” he said. “At sector level, the picture is much more mixed. The business services and finance sector recorded healthy 1% growth in the first quarter and manufacturing also grew solidly by 1.1%, helped by stronger exports. But the distribution sector showed only very modest growth and the construction sector has plunged back into recession following a strong rebound in the second and third quarters of 2010.” A collapse in commercial building was the biggest factor dragging down the figures as construction firms found it difficult to generate new business following the loss of the previous government’s multibillion-pound schools building programme and a drop in demand for new offices and shops. A mortgage drought has also hit the housebuilding industry. With only a few major buildings under construction, mainly in the south east, the industry is struggling to claw its way back from the worst recession since the early 1980s. Simon Ward, economist at fund manager Henderson, put a more positive spin on the figures, arguing that ONS figures showed construction orders were improving. He said without the drag effect from construction, the overall figures would reveal a healthier economy. Ward, like Bank of England interest rate setter Andrew Sentence, has consistently argued the economy is in better shape than the ONS figures show. He has called for interest rate rises to quell inflation, believing the recovery is entrenched and businesses well placed to withstand higher borrowing costs. Holidays hit growth While economists weighed the first quarter figures for signs of hope, experts faced the prospect of further volatility in the numbers for the current three-month period. One problem is the paucity of working days this month. How can the economy grow in the second quarter when there are only 18 working days? The royal wedding bank holiday and the mass exodus of workers linking Easter with May Day, usually a quiet time for long foreign holidays, could depress the figures. A similar extra day for the Queen’s golden jubilee in 2002 affected growth. The bank holiday might not show up in surveys of some sectors, but areas of the economy such as construction, which struggles to make up for lost time, can expect to suffer. In the fortnight before Christmas Britain lost several days to snow. British Airways suffered four days of closure at Heathrow while construction firms effectively shut down for the whole period. Snowfalls and ice conditions earlier in the month also contributed to a 0.5% fall in GDP, which the Office for National Statistics said would have been 0% without the adverse weather conditions. The loss of a few days to bank holidays will not have anything like the same effect, but with an estimated third of workers taking three days off work to gain a nine-day holiday, many of them jetting abroad, it could be a factor helping to depress growth. In addition, several large car makers such as Toyota, Nissan and Honda have all cut back on production this month because of shortage of parts caused by the Japanese tsunami. Economic growth (GDP) Economics David Cameron Ed Miliband George Osborne Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …First pics: Gabrielle Giffords’ recovery from the shooting hits a new benchmark
April 27, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media It’s great to see Gabrielle Giffords in any capacity right now. Good for her. She’s going to see her husband’s liftoff. ABC News : A fragile but determined Rep. Gabrielle Giffords walked one careful step at a time today up the steps of a plane that will take her Florida to watch her husband blast off on the final mission of the space shuttle Endeavor.. The gritty walk by Giffords, who was wearing a padded medical helmet, was her first public steps since being shot in the head at a public event in January. The Arizona congresswoman left TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital and boarded a waiting NASA plane at Ellington Airport in Houston. Giffords was spotted leaving the hospital in a wheelchair and with her face covered before being driven to the airport. At the airport, she walked under her own power and without assistance from the car to the plane stairway and slowly up the steps. Giffords’ staff has tried to keep her out of view from the public, and said she would not be making any public appearances during the Endeavor’s launch. Giffords will be joined on Friday by Kelly’s three daughters, President Obama and the first lady at Cape Canaveral to watch the launch. Giffords’ husband navy pilot and astronaut Mark Kelly arrived at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center on Tuesday. “She’s been working really hard to make sure that her doctors would permit her to come,” Kelly said Tuesday. NASA said Giffords would receive a “little more care and attention” as she visited Florida to watch the launch… read on
Continue reading …
CNN's Deborah Feyerick took the offensive Tuesday and emphasized the negative effects of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's cuts to education funding. Feyerick highlighted the plight of an illiterate kindergartner from a “high risk” neighborhood as an example of student who could be affected by budget cuts. The segment ran during the 8 a.m. EDT hour of Tuesday's “American Morning” on CNN. CNN featured a young girl from a “high risk” school district, who needs a literacy tutor to ensure she can read at her classmates' level. CNN then aired Trenton Public School superintendent Raymond Broach's dour reaction to the $12 million cut from the district's budget last year. “You've just made that race for some learners almost next to impossible,” he told CNN. (Video after the break.)
Continue reading …
University of St Andrews to review acceptance of funding arranged by Bashar al-Assad’s controversial regime in Damascus A prestigious British university is to review the work of one of its academic research centres because its funding was arranged by the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Guardian can reveal. The University of St Andrews, where Prince William and Kate Middleton studied, has received more than £100,000 in funding for its centre for Syrian studies with the assistance of the Syrian ambassador to the UK, Sami Khiyami. Following questions on Wednesday from the Guardian about its relations with figures associated with the regime – and “in view of significant international concerns about recent events in Syria” – a spokesman for St Andrews said the university would be reviewing the centre’s work “to ensure its high academic standards are maintained”. The university’s association with the Assad regime has come under scrutiny in the wake of the violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Syria which is estimated to have claimed 450 lives so far. In addition to Khiyami, the centre’s board of advisers also boasts other figures closely associated with the Damascus regime including Fawaz Akhras, the charismatic British-based cardiologist who is not only Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law, but also acts as a gatekeeper for the family, screening British journalists before they are granted an interview with his daughter Asma or his son-in-law. Akhras is also the founder of the British Syrian Society, which has organised visits to Damascus and meetings with Assad for sympathetic members of parliament, as well as organising an investment conference in London to introduce British, European and Arab businesses to Syrian government ministers. Opened in November 2006 as part of the university’s school of international relations, funding for the centre was only secured with the assistance of Khiyami, who, according to the centre’s head, Prof Raymond Hinnebusch, persuaded Syrian-born British businessman Ayman Asfari to pay for it. Asfari is head of Petrofac, the London and Aberdeen-based oil and gas services company, which is a partner of the Syrian government in two major projects in the country worth $1bn, according to the company’s figures. The latest embarrassing disclosure over connections between a British university and an authoritarian Arab regime follows the row that engulfed the London School of Economics over its links with Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Supporters of the centre and of Hinnebusch – including the author Patrick Seale, who is an adviser to the centre – insist on the necessity of engaging with Syria as it appeared to be grappling with reform, and stress the seriousness of its academic work. But critics claim that British universities should have been far more vigilant before associating with regimes with a record of human rights and other abuses. According to Hinnebusch, writing in the Syrian Studies Association newsletter last year: “Khiyami made the decisive breakthrough in finding a philanthropist who was willing to provide the funding to launch the centre.” A well-known scholar on Syria, he insists that his centre supports “politically unbiased research”, and he has written that he believes Syria is “lamentably misunderstood in policy circles and in the western media where the over-amplified voices of special interest pundits are allowed to demonise all who oppose imperial plans for the region”. Despite the fact that the opening of the centre came at a time when western governments were attempting to engage with Damascus, Syria remained – as it still does – a police state with few political freedoms or rights of free expression, and a state where human rights abuses continue. Among events organised by the centre, in partnership with the Orient Centre for International Studies based in Syria, was a conference in Damascus in 2008 with papers provided by a former adviser to Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s harshly authoritarian father who was implicated in numerous human rights abuses, and other pro-regime officials. Robert Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow, who has called for an inquiry into British universities’ links with despotic Middle Eastern regimes, said: “We need to learn from what’s happened with Libyan funding of our universities, that universities should not accept money from governments like Syria, or those with connections to the Syrian government. The danger is that you get compromised by the amount of money, and it inevitably influences your outlook on the Middle East. I’ve argued that universities that take money from dictatorships should receive a reduction in their public subsidy.” The MP said he found it astonishing that St Andrews had not mentioned the relationship with Syria in response to a freedom of information request he submitted about donations from the Middle East or Africa since 2000. Robin Simcox, who studied foreign funding of universities in a report for the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “Universities take this money claiming they’re going to break down walls and open relations. What they end up doing is colluding with murderous family-run regimes. These universities have got it wrong. With the likes of Gaddafi, they say the people they’re taking money from are reformers. They’re not reformers, they’re tyrants.” Sam Westrop, a spokesman for a student-run campaign to ensure ethical funding of universities, said that it would put pressure on St Andrews to explain its Syrian links. However Niall Scott, a spokesman for St Andrews, said the centre for Syrian studies “was established with the assistance of a £105,000 donation from the Asfari foundation, a recognised UK charity, in 2007. This is the only external funding the centre has received. The salaries of CSS staff are paid directly by the university. Its board of advisers comprises a cross-section of Syrian interests and viewpoints. From an academic standpoint, it is critical to be able to engage directly with all aspects of Syrian society in order to better understand the regime. “The University of St Andrews assiduously and regularly reviews its research centres and institutes and is satisfied that the CSS has met the high academic and ethical standards required to function effectively and independently. “In view, however, of significant international concerns about recent events in Syria, a further review of the centre is currently underway to ensure its high academic standards are maintained.” University of St Andrews Higher education Syria Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Peter Beaumont Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …University of St Andrews to review acceptance of funding arranged by Bashar al-Assad’s controversial regime in Damascus A prestigious British university is to review the work of one of its academic research centres because its funding was arranged by the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Guardian can reveal. The University of St Andrews, where Prince William and Kate Middleton studied, has received more than £100,000 in funding for its centre for Syrian studies with the assistance of the Syrian ambassador to the UK, Sami Khiyami. Following questions on Wednesday from the Guardian about its relations with figures associated with the regime – and “in view of significant international concerns about recent events in Syria” – a spokesman for St Andrews said the university would be reviewing the centre’s work “to ensure its high academic standards are maintained”. The university’s association with the Assad regime has come under scrutiny in the wake of the violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Syria which is estimated to have claimed 450 lives so far. In addition to Khiyami, the centre’s board of advisers also boasts other figures closely associated with the Damascus regime including Fawaz Akhras, the charismatic British-based cardiologist who is not only Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law, but also acts as a gatekeeper for the family, screening British journalists before they are granted an interview with his daughter Asma or his son-in-law. Akhras is also the founder of the British Syrian Society, which has organised visits to Damascus and meetings with Assad for sympathetic members of parliament, as well as organising an investment conference in London to introduce British, European and Arab businesses to Syrian government ministers. Opened in November 2006 as part of the university’s school of international relations, funding for the centre was only secured with the assistance of Khiyami, who, according to the centre’s head, Prof Raymond Hinnebusch, persuaded Syrian-born British businessman Ayman Asfari to pay for it. Asfari is head of Petrofac, the London and Aberdeen-based oil and gas services company, which is a partner of the Syrian government in two major projects in the country worth $1bn, according to the company’s figures. The latest embarrassing disclosure over connections between a British university and an authoritarian Arab regime follows the row that engulfed the London School of Economics over its links with Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Supporters of the centre and of Hinnebusch – including the author Patrick Seale, who is an adviser to the centre – insist on the necessity of engaging with Syria as it appeared to be grappling with reform, and stress the seriousness of its academic work. But critics claim that British universities should have been far more vigilant before associating with regimes with a record of human rights and other abuses. According to Hinnebusch, writing in the Syrian Studies Association newsletter last year: “Khiyami made the decisive breakthrough in finding a philanthropist who was willing to provide the funding to launch the centre.” A well-known scholar on Syria, he insists that his centre supports “politically unbiased research”, and he has written that he believes Syria is “lamentably misunderstood in policy circles and in the western media where the over-amplified voices of special interest pundits are allowed to demonise all who oppose imperial plans for the region”. Despite the fact that the opening of the centre came at a time when western governments were attempting to engage with Damascus, Syria remained – as it still does – a police state with few political freedoms or rights of free expression, and a state where human rights abuses continue. Among events organised by the centre, in partnership with the Orient Centre for International Studies based in Syria, was a conference in Damascus in 2008 with papers provided by a former adviser to Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s harshly authoritarian father who was implicated in numerous human rights abuses, and other pro-regime officials. Robert Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow, who has called for an inquiry into British universities’ links with despotic Middle Eastern regimes, said: “We need to learn from what’s happened with Libyan funding of our universities, that universities should not accept money from governments like Syria, or those with connections to the Syrian government. The danger is that you get compromised by the amount of money, and it inevitably influences your outlook on the Middle East. I’ve argued that universities that take money from dictatorships should receive a reduction in their public subsidy.” The MP said he found it astonishing that St Andrews had not mentioned the relationship with Syria in response to a freedom of information request he submitted about donations from the Middle East or Africa since 2000. Robin Simcox, who studied foreign funding of universities in a report for the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “Universities take this money claiming they’re going to break down walls and open relations. What they end up doing is colluding with murderous family-run regimes. These universities have got it wrong. With the likes of Gaddafi, they say the people they’re taking money from are reformers. They’re not reformers, they’re tyrants.” Sam Westrop, a spokesman for a student-run campaign to ensure ethical funding of universities, said that it would put pressure on St Andrews to explain its Syrian links. However Niall Scott, a spokesman for St Andrews, said the centre for Syrian studies “was established with the assistance of a £105,000 donation from the Asfari foundation, a recognised UK charity, in 2007. This is the only external funding the centre has received. The salaries of CSS staff are paid directly by the university. Its board of advisers comprises a cross-section of Syrian interests and viewpoints. From an academic standpoint, it is critical to be able to engage directly with all aspects of Syrian society in order to better understand the regime. “The University of St Andrews assiduously and regularly reviews its research centres and institutes and is satisfied that the CSS has met the high academic and ethical standards required to function effectively and independently. “In view, however, of significant international concerns about recent events in Syria, a further review of the centre is currently underway to ensure its high academic standards are maintained.” University of St Andrews Higher education Syria Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Peter Beaumont Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …University of St Andrews to review acceptance of funding arranged by Bashar al-Assad’s controversial regime in Damascus A prestigious British university is to review the work of one of its academic research centres because its funding was arranged by the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Guardian can reveal. The University of St Andrews, where Prince William and Kate Middleton studied, has received more than £100,000 in funding for its centre for Syrian studies with the assistance of the Syrian ambassador to the UK, Sami Khiyami. Following questions on Wednesday from the Guardian about its relations with figures associated with the regime – and “in view of significant international concerns about recent events in Syria” – a spokesman for St Andrews said the university would be reviewing the centre’s work “to ensure its high academic standards are maintained”. The university’s association with the Assad regime has come under scrutiny in the wake of the violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Syria which is estimated to have claimed 450 lives so far. In addition to Khiyami, the centre’s board of advisers also boasts other figures closely associated with the Damascus regime including Fawaz Akhras, the charismatic British-based cardiologist who is not only Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law, but also acts as a gatekeeper for the family, screening British journalists before they are granted an interview with his daughter Asma or his son-in-law. Akhras is also the founder of the British Syrian Society, which has organised visits to Damascus and meetings with Assad for sympathetic members of parliament, as well as organising an investment conference in London to introduce British, European and Arab businesses to Syrian government ministers. Opened in November 2006 as part of the university’s school of international relations, funding for the centre was only secured with the assistance of Khiyami, who, according to the centre’s head, Prof Raymond Hinnebusch, persuaded Syrian-born British businessman Ayman Asfari to pay for it. Asfari is head of Petrofac, the London and Aberdeen-based oil and gas services company, which is a partner of the Syrian government in two major projects in the country worth $1bn, according to the company’s figures. The latest embarrassing disclosure over connections between a British university and an authoritarian Arab regime follows the row that engulfed the London School of Economics over its links with Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Supporters of the centre and of Hinnebusch – including the author Patrick Seale, who is an adviser to the centre – insist on the necessity of engaging with Syria as it appeared to be grappling with reform, and stress the seriousness of its academic work. But critics claim that British universities should have been far more vigilant before associating with regimes with a record of human rights and other abuses. According to Hinnebusch, writing in the Syrian Studies Association newsletter last year: “Khiyami made the decisive breakthrough in finding a philanthropist who was willing to provide the funding to launch the centre.” A well-known scholar on Syria, he insists that his centre supports “politically unbiased research”, and he has written that he believes Syria is “lamentably misunderstood in policy circles and in the western media where the over-amplified voices of special interest pundits are allowed to demonise all who oppose imperial plans for the region”. Despite the fact that the opening of the centre came at a time when western governments were attempting to engage with Damascus, Syria remained – as it still does – a police state with few political freedoms or rights of free expression, and a state where human rights abuses continue. Among events organised by the centre, in partnership with the Orient Centre for International Studies based in Syria, was a conference in Damascus in 2008 with papers provided by a former adviser to Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s harshly authoritarian father who was implicated in numerous human rights abuses, and other pro-regime officials. Robert Halfon, the Conservative MP for Harlow, who has called for an inquiry into British universities’ links with despotic Middle Eastern regimes, said: “We need to learn from what’s happened with Libyan funding of our universities, that universities should not accept money from governments like Syria, or those with connections to the Syrian government. The danger is that you get compromised by the amount of money, and it inevitably influences your outlook on the Middle East. I’ve argued that universities that take money from dictatorships should receive a reduction in their public subsidy.” The MP said he found it astonishing that St Andrews had not mentioned the relationship with Syria in response to a freedom of information request he submitted about donations from the Middle East or Africa since 2000. Robin Simcox, who studied foreign funding of universities in a report for the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “Universities take this money claiming they’re going to break down walls and open relations. What they end up doing is colluding with murderous family-run regimes. These universities have got it wrong. With the likes of Gaddafi, they say the people they’re taking money from are reformers. They’re not reformers, they’re tyrants.” Sam Westrop, a spokesman for a student-run campaign to ensure ethical funding of universities, said that it would put pressure on St Andrews to explain its Syrian links. However Niall Scott, a spokesman for St Andrews, said the centre for Syrian studies “was established with the assistance of a £105,000 donation from the Asfari foundation, a recognised UK charity, in 2007. This is the only external funding the centre has received. The salaries of CSS staff are paid directly by the university. Its board of advisers comprises a cross-section of Syrian interests and viewpoints. From an academic standpoint, it is critical to be able to engage directly with all aspects of Syrian society in order to better understand the regime. “The University of St Andrews assiduously and regularly reviews its research centres and institutes and is satisfied that the CSS has met the high academic and ethical standards required to function effectively and independently. “In view, however, of significant international concerns about recent events in Syria, a further review of the centre is currently underway to ensure its high academic standards are maintained.” University of St Andrews Higher education Syria Middle East Arab and Middle East unrest Peter Beaumont Jeevan Vasagar guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tim Farron claims first past the post made it possible while Alan Johnson urges Labour activists to back change The Liberal Democrats kept up the rhetorical pressure on the Conservatives when party president Tim Farron described Thatcherism as “organised wickedness” and claimed David Cameron’s lasting legacy as prime minister would be his decision to defend an “indefensible” electoral system. At a cross-party event organised by the yes campaign in the referendum on the alternative vote system, Farron said Cameron had turned his back on a long Conservative tradition, stretching back to Disraeli and Baldwin, in favour of evolution of the voting system. He also claimed first past the post had made possible the “organised wickedness” of unemployment under years of Thatcherism. His criticism of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher prompted a rebuke from Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party, who called on all sides in the referendum campaign not to resort to personal abuse. Farron said: “The more shrill and terrified the establishment sound, the more you know that voting yes is right. “I thought he [Cameron] stood for change, progress and reform – he was the future once. “Does he really want to be remembered as the last defender of a discredited system? Whether he wins or loses, his legacy will be defending the indefensible.” Farron said the mass unemployment of the 1980s “was organised wickedness given the veneer of legitimacy by an electoral system that gave the Conservatives 100% of Britain’s power despite being opposed by 60% of the electorate”. In an appeal to the many confused, indifferent and wavering voters, he said: “Do we want to be the generation mocked by our children and grandchildren for bottling this change, or do we want stand up to the press barons in this most British of weeks to make a very British change, a small change that will make a big difference?” Farage and Farron were sharing the yes platform with former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson and the leader of the Green party, Caroline Lucas. The yes event came as campaign organisers said the outcome of the referendum would turn on whether Labour voters decided to back change and saw the status quo of first past the post as likely to entrench the Tory party in power. Johnson acknowledged that Labour was divided over the issue – the natural result of the fact that the party can win under first past the post. The Labour no campaign has for weeks claimed a majority of the parliamentary party. Ed Miliband has said Labour MPs are free to take whatever position they want. Johnson said he believed in their hearts most Labour activists supported change, implying that they were being held back by their contempt for the Liberal Democrat leadership. “I cannot imagine anyone joining a radical, progressive party like the Labour party and thinking the electoral system is absolutely perfect and does not need change in any way,” he said. He argued that “even though we can win through first past the post, we think it is a miserably disempowering system that belongs in the past. It is not of this age.” Johnson said the current system had been devised by a tiny political elite when most working men and women did not have the vote, and had been designed to suit the establishment’s preference for a two party system. Labour should not become part of that establishment, he said, adding: “It is against our history and our principles.” Farage, a supporter of a proportional system, complained: “The second-ever national referendum has degenerated into a war of abuse. Professional politicians bickering with one another does nothing to enthuse people to go out and vote next Thursday.” He said the people to whom he had spoken were completely turned off by the referendum, adding: “Very bad mistakes have been made on both sides.” AV referendum Alternative vote Electoral reform Liberal Democrats Labour Green party UK Independence party (Ukip) Alan Johnson Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tim Farron claims first past the post made it possible while Alan Johnson urges Labour activists to back change The Liberal Democrats kept up the rhetorical pressure on the Conservatives when party president Tim Farron described Thatcherism as “organised wickedness” and claimed David Cameron’s lasting legacy as prime minister would be his decision to defend an “indefensible” electoral system. At a cross-party event organised by the yes campaign in the referendum on the alternative vote system, Farron said Cameron had turned his back on a long Conservative tradition, stretching back to Disraeli and Baldwin, in favour of evolution of the voting system. He also claimed first past the post had made possible the “organised wickedness” of unemployment under years of Thatcherism. His criticism of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher prompted a rebuke from Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party, who called on all sides in the referendum campaign not to resort to personal abuse. Farron said: “The more shrill and terrified the establishment sound, the more you know that voting yes is right. “I thought he [Cameron] stood for change, progress and reform – he was the future once. “Does he really want to be remembered as the last defender of a discredited system? Whether he wins or loses, his legacy will be defending the indefensible.” Farron said the mass unemployment of the 1980s “was organised wickedness given the veneer of legitimacy by an electoral system that gave the Conservatives 100% of Britain’s power despite being opposed by 60% of the electorate”. In an appeal to the many confused, indifferent and wavering voters, he said: “Do we want to be the generation mocked by our children and grandchildren for bottling this change, or do we want stand up to the press barons in this most British of weeks to make a very British change, a small change that will make a big difference?” Farage and Farron were sharing the yes platform with former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson and the leader of the Green party, Caroline Lucas. The yes event came as campaign organisers said the outcome of the referendum would turn on whether Labour voters decided to back change and saw the status quo of first past the post as likely to entrench the Tory party in power. Johnson acknowledged that Labour was divided over the issue – the natural result of the fact that the party can win under first past the post. The Labour no campaign has for weeks claimed a majority of the parliamentary party. Ed Miliband has said Labour MPs are free to take whatever position they want. Johnson said he believed in their hearts most Labour activists supported change, implying that they were being held back by their contempt for the Liberal Democrat leadership. “I cannot imagine anyone joining a radical, progressive party like the Labour party and thinking the electoral system is absolutely perfect and does not need change in any way,” he said. He argued that “even though we can win through first past the post, we think it is a miserably disempowering system that belongs in the past. It is not of this age.” Johnson said the current system had been devised by a tiny political elite when most working men and women did not have the vote, and had been designed to suit the establishment’s preference for a two party system. Labour should not become part of that establishment, he said, adding: “It is against our history and our principles.” Farage, a supporter of a proportional system, complained: “The second-ever national referendum has degenerated into a war of abuse. Professional politicians bickering with one another does nothing to enthuse people to go out and vote next Thursday.” He said the people to whom he had spoken were completely turned off by the referendum, adding: “Very bad mistakes have been made on both sides.” AV referendum Alternative vote Electoral reform Liberal Democrats Labour Green party UK Independence party (Ukip) Alan Johnson Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tim Farron claims first past the post made it possible while Alan Johnson urges Labour activists to back change The Liberal Democrats kept up the rhetorical pressure on the Conservatives when party president Tim Farron described Thatcherism as “organised wickedness” and claimed David Cameron’s lasting legacy as prime minister would be his decision to defend an “indefensible” electoral system. At a cross-party event organised by the yes campaign in the referendum on the alternative vote system, Farron said Cameron had turned his back on a long Conservative tradition, stretching back to Disraeli and Baldwin, in favour of evolution of the voting system. He also claimed first past the post had made possible the “organised wickedness” of unemployment under years of Thatcherism. His criticism of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher prompted a rebuke from Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party, who called on all sides in the referendum campaign not to resort to personal abuse. Farron said: “The more shrill and terrified the establishment sound, the more you know that voting yes is right. “I thought he [Cameron] stood for change, progress and reform – he was the future once. “Does he really want to be remembered as the last defender of a discredited system? Whether he wins or loses, his legacy will be defending the indefensible.” Farron said the mass unemployment of the 1980s “was organised wickedness given the veneer of legitimacy by an electoral system that gave the Conservatives 100% of Britain’s power despite being opposed by 60% of the electorate”. In an appeal to the many confused, indifferent and wavering voters, he said: “Do we want to be the generation mocked by our children and grandchildren for bottling this change, or do we want stand up to the press barons in this most British of weeks to make a very British change, a small change that will make a big difference?” Farage and Farron were sharing the yes platform with former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson and the leader of the Green party, Caroline Lucas. The yes event came as campaign organisers said the outcome of the referendum would turn on whether Labour voters decided to back change and saw the status quo of first past the post as likely to entrench the Tory party in power. Johnson acknowledged that Labour was divided over the issue – the natural result of the fact that the party can win under first past the post. The Labour no campaign has for weeks claimed a majority of the parliamentary party. Ed Miliband has said Labour MPs are free to take whatever position they want. Johnson said he believed in their hearts most Labour activists supported change, implying that they were being held back by their contempt for the Liberal Democrat leadership. “I cannot imagine anyone joining a radical, progressive party like the Labour party and thinking the electoral system is absolutely perfect and does not need change in any way,” he said. He argued that “even though we can win through first past the post, we think it is a miserably disempowering system that belongs in the past. It is not of this age.” Johnson said the current system had been devised by a tiny political elite when most working men and women did not have the vote, and had been designed to suit the establishment’s preference for a two party system. Labour should not become part of that establishment, he said, adding: “It is against our history and our principles.” Farage, a supporter of a proportional system, complained: “The second-ever national referendum has degenerated into a war of abuse. Professional politicians bickering with one another does nothing to enthuse people to go out and vote next Thursday.” He said the people to whom he had spoken were completely turned off by the referendum, adding: “Very bad mistakes have been made on both sides.” AV referendum Alternative vote Electoral reform Liberal Democrats Labour Green party UK Independence party (Ukip) Alan Johnson Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …