For the second night in a row Tuesday, MSNBC's Ed Schultz called Republicans liars. Also for the second night in a row, he did so moments before lying himself (video follows with transcript and commentary): ED SCHULTZ: Republicans have been lying about tax cuts for years, but the new breed of conservatives, well, they have taken it to another level. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VIRGINIA): Congress doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WISCONSIN): We don't have a revenue or a tax problem in Washington. They're already high enough. We have a spending problem. HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER (R-OHIO): We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. (END VIDEO CLIP) SCHULTZ: Okay. You hear the Republican leadership there. Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan. You know what? They are completely wrong. Let's go to big Eddie’s chart. We have charts every night. You know, what I have to do is I got to get a Republican to come up here and tell me these charts are wrong. Any time this buffoon wants someone on his program to prove him wrong, as Michael Jackson once sang, all he has to do is call and I’ll be there: SCHULTZ: Bill Clinton’s first budget was the fiscal year '93-'94. Now pay attention here, folks. It's an easy one. Even I can follow it. The green line, well that's federal revenue and the red line of course is spending. So when Clinton got in office, holy smokes. Look at that. We were just spending way too much money. And so what did they do in '94? They raise taxes. Why? Because they didn't have enough revenue and they wanted to balance the budget. So they raised taxes right here and here comes the revenue. Here comes the revenue. There's the spending held in check by those tax-and-spend Democrats. Not surprisingly, the guy that just seconds earlier said, “Republicans have been lying about tax cuts for years” claimed it was Democrats that held spending in check when Clinton was President. I guess he forgot that Republicans took over Congress in 1995 and that they’re the ones that held Clinton's spending in check for six of his eight years. But that was just the beginning of Schultz's falsehoods expressed in this opening segment: SCHULTZ: So look what happened. We have a cross right here in about '97-'98. All of a sudden the revenue goes above the spending and the spending stays below. Well here comes President Bush. President Bush comes in here in the year 2000 and look at this. He says, “You know what? We got too much money going into the Treasury. It's your money.” Remember, they used to go on the campaign trail and say, “It's your money. We want to give it back to you.” So they get this right here. 2000. Here come the tax cuts. Honestly, is this man such an idiot that he doesn’t know Clinton was still president in 2000 and Bush wasn’t inaugurated until the following year? Or that the first Bush tax cuts were also implemented in 2001? Exactly what credibility does this guy have when he can’t remember who was president ten and eleven years ago? But there’s still more…a lot more: SCHULTZ: Here come the tax cuts right here, and what do we have right after 9/11 and right after the tax cuts? We have a dip in revenue but look at this. The spending keeps going up because you know we had to fight them over there instead fight them of over here and of course this stuff, the wars, that was off budget. In fact, we were told by the vice president, “The deficits don't matter.” Remember that? Deficits didn't matter. That's what we were told by the last guys in charge. While the revenue went down the spending continued to go up. And then of course, here is the re-election, and of course we were told right here, “Well, if we don't re-elect this crowd we're going to get hit again.” Hmm. So then we keep on going through the Bush years and the revenue starts to come back a little bit but the spending just keeps going. Where was Cantor? Where was Boehner? Where was Ryan when this spending was going through the roof? Well, the guys that they were genuflecting to said the deficits didn't matter. So here comes President Obama. President Obama comes in in 2008. 2008? No, actually, Obama was inaugurated in 2009. Shouldn’t a political commentator on a major news network know that presidents are elected in even years and start their terms in odd years? If this was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) or former Alaska governor Sarah Palin making these kinds of mistakes on national television, Schultz and all of his colleagues on this joke of a “news” network would be calling the guilty party an idiot that doesn’t understand the basics of our political system or recent American history. But there’s still more…a lot more: SCHULTZ: Here is the housing bubble. This is the housing bubble right here. Oh, man. We're selling homes like crazy. Aren't we? We're doing all these quick mortgages and what not and here comes the revenue and then boom. There is the housing bust. Notice how Schultz talked about the housing boom and how it drove tax revenues up, but he neglected to address the stock bubble during the Clinton years and how that also caused tax receipts to dramatically increase. In his mind – such as it is – the '90s expansion was exclusively caused by higher taxes. One of the biggest technological booms and stock market bubbles in American history had absolutely nothing to do with that recovery or the subsequent rise in tax receipts. And this guy has his own show on national television wherein he gets to relay such nonsense to the public without any challenge. Making matters worse, Schultz also didn’t mention how much the decline in revenues when Bush became President – in 2001 NOT 2000, by the way! – was impacted by the bursting of the tech stock bubble – a bubble that popped under Clinton. The resulting recession and associated decline in tax receipts was not mentioned as leaving a mess for Bush to attend to, but of course, everything Obama faced despite him having been part of the majority in Congress for the previous four years was all his predecessor’s fault: SCHULTZ: And of course here we sit, President Obama, he comes in and the revenue is dipping down because of what he inherited and what's he do? He spends money to get out of it because every economist on both sides of the aisle said you got to spend money to get out of this problem. Every economist on both sides of the aisle said we have to spend money to get out of that problem? This might be Schultz's biggest lie of the night! Conservative economists across the fruited plain were saying back then that Obama should cut taxes to solve the crisis not raise spending. In fact, when Obama first met with Republican leaders after he was inaugurated, they strongly suggested that tax cuts be the primary focus of any recovery plan he proposed. His answer was, “I won.” But there was still more: SCHULTZ: So now if you look at this, we have the largest gap between money spent and revenue being brought into the Treasury. The largest gap we've had, well, actually my board's not big enough. Can you believe that? I actually could take you back another 20 years. This is the largest gap. But remember, the Republicans are telling us that we don't have a revenue problem. This is where the American people are way ahead of the Congress. The American people see this graph and they know exactly how to fix it, and that's raise taxes. President Obama’s right in line. He has a plan to solve our revenue problem. It's called taxing the wealthy. The dishonesty on display here was disturbing to say the least. Nowhere did Schultz inform his viewers that the main reason for this “largest gap” was a $1.1 trillion increase in spending after the Democrats – including Obama – took over Congress. By the way, that would be 2007 and not 2006. Although tax receipts did indeed plummet by $464 billion from 2007 to 2009, by far the bulk of our current deficit was cause by the $1.1 trillion increase in spending that began when Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the legislative reins. Schultz not informing his viewers of this was media malpractice at its worst. But potentially Schultz's largest transgression was telling his viewers that our whole budget problem can be solved by raising taxes on the so-called rich. We currently have a $1.65 trillion deficit. The budget Obama proposed in February produces close to $1 trillion shortfalls every year for the next ten. As NewsBusters reported last August, the liberal think tank the Brookings Institution claimed the annual cost of the Bush tax cuts on the so-called rich is $67.9 billion. If these cuts were eliminated as Obama and Schultz want, the reduction to our annual budget deficits would be negligible.
Continue reading …
Lonely Planet ‘s Tom Hall has tips on how to see the world by yacht to where to find a small, family-friendly campsite in France I am looking into working on boats/yachts as a deckhand as a way of seeing the world. Can you or any of the readers recommend any websites/forums. I was looking to take the STCW 95 course as this seems like it may lead to paid employment rather than just volunteering in exchange for travel. Peepeeheenaz The idea of working on a yacht as a way to travel is, happily, still possible. As you might imagine it is highly competitive and you need a few breaks to get started and a strong work ethic to keep getting jobs. Getting started is still, in time-honoured fashion, a case of “dockwalking” – going boat to boat – in resorts such as Cannes, Nice and Monaco, but the best spots, according to Bethany Silcox, writer of the Fun Sized Adventures blog ( funsizedadventures.wordpress.com ) who has several years of crewing on superyachts under her belt, are Antibes and Palma de Mallorca. These are, she says, “the two Mediterranean superyacht hubs. You will find plenty of crew agents who help you to tweak your CV, perfect your ‘yachtie look’ and help you to find a position. Both superyacht hubs are equipped with crew houses (hostels for yachties) and plenty of bars for ‘networking’.” Should you be daunted by the cost of taking a course to get started, consider also Bethany’s advice: “Monetary investment in your career is recuperated relatively quickly with competitive salaries and expenses covered by the boat.” The STCW 95 you mention (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping certificate ( stcw.org ), the qualification that is legally required to work on board a sail or motor yacht over 24 metres in length, and is increasingly being asked for by owners of smaller vessels) may be enough to get you started, but you may also find that your rivals for crewing jobs also have diving, powerboat or waterspouts qualifications that can give them an edge. You can take the basic STCW 95 seafaring course at centres around Britain. It costs around £800 and takes five days. Once you get a job, you can expect to work hard and sleep little when guests are on board, but enjoy normal working hours and the perks of working on a very fancy boat and calling at plenty of different, interesting places at quieter times. That should be enough to get you started. The RYA ( rya.org.uk ) has plenty of information about training. Have a look also at The Crew Report ( thecrewreport.com/superyacht_crew_homepage.asp ) and crew agency sites such as Luxury Yacht Group ( luxyachts.com/default.aspx ). Should you find yourself crewing in Bora Bora of somewhere equally idyllic then be sure to drop me a line and let me know. I’m planning to go to Namibia in May/June and then on to Victoria Falls and I have a couple of questions. 1.) How safe is the Zimbabwe side of the Falls these days? 2.) Would you recommend Lüderitz in southern Namibia or going somewhere in the Zambia area after the falls? We have a spare two days in our schedule and are not sure where to use them. Dasaidanglo The Zimbabwe side of Victoria Falls is safe to visit and tourists are starting to return to what was originally the main visitor area for the natural wonder. If you’re going over the next few months you should certainly book ahead, though you will find the Zambian side substantially busier. Visas for Zimbabwe can be obtained at the border (£35/US$55, bring cash) and it is certainly worth seeing the Falls from both sides. This must be one of the world’s most astonishing border crossings. I did it by bicycle two years ago and it was the noisiest, most spectacular bridge crossing I have ever made. The Falls should be very full of water at this time of year, at the start of winter after the end of the rainy season. I spent a few days around Chobe national park in Botswana on my visit, which is close to the Falls and offers a fun border crossing over the Zambezi on a rusty ferry. Lüderitz would be a much longer journey and as super as this part of Namibia is, you’ll have seen much of the country already so may wish to pause in somewhere green and pleasant, which this part of Botswana certainly is. My partner and I are hoping to do a fly-drive in Portugal in September. We’re hoping to spend a week or so travelling the Douro area and hope that it will be round about the time of the grape harvest. How advanced is vino-tourism in Portugal? Are we likely to be able to explore and enjoy any of the vineyards – and is there anywhere we can go for more information? Silverandroid As you might expect from one of the world’s oldest wine regions the answer to your second question is an emphatic yes. You’ll find no shortage of vintners offering you a tasting, often with a fine meal to go with it. The back roads which hug the steep contours of the Alto Douro wine country are pretty wonderful too. Driving up the river from Porto you’ll find plenty of quintas (wineries) to pause at along the way. The best place to look is at Rota do Vinho do Porto ( rvp.pt ), which lists dozens of vineyards which accept visitors. There’s more than just fine port and wine here. The hilltop town of Vila Nova de Foz Côa – one end of the superb drive from Pinhão is close to a superb collection of Palaeolithic cave art. Do deviate along the road, too, even unpromising spots like São João da Pesqueira have beautiful historic centres and leave the package tours behind. Here’s a thought: as you explore such a beautiful place and enjoy great wines and excellent food you’re also helping the Portuguese economy. It’s almost your duty to go. Visit Portugal ( visitportugal.com ) can help with planning too. I am going to France camping with my family (two girls, six and three, myself and hubby) for three weeks (looking around Nantes area). We can go any time from July to August. Any recommendations in terms of price? We would love a simple, “French” campsite in easy reach of the area’s beaches but seem to only find huge complexes on Google or very “English” sites. KassieB This is a common question – where in France can you find the kind of fun, informal, smaller campsites that have become much more commonplace in the UK over recent years. While France is still the world’s best camping destination, with a very canvas-friendly culture, proximity to the UK and friendly atmospheres at sites across the country it can be tricky to find sites that offer a little intimacy. Cool Camping France (Punk Publishing) has just published a second edition and is a good place to start, with 100 campsites on a variety of budgets. The sites ran by Camping Indigo ( camping-indigo.com ) should also fit the bill for what you’re looking for. Of course, camping buffs will be way ahead of me, offering suggestions at Rural Camping in France ( rural-camping.com ) and the Dutch site Kleine Campings Frankrijk ( kleinecampingsinfrankrijk.nl ; in English). Readers suggestions are most welcome. Boating holidays Working holidays Namibia Zimbabwe Zambia Camping France guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Juan of the Dead, set in contemporary Cuba and satirising social mores of Castro years, to get international release this summer Mysterious attacks break out across the island, leaving the victims disfigured and drenched in blood. The government and state media blame US-backed dissidents and assure the population the situation is under control. But as the attacks spread, Juan, a fortysomething loafer in Havana, identifies the true culprit – a plague of zombies – and does what Cubans traditionally do in times of crisis: becomes a capitalist. He sets up a business, Juan of the Dead, and makes a quick profit ridding customers of infected loved ones by bashing, smashing and stomping out their brains. Welcome to the world of Cuba’s first feature-length horror film in half a century, a gore-filled black comedy which satirises social mores in the twilight of Castro rule. “It makes obsverations about who we are,” Alejandro Brugués, the director and writer, said. “A government which blames the US for everything. A people who are very passive. And then when confronted with a crisis we go into business.” Juan of the Dead, whose title echoes the British 2004 zombie film Shaun of the Dead, is in post-production and due to be released in Cuba and internationally at the end of summer. One publicity poster features bloodied hands reaching for Havana’s Capitol and a tagline that reads: “Fifty years after the Cuban revolution a new one is about to start.” The reported $2.7m budget – much of it spent on heavily made-up monster hordes who chase the hero and his friends through Havana and into the ocean – makes it a blockbuster by Cuban standards. Most of the money came from Spanish backers but the state-run Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Industry and Arts (ICAIC) also chipped in. Brugués, 34, who has made one previous feature, Personal Belongings , said he grew up adoring US zombie movies and it seemed natural to make one in a city worn down by scarcity and resignation. “I was walking through Havana one day and looked at the expressions on people’s faces. Zombies. They didn’t even need make-up.” Juan of the Dead is rooted in a contemporary Cuban setting, but is not a political satire about a communist state edging towards a market economy, said Inti Herrera, an executive producer. “Zombie films are typically in an Anglo-Saxon context and we wanted this one to be contextualised here in Havana.” The director and producer are both graduates of Cuba’s International School of Film and Television. At 100 minutes, Juan of the Dead is believed to be Cuba’s first feature-length horror movie since the 1959 revolution. A handful of arthouse classics such as Death of a Bureaucract were made in the 60s, and Strawberry And Chocolate, which dealt with gays rights, made an Oscar-nominated splash in 1994, but otherwise Cuban cinema has had limited international impact. It remains to be seen whether its imminent gorefest will join Shaun of the Dead and Sam Raimi’s 1981 The Evil Dead as a classic of its genre. Key scenes were shot on the Malecon seafront with tight camera angles to give the impression of a depopulated city. Municipal rubbish collectors who found a zombie head thought it was the real thing and summoned police. The plot blends horror tropes with Cuban twists. Juan, played by Alexis Díaz de Villegas, in real life a stage director and drama professor, is a layabout loser who senses opportunity when flesh-eaters turn on friends and family. With the government paralysed, he sets up a lucrative service offering to eradicate infected loved ones “for a reasonable price”. He uses martial skills learned during Cuba’s military intervention in Angola and recruits his daughter and sidekicks into the business. It echoes the plot of Ghostbusters, except the Havana crew uses catapults, baseball bats and other objects to pound zombies to a pulp. In real life, Cubans are adept at finding opportunity in crisis. To supplement average state wages of $20 a month many have black market sidelines. Economic disasters such as the loss of Soviet Union subsidies in the 1990s, and the financial crunch since 2008, have fuelled commercial creativity. Juan’s enterprise founders, however, when zombies wipe out his client base and he must consider that other staple Cuban response to crisis: take to the sea and flee the island. Cuba Fidel Castro Raúl Castro Horror Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A King’s Fund report shows waiting times are up, providing another challenging day for the government as it struggles to sell its controversial health reforms 1.36pm: foxtrotdelta asks: Is there evidence that patients really want choice beyond being treated at the most local hospital which has the best trained staff to deal with their condition/ailment? John Appleby replies: Various British Social Attitudes Surveys suggest that a majority of people do want choice of hospital. But they also want a good hospital on their doorstep, and they are not hugely happy with choice if it leads to less popular hospitals being closed. I think choice is good (try putting “no” in front of choice). But good not necessarily in an economic context but from point of view that this is a good thing for people in its own right. Also worth noting that there are many points in someone’s care/treatment where choice is a good thing – from the most basic level (consent for treatment) to things like choice of treatment etc. Choice in an economic context in healthcare is more problematic if we hope that through choices patients will start to alter the behaviour and practice of hospitals for the good. I do not think there is strong evidence so far that patients, through the choices they make, have had much impact on the quality of care provided by hospitals. 1.26pm: Randeep Ramesh, the co-author of this blog asks: Who can patients take action against if, as the NHS constitution makes clear, the health service does not take “all reasonable steps to offer you a range of alternative providers” if it is not possible to meet the 18-week target? From what David Flory was saying it seems that the government are happy with 10% of people made to wait longer but the department’s own figures show in some specialities one in five are waiting longer than 18 weeks. John Appleby replies: I do not know (any lawyers out there?) – but my assumption would be that the constitution offers a legal right and that redress is therefore through the courts. Along with patient choice (in particular – that patients won’t choose long wait hospitals and therefore hospitals have an incentive to keep waiting times short), the constitution is quoted by the Department of Health as the prime way waiting times will be kept short now that targets have in essence been abolished. Well, we’ll see. I think the constitution/choice incentives are relatively weaker than the target incentive. 1.21pm: Arkadiev asks: Are waiting time targets a good thing? John Appleby replies: I think the reason the NHS has been so successful in reducing waiting times over the last decade is partly down to extra funding, partly [to] practical help for hospitals in how to reduce waiting times and partly due to tough targets. Managers were sacked in the past for failing to meet targets – a strong incentive to meet targets! But I recognise that there is a balance between the terror tactics of targets and pushing so hard that for example managers start fiddling the figures or that other things get neglected. It’s a tricky balance. But let’s not forget how bad waiting times once were in the NHS and the huge value the public and patients placed on reducing them (more value, I suspect, than many consultants). 1.15pm: ReidAJ asks: Are “efficiency savings” merely cuts? John Appleby replies: Well, they might be. The task for the NHS is not simply to “save £20bn”. If it were, that would be easy: simply stop doing some things to the value of £20bn. The task is much harder: to make every pound the NHS is given produce around £1.20 worth of extra benefits for patients by 2014. I would be worried if the NHS simply assumed that closing a ward was an efficiency gain. It would only be so if the money/resources saved were then spent on things that generated more value for patients than keeping the ward open would do. A big problem for the government is that measuring productivity in this way is very difficult. The NHS may get to 2014 and not really know if it has improved productivity by £20bn … 1.10pm: John Appleby of the King’s Fund has begun his live Q&A about his thinktank’s findings ( see 9.45am ) below the line. Please post any questions for him below. John begins with this statement: To start, just some quick context for our NHS performance report today. The NHS is facing its tightest funding settlement for decades plus a huge organisational reform, plus a drive to improve value for money at levels unprecedented in its history. The outcome of these pressures/challenges – on the NHS and its performance on things that matter to patients and the public – are uncertain. So, our performance briefing is the first of a quarterly look at some key indicators such as waiting times, hospital infections, delayed discharges, and redundancies. We also have a small (26 – not statistically valid) panel of NHS finance directors from whom we have responses to questions mainly about their organisations’ productivity pressures. With this information we hope to track performance over the coming few years. 12.50pm: James Ball has expanded his take on waiting times. He says using the government’s own figures waiting times have been creeping upwards. Excluding Wiltshire primary care trust, which had 11 surgeries, only one of which was within 18 weeks, you find that last February one in 12 patients was waiting more than 18 weeks. By January 2011 it had hit 9.9% (just under one in 10). The February 2011 number is 10.8%, which is actually nearer one in nine than one in 10 – but, yes, has definitely exceeded that limit. Especially damning when they’re doing less surgery, which is a new trend (January 2011 had 1,000 more operations than a year ago. February 2011 had 12,700 fewer). It’s also much worse when you break it down. In trauma and orthopaedics, it’s one in five. And the worst performing areas in England are: _ 12.39pm: Colin Leys, honorary professor at Goldsmiths College London, who has been studying and writing about the NHS since the late 1990s, is launching his new book with Stewart Player tonight, The Plot Against the NHS. In this Audioboo interview , he gives Rowenna a taste of his arguments: There was a project on the part of a small group of people to turn the NHS from a public, universal service and replace it with a healthcare market … That was in the minds of people like the Public Health Authority back in the 1990s. To call it a plot is: in pushing it through, everyone involved knew the public hadn’t been consulted and if they had been there would have been massive opposition because of the love of the NHS … So it was done as far as possible out of the public eye from 2000 onwards. _ 12.10pm: US healthcare giant UnitedHealth has sold off its network of GPs’ surgeries and pulled out of the UK primary care market in order to concentrate on offering GP commissioning support, according to Pulse, the magazine for health professionals : UnitedHealth now plans to refocus its UK business to concentrate solely on commissioning support, as it seeks to exploit the opportunities presented by the government’s NHS reforms. The move signals an end to UnitedHealth’s controversial tenure as a provider of GP services in the UK, with their take-over of practices in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Camden in north London attracting vehement opposition from anti-privatisation campaigners. Instead, it plans to expand its commissioning support in areas such as data analytics, demand management and medicines management. It is already working with a number of PCTs and GP consortia, including pathfinders in Hounslow who recently signed a deal with the firm to run a major crackdown on GP referrals. 11.35am: Blogger Andy Cowper makes an intriguing point about the legal rights of patients under the NHS constitution ( see 10.38am ). He emails: My understanding is that, theoretically, the responsibility for funding care in event of an 18-week breach would lie directly with the commissioner of the patient’s care (currently, the primary care trust – PCT), and ultimately with the secretary of state for health, to whom the commissioner is accountable via line management by the strategic health authority (SHA) and the Department of Health. However, the NHS constitution is very clearly worded: “You have the right to access services within maximum waiting times, or for the NHS to take all reasonable steps to offer you a range of alternative providers if this is not possible” ( see page five here ). Interesting lack of definition of “all reasonable steps”. 11.23am: At 1pm John Appleby , chief economist and health policy specialist at the King’s Fund, who led the research on waiting times out today, will be live online to answer your questions. John previously worked as an economist with the NHS in Birmingham and London and he is currently researching the impact of patient choice and payment by results. Please post your questions for John in the comments below. Here are a few suggestions: • Why are waiting times the highest they’ve been for three years? • Why does the government dispute the King’s Fund figures? • What’s likely to happen to waiting times if the government’s health reforms go through? • What is the impact of increased waiting times on patients and the health service? • What can we do to reduce waiting times? 11.14am: The anti-cuts website False Economy has published this post this morning claiming that the prime minister has broken his promise to ringfence NHS funding, according to House of Commons data. “Richard Blogger” writes: David Cameron claims that NHS funding is ringfenced and will increase in real terms. But even if we take government figures at face value, NHS spending is set to grow at a slower rate than during the Thatcher years of chronic underinvestment and lengthening waiting times. 10.38am: The government has challenged the King’s Fund’s figures out today , but my colleague who specialises in data and investigations, James Ball, points out that waiting times have increased even by the government’s own figures: The government has challenged the King’s Fund, which claimed 15% of patients waited longer than 18 weeks for treatment. Ministers stated that under their preferred measure, which excludes patients who have delayed their own surgery, only 10.2% of patients wait longer than 18 weeks. But even the government’s favoured figures show the slide in waiting times: the latest figures, which cover February 2011, show the number of operations dropped by 13,000 versus the year before, while the number of people waiting over 18 weeks jumped 28%. In 23 NHS trusts, more than 20% of patients wait longer than 18 weeks for surgery. Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS trust had the most long waits of any major NHS organisation, at 41.8% of patients. Trauma and orthopaedics was the sub-branch with the longest waits, with more than one in five patients waiting over 18 weeks on the government’s favoured measure. We will have more from James later – including a table of the longest waits in England. Under the NHS constitution, brought in by Labour and left in place by the coalition, patients have a a legal right for treatment within 18 weeks. The question is: who is liable if this is not met? Can anyone out there help? 10.31am: Will the health reforms undermine democracy in the NHS? My colleague Peter Hetherington has an article in today’s SocietyGuardian discussing the role of the new statutory health and wellbeing boards. He points out that if the boards are given sufficient powers over GP consortia, this could be an opportunity to give local councillors greater oversight over health services. Lib Dems see accountability as a “key concession to be dragged out of the prime minister” in the pause, but whether they get it remains to be seen. 9.45am: Good morning. Welcome to another day of our continuing coverage of the coalition’s controversial proposed health reforms. We have a great line-up for you today. With news out from the King’s Fund showing waiting times at their longest in three years , we’ll have chief economist and author of the report John Appleby (left) online between 1pm and 2pm to answer your questions. For now, here’s a round up of today’s news on the NHS reforms: Dominating the headlines is the news from the King’s Fund, which shows 15% of patients in February waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment – the highest level since 2008. The FT points out that this is partly due to a budget squeeze , but it is also a response to the health secretary’s decision to axe Labour’s waiting time targets last summer. The fund also interviewed 26 NHS finance directors, almost half of whom said that closing wards and reducing services were among the main ways they would make savings over the next year. Eighteen of them said that they were uncertain they would make the 4% efficiency target set for this financial year. Here’s James Meikle’s story on the report : With some hospital waiting times the worst for three years, A&E departments overstretched, and surgeons warning that patients are being denied key treatments, the first in a series of planned quarterly monitoring reports highlights “significant concern” among some of those responsible for contributing to £20bn of “efficiency savings” in the NHS over four years and for ensuring that new bodies taking over services in the next three years do not start with deficits. Most say they are unlikely to meet productivity targets this year. The challenging picture painted by the report, from a respected independent analyst of the health service, comes during the government’s two-month “pause ” in trying to push through its controversial legislation. Nigel Edwards, who runs the NHS Confederation, and David Flory, the NHS’s deputy chief executive, discussed how the £20bn of efficiency savings will be made to the protected NHS budget on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme this morning. The Times also has an interview with Steve Field , a GP and chairman of the “listening exercise” devised to rescue the reform programme. Field insisted that his report, to be completed in the first week of June, was entirely independent and had the full backing of David Cameron, whom he had already met four times. In his first interview since starting the job, Field said that the feedback had emphasised the need for greater protection against the “cherry-picking” of NHS services by private companies and “very strong” concerns about the protection of workforce training. He added that he would be going through the 6,000 responses to the white paper sent to the health secretary last year. We’ll post more details of our Q&A shortly. Health NHS Public sector cuts Public services policy Rowenna Davis Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Huge queues outside restaurants across America after fast food chain offers 50,000 posts The positions on offer may be derided as McJobs but that did not stop thousands of people across the US queuing outside branches of McDonald’s in the hope of landing one of 50,000 posts being offered by the fast food chain. With the country still recovering from recession and unemployment running at close to 9% applicants flocked . The hiring event has been interpreted by industry experts an attempt by the company to improve the image of working there and to highlight its contribution to the US economy, as McDonald’s branches would usually hire staff for the summer at this time of year anyway. The fast food chain says more than $41.5m (£25.4m) will be invested in training the company’s new workforce and the addition of 50,000 potential workers translates into $54m more in payroll taxes contributed to the economy. The company has fought unsuccessfully to have the term McJob removed from the Oxford English dictionary, where it is defined as “an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects”. Jan Fields, president of McDonald’s USA said the event was “an opportunity to invite more people across the country to join our team, and learn that a McJob is one with career growth and endless possibilities”. Fields began her career with McDonald’s in an entry level restaurant position. As about 90% of branches are franchises, the company does not control wages but it claims most of its jobs pay more than the minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour and managers make between $32,000 and $50,000 a year. The fast food chain held its first one-day hiring blitz in Texas three years ago and its success prompted the company to roll it out nationwide. On Tuesday, it was offering both full and part-time positions in close to 14,000 US restaurants. Hundreds of people flocked to branches in Michigan, the Detroit News reported . With the unemployment rate in Michigan at 10.3% – above the national average – the Detroit News said older, unemployed job-hunters were competing with teenagers for the 2,200 jobs across the state. While jobs at McDonalds and other fast food chains were once seen as the preserve of teenagers entering the job market, or students working part-time while still at school, the US recession has contributed to an increase in the average age of a fast food worker to 29.5, up from 22 in 2000. Jimmie Anderson, 50, told the Houston Chronicle : “I need a job to help make ends meet.” At a branch in Cleveland, Ohio, the event was marred by a brawl between jobseekers in the car park, which left three people injured. Two women fought with each other inside a car causing it to jolt into reverse, ploughing into bystanders . McDonald’s Food & drink industry US unemployment and employment data Global recession Global economy United States Haroon Siddique guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Police issue warning after ‘viable incendiary devices’ sent to football club manager Neil Lennon and two well-known Scots Famous Celtic fans have been warned to watch out for suspect packages after four incendiary bombs capable of causing “real harm” were sent to Celtic manager Neil Lennon and two other senior figures. Sources said the crude but viable devices – which were sent to Lennon, his lawyer and a former Labour MSP over a six-week period from early March – used a potentially explosive liquid in a small bottle packaged up with nails. The terror campaign has led police to warn “many” famous Celtic fans, including – it is believed – a BBC presenter. Staff at the Glasgow club and postal workers have also been told to be vigilant. Police stressed that this was a precautionary measure and there was no evidence or intelligence that any other individuals were being targeted. “The advice is to make sure that they keep themselves safe,” said Chief Superintendent Ruaraidh Nicolson, head of community safety at Strathclyde police. The force is now putting in place much tighter security for the Old Firm match between Celtic and Rangers at Ibrox on Sunday 24 April – recent games between the bitter rivals have seen dozens of fans arrested and a violent confrontation between Lennon and the Rangers assistant manager, Ally McCoist. The police believe these incidents, which led to an emergency summit hosted by first minister Alex Salmond, have sparked off the letter-bombing campaign. The parcels were posted when reporting of Old Firm and sectarian tensions was at a height. Detective Chief Superintendent John Mitchell, head of Strathclyde CID, told a press conference the devices were very unusual but were “very definitely capable of causing considerable harm or injury to people.” Salmond said the attempted attacks were “despicable and cowardly” and added that the “lunatic element responsible for this outrage” would be prosecuted vigorously. “They will be dealt with using the full force of the law. We’re not going to tolerate this sort of criminality in Scottish society,” he said. Iain Gray, the Labour leader in Scotland, also condemned the attacks. “The people behind these sinister and potentially life-threatening acts need to be caught and brought to justice,” he said. “I am absolutely appalled at this development and hope that progress can be made on finding those responsible. Individuals who engage in this type of terrorism do not have the support of the public and are rightly seen as pariahs.” He added: “However, now is the time for calm heads. I hope that the whole community shows that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated in our country.” The chief executive of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), Stewart Regan, said the news was “depressing and deplorable”. He said the SFA was “horrified and saddened” by the attacks, and that sectarian hatred was an “unwanted poison” in football. The first device was sent to Lennon, a Northern Irish Catholic, on 4 March and was intercepted by Royal Mail staff. Police originally believed it was hoax – the package was said to be cruder than a second device addressed to Lennon which was found at Kirkintilloch sorting office on 26 March. Two days later a device addressed to Trish Godman, the former deputy presiding officer of the Scottish parliament who has just retired as a Labour MSP, was delivered to her constituency office. A fourth package was sent to Paul McBride QC, Lennon’s lawyer, last week having been posted in Kilwinning, Ayrshire. The police only realised the devices were viable and dangerous last week after forensic investigation; it is thought the liquid involved could explode after contact with air or sunlight. Mitchell said the police had not failed by initially downplaying the significance of the packages. “These devices were unusual. We’d never seen anything like them before,” he said. “The initial assessment was that they might have been a hoax. “That being said, we sent the devices for specialist forensic examination and because of that we’re now aware that they are viable devices.” Mitchell appealed for witnesses. He said: “Sending these types of packages through the post is a despicable and cowardly act – whoever has done this has put not only the person to whom they were addressed in danger but they’ve also put postroom staff in harm’s way. “We’re acutely aware of the alarm these incidents can cause, which is why we’ve got a full plan in place to give guidance to Royal Mail workers and postroom staff.” Mitchell said the “wide-ranging investigation” was focusing on a number of lines of inquiry, but the police had no clear evidence about who was responsible. “We’re keeping an open mind,” he said. Detectives were studying online Rangers fan forums where abuse and death threats against Lennon have previously been posted. Although the devices all appeared to have been posted in Scotland and there was no immediate evidence of paramilitary involvement, officers were talking to other forces including the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Mitchell said. “We’ve no information or intelligence to suggest that anyone else would be targeted. However, at this particular time, it would be sensible to take precautions.” Scotland UK security and terrorism Neil Lennon Celtic Rangers Scottish politics Alex Salmond Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The Jubilee movement is special to millions of people who cut their campaigning teeth on it and learned from its success Last week I was at a leaving do for Stephen Rand who left the Jubilee Debt Campaign after 10 years as co-chair. It was a moment for a bit of nostalgia. Stephen is one of a number of people who have been with the Jubilee campaign since its beginning in the mid-1990s. People remembered how he got the first major charity, Tearfund, to send out a circular to its supporters in 1996 asking them to send money not to Tearfund, but to the Jubilee 2000 campaign. That was one piece of a massive jigsaw that made Jubilee one of the most important global movements for justice of our time. We chatted about the mass rallies in the late 1990s in Birmingham and Cologne, where a petition of 24m signatures was handed to the G8. We remembered the reconstituting of the campaign in 2001, and how it played a leading role in the Make Poverty History campaign, when more debt (this time the multilateral debt owed to the World Bank and the IMF) was cancelled. There are many reasons why the Jubilee movement is so special for so many of us. First, it worked. For many years the economists of the World Bank and the British treasury had told us that debt simply could not be cancelled. It was a moral hazard. There were rules. But they hadn’t reckoned on the moral power of the human chain around the Birmingham G8 in 1998, chanting for debt cancellation – famously audible to the negotiators in their conference rooms. When debt cancellation finally became a reality for some countries, it led to increased spending on health and education, saving and improving millions of lives. Second, the political consequences were often as important as the financial ones. It was while working on debt that I learned to judge campaign outcomes not just in financial terms, but in terms of power relations. The cancellation of debt, especially the second tranche of multilateral debt in 2005, meant that many countries regained some autonomy, and were more able to stand up against the pressure of donors when they tried to impose wrongheaded economic policies. There were political costs too. The conditionality attached to debt relief was damaging, and many southern partners were unhappy with the deal. But, overall, it was a deal worth doing, because apart from its immediate results, it shifted our understanding of what it means to campaign on international poverty. This is the third reason it was (and is) so special. There is an apocryphal story about Clare Short (the UK’s development minister at the time) joking with Africa campaigner Bob Geldof that the British public would never understand a campaign on a complex financial issue like debt. They were wrong. When the leaflets started going out, when the talks started to be given in church halls and scout huts, the British people were shocked to learn about the injustice that their country was inflicting on the world’s poorest people. They got it. It was the first time UK charities, working with others across the world, had gathered en masse to fight against global unfairness. It was a paradigm shift. MPs elected in 1997 and 2001 were the Jubilee generation, and it still shows in the UK’s relatively progressive aid policies. Without the extraordinary success of the Jubilee 2000 campaign, would the more complex Trade Justice Movement have been possible? The same message of unfairness was at its heart. And it also led to significant shifts in policy, although not the radical changes that we all know are ultimately so hard to achieve. Debt movements had existed for much longer in developing countries. It was Fidel Castro who first brought the prospect of debt cancellation to international prominence in a series of meetings and interviews as long ago as 1985. But the Jubilee brand was so powerful that at the turn of the millennium many autonomous southern campaigns joined under its banner, becoming Jubilee South , and constituting an important global voice for justice. In a bold and pretty convincing reordering of the conventional approach to finances, Jubilee South claims that far from being debtors, the developing countries are creditors – after centuries of pillage, decades of unfair trade and harmful aid conditions, and now climate injustice. There is still a lot more to do, which is why the UK’s Jubilee Debt Campaign is still campaigning, along with the Jubilee USA Network and a host of other affiliated movements. As a consequence of its work against vulture funds, whereby private companies buy up developing country debt and force them to repay it, a bill has recently been passed in Britain to make this pernicious practice obsolete. This month, the House of Commons will vote on whether to support measures to make the Export Credits Guarantee Department (which the debt campaign describes as the “Department for Dodgy Deals”) more accountable to parliament and the people it affects. At a time when mass campaigns on global injustice seem like ancient history as rich countries themselves struggle with deep financial problems, we should remember the great moments in the history of the Jubilee debt movement. We need to find that spirit again from somewhere. What will be the next Jubilee 2000? What will be the next Make Poverty History? It was good to see Stephen again. He is just one of millions of people who got involved, stayed involved, and played his part in making the world a better place. Debt relief Protest Aid Jonathan Glennie guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The so-called reforms announced by Raúl Castro are illusory; a desperate, ridiculous attempt to camouflage repression Theatre of the absurd. Characters trapped in hopeless situations, frustrated by illogical speech, compelled by irrational forces to perform meaningless gestures. It was once the rage among the thinking classes of the free world. And decades later, unfortunately, it is enjoying a revival at the recent Communist party congress in Havana. After 52 years in power – 47 of which he spent in his older brother’s shadow– “president” Raúl Castro is seeking to reform his domain and change nothing at the same time. Two days ago, he told the party delegates that henceforth no one should serve more than two five-year terms in government. Ten years in office; that’s it for everyone from now on, himself included. “We need to rejuvenate the revolution,” said Raúl. The assembled delegates responded with thunderous applause. Then they swiftly anointed 79-year-old Raúl as their supreme leader and José Ramon Machado Ventura, one of Raúl’s cronies, as his immediate successor. The number three spot went to another revolutionary sidekick, Ramiro Valdés. Machado is 80 years old. Valdés is 79. Then came the pièce de résistance: 300 proposals to shake up Catrolandia’s centrally planned economy, including one that would allow Cubans to buy and sell their homes. The congress will be very busy for a while “voting” on these proposals. What the government-controlled Cuban press won’t say, and what most foreign correspondents on Cuban soil don’t dare say (lest they be expelled, as happened last week to Spanish journalist Carlos Hernando) is that these so-called reforms are illusory, and a desperate, ridiculous attempt to camouflage repression and maintain the current status quo. Instead of opening up the Cuban economy, creating a private sector, or granting more freedom to Cubans, what these “reforms” seek is to control the black market that has been in existence for decades and to tax it. Take, for instance, the plan to remove half a million Cubans from the government payroll and transform them into instant entrepreneurs. This is not only an acknowledgment of the fact that many Cubans already engage in unregulated menial jobs under the table, such as fixing clocks, mending shoes, running errands, or catering to the whims of tourists, but also an attempt to establish a tighter control over these activities and claim a share of the money that exchanges hands in all such transactions. Even worse, the jobs which these half a million suddenly-unemployed Cubans are supposed to create for themselves are limited to a highly specific number of 178 menial professions, such as dog groomer, button sewer, and parasol tinker, each of which will require proper licensing, constant supervision, and crushing tax payments. This much-vaunted “reform” is not new at all. A similar plan was put into effect in the early 90s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union left Cuba short of cash and subsidies. Suddenly Cubans were free to turn their crumbling homes into restaurants or inns and their antique cars into taxis. Many did so, successfully, only to find themselves under the thumb of bureaucrats who gradually taxed them out of existence. Or consider the latest proposal which will “allow” Cubans to buy and sell houses. This, too, is deceitful. First and foremost, a daunting obstacle stands in the way: lack of cash, and the absence of loans. Individual Cubans have no savings. Everyone in Cuba earns about $20 a month and all of that is quickly spent. The new entrepreneurs, busy with their wretched tinkering, are not likely to save much either, certainly not enough for a down-payment. Even worse, Cuba has no private banks and no means to come up with loans for its citizens, let alone to pay its foreign debt, which is in the tens of billions. Then there is the question of ownership itself, an ugly monster that this communist regime has kept tightly chained, chiefly because there are two million Cubans in exile who were never paid for the homes they owned and left behind, and those homes are now occupied by others. Once this monster is unleashed, it will undoubtedly wreak havoc, especially if all those exiles start making their very legitimate claims. One need not be an economist to realise that this alone makes all housing “reforms” moot, and a sign of desperation. At the close of the Communist party congress programme yesterday, a very frail Fidel Castro appeared on stage. Many of the world’s newspapers reported that the assembled delegates greeted him with a rousing ovation and tears in their eyes. One is tempted to ask: what is more absurd, the reception Fidel received or the mere mention of it in news reports written by external journalists who would be driven mad by bogus reforms if they had to live in Cuba as Cubans rather than as privileged foreigners? Which raises another question: are tyrants ever denied thunderous applause, or tears of gratitude, even when they confront their mortality in the theatre of the absurd? Cuba Raúl Castro Fidel Castro Communism Carlos Eire guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …On Monday, the New York Times assembled a panel of alleged experts in its Room For Debate section . Each weighed in on Monday's ratings agency outlook downgrade by Standard and Poor's in an item entitled “Is Anyone Listening to the S.&P.?” (Don't ask me why “the” is there. It shouldn't be; the item is about the firm Standard and Poor's, not “the” Standard and Poor's stock index.) One of the contributors was Yves Smith. Ms. Smith “writes the blog Naked Capitalism. She is the head of Aurora Advisors, a management consulting firm, and the author of 'Econned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism.'” Wait until you read Ms. Smith's reaction to S&P's move after the jump (bold after title is mine): S.&P. Should Be Embarrassed
Continue reading …