Full coverage from the inquest into the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson at the 2009 G20 protests in London 11.22am: Williamson said that portal hypertension, a kind of high blood pressure found in patients with liver disease, would have led to faster bleeding from the spleen – but not the liver. This view differs from what was said yesterday by liver specialist Dr Graeme Alexander . 11.10am: Patrick Gibbs QC , counsel for Harwood, has taken over questioning. He pointed out that Patel found “no detectable by the naked eye” rupture to the capsule of the liver. Gibbs asked: “what does that tell you about whether this is in fact the source of any blood?” Well, one wonders about the accuracy of the original description. There was, as I understand it, microscopic of haemorrhage to the liver, in that area. The consultant agreed it was an “oddity” that there was no rupture of this kind found on the liver. 10.58am: Back to the video footage (see below), Ryder points out that Tomlinson’s arm became trapped under his body when he struck the ground. We heard detailed evidence about this on Friday – here is that discussion and a still picture from the video . Asked by Ruder if he had seen this, Williamson replied: “Oh no.” The barrister asked if the assisted the consultant. He replied: “I wouldn’t have expected that degree of injury to rupture a normal liver. But this was not a normal liver.” The consultant by gave some of the strongest indications yet that Tomlinson died of internal bleeding: “I think there was very likely to have been bleeding from this liver. We know it was enlarged. There was a fall. We know there was 3 litres or heavily bloodstained fluid in the abdominal cavity. We know there is a subcapsule haematoma, on the outer aspect. If you put all of that together, you have very strong presumptive evidence he bled from the liver.” Finally, Williamson described that Patel’s suggestion that internal injuries may have been caused during rigorous CPR treatment after Tomlinson’s collapse was “implausible”. 10.56am: Matthew Ryder QC , counsel for the Tomlinson family, has begun questioning Williamson. It has emerged that the consultant has not seen the detailed footage of Tomlinson being hit with a baton and pushed from behind by police officer Simon Harwood. He has just been shown this footage: Ryder also told Williamson about the ECG chart readings when paramedics attached a defibrillator. We heard a lot about these yesterday . Williamson’s reponse: Well, of course, I am not a cardiologist, but it would seem to me that that makes acute coronary artery syndrome less likely. 10.39am: Finally Hewitt has questioned Willamson on the vexed question of the extent of blood in the three litres of fluid found in Tomlison’s abdomen. Williamson saw photographs of the fluid. This has proved a point of controversy throughout this inquest. See previous discussions here , here and here . Williamson: I would therefore expect that at least half of it was blood, possibly more. Hewitt: If it were about half and half, a loss of about 1.5 litres could have caused collapse in Mr Tomlinson? Williamson: Oh yes. That is quite a substantial bleed, over a short period of time. Very substantial. 10.35am: Williamson’s said his view – that internal bleeding was more likely to be the cause of death than a heart attack – came with an important caveat. He said in his report: In summary, I believe that Dr Cary is much closer to the cause of death than Dr Patel, but I am left with one major uncertainty. The consultant told the jury that sufficient trauma to the liver might have been expected to leave marks on the outside of the body and “pretty obvious” damage to the liver, at postmortem. That said, Williamson said he still sided with Cary. It seemed to me that Dr Cary’s pathologist was much more the plausible. One cannot rule out coronary artery disease, perhaps acute coronary syndrome, and he was a smoker. But there is precious little evidence in support. 10.27am: Hewitt has asked Williamson to explain who – Patel or Cary – he believes was correct. On Patel’s theory, he said: Whether or not coronary artery disease was the proximate cause of death is a little doubtful, because we don’t see [sufficiently blocked] coronary arteries. On Cary’s theory, he said he believed from the photographs that “at least half, maybe more” of the fluid found in Tomlinson’s abdomen would have been blood. Three litres of blood would be about half [the volume in] your circulating body, and it might kill a healthy person, let alone someone who was as unhealthy as Mr Tomlinson. Even a litre or two might have been – probably was too much for him tolerate. Williamson added: “He was a very sick man and it is therefore reasonable to suggest that a lesser insult, if you like, a lesser trauma.” 10.11am: The jury is in an we’re about to begin. The first witness is another medical expert, Professor Robin Williamson , who a consultant surgeon. He is being questioned by Alison Hewitt , counsel for the inquest. He has a particular expertise in diseases of the liver. 10.01am: You can follow my Twitter updates from court @PaulLewis and use the hashtag #inquestblog if you have questions or comments. 9.59am: The 15th day of the Ian Tomlinson inquest is about to commence. I expect we only have another couple of days of evidence left now. On Monday the inquest heard that a leading heart specialist had analysed the readings obtained by a defibrillator used by paramedics after Tomlinson collapsed revealed, and concluded he could not have died from an arrhythmic heart attack . His findings undermined the explanation for Tomlinson’s death by the pathologist Dr Freddy Patel, who had claimed he died of a natural causes. Confronted with the new evidence, Patel altered his explanation of the death and speculated – seemingly off the cuff – that the newspaper seller may have died of a hypoxia, or lack of oxygen. Paramedics have already ruled this out. The new defibrillator evidence was consistent with the other explanation for Tomlinson’s death: that he died of internal bleeding in the abdomen, from injures sustained when he was pushed to the ground. Dr Nat Cary, the second pathologist, said internal bleeding was now the “only real possibility” . Cary’s explanation was also backed by a liver specialist. In total four pathologists examined body. We shall hear from other two (who broadly agreed with Cary) today and tomorrow. Ian Tomlinson Police G20 Protest Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen 10.42am: Q: Didn’t Labour pave the way for £9,000 fees by introducing top-up fees? Miliband says top-up fees allowed the last government to expand student numbers. Q: Are you in favour of for-profit universities? Thomas says Labour has supported existing private universities. Q: What contribution do you think the “Purple Group” of MPs can make? (This is a reference to group that Rachel Sylvester has written about in the Times today. I’ll post more about this later.) Miliband says he is keen on the colour purple. All contributions to the debate about Labour’s future are welcome. Q: Lord Mandelson said recently that if Labour had won the election, tuition fees would have gone up to £6,000. Were you aware of that plan. And who was to blame for the purpose of the Browne review being “perverted” in the way you mentioned earlier? (See 10.37am) Miliband says that he did not know Mandelson thought before the election tuition fees would have to go up to £6,000. And, as for who told Browne that his plans should assume a student funding cut of 80%, Miliband says it was an assumption “driven by the Treasury”. That’s it from the press conference. I’ll post a summary shortly. 10.37am: Miliband is taking questions now. Q: Should RBS be allowed to give Stephen Hester a £7m bonus? (RBS is due to rubber-stamp Hester’s bonus payment today. ) Miliband says the government has not done enough to curb bonuses. Q: Are you in favour of variable fees? Thomas says variable fees are an example of how ministers are trying to find a solution to this problem “on the hoof”? Q: Labour set up the Browne review. But now you are proposing a graduate tax. Isn’t Labour breaking its promise? Miliband says that Browne’s plans envisaged an 80% cut in student funding. When he first heard about this in government, he asked where that figure came from. He never got a satisfactory explanation. But it suggested that the purpose of the review had been “perverted”. Q: Would Gordon Brown be a good candidate for heading the IMF? Miliband says he would be a “strong candidate”. But there is not a vacancy. 10.35am: Gareth Thomas is speaking now. He says Vince Cable, the business secretary, is on record as saying that if universities charge tuition fees higher than the £7,500 average anticipated by the government, ministers have two ways of responding to the funding shortfall: cutting university grants, or cutting student numbers. 10.30am: Ed Miliband is speaking now. He says that later today he will be going to Leicester, where almost exactly a year ago Nick Clegg promised at De Montfort University not to vote in favour of a tuition fees increase. If universities charge fees at the levels at which they are planning, the government will have to find up to £500m extra to fund the cost of those loans, Miliband says. Filling a hole of £500m by cutting university places could mean over 30,000 fewer young people going to university. Miliband says he is demanding two guarantees from David Cameron. First, David Cameron must tell us if he still believes £9,000 fees are the exception. And, second, he must tell us whether he intends to cut university funding or university places. 10.26am: Labour have done their own survey of university tuition fees. They say that 95% of universities which have released their charges are planning to charge more than £7,500, the figure that the government expected to be the average, and that 70% of universities that have published figures are planning to charge the maximum, £9,000. Labour says that, to fund tuition fees at this level, the government would have to cut the number of student places by around 36,000. 10.20am: I’m at Labour’s HQ where Ed Miliband’s press conference will be starting soon. We’ve been given another dossier. Last week’s was about health. This is entitled “Letting down the next generation” and it’s about how the government is “kicking away the ladders of opportunity for young people”. 9.50am: But David Willetts hasn’t persuaded Gareth Thomas, his Labour opposite numbers. According to PoliticsHome, this is what Thomas told Sky this morning about the government’s tuition fee policy. Whether it’s naivety or just a basic mistake is not clear, but it’s certainly true that the government have got their figures hopelessly wrong. Their belief that fees of above £6,000 would be the exception is quite clearly completely and utterly wrong … Ministers in the run-up to the tuition fees vote back in December were arguing that universities charging more than £6,000 would be the exception, but even at that point independent experts were arguing that fees of £9,000 would very quickly become the norm rather than the exception. We don’t think that the trebling of tuition fees is fair or is necessary and our worry is that it won’t be sustainable. Because so many universities are charging above £6,000, then actually the government will have to introduce further cuts to the university teaching grant or worse cut student numbers. I’m off to the Labour press conference now. I’ll post again before 10.15am. 9.45am: The Labour press conference is going to focus on higher education, it seems. David Willetts, the universities minister, told Sky this morning that the average fee charged by universities would be “signficantly lower” than £9,000, despite media reports to the contrary. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he said: We have to see what happens. Our understanding is that behind the headlines many universities are offering a range of fees, sometimes different fees for different courses, sometimes different fees for students from low income families. For that reason we believe that the average fee is going to be significantly lower than £9,000. Of course nobody will know exactly what it will be until the autumn of next year when students turn up at universities and we know the exact numbers and the exact fees they are facing. Willetts made a similar point yesterday in an article for Comment is free. 8.43am: Despite a brave try (see 8.20am) , Evan Davis never really quite nailed David Cameron on massive contradiction between the government’s localism philosophy and Eric Pickles’s obsession with outlawing bin taxes. But there was plenty of good material in the interview. Here are the highlights. • Cameron signalled that he would not allow Gordon Brown to become head of the International Monetary Fund. Brown had been described as the “clear favourite” for the post, which should become available if, as expected, the current IMF managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, leaves to run for the French presidency. EU countries choose a candidate to run the IMF together, but Cameron almost certainly killed any chances Brown might have by saying he would be unacceptable. It does seem to me that if you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK, when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems … Above all, what matters is that the person running the IMF [is] someone who understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit, and it really must be someone who gets that, rather than someone who says that they don’t see a problem. • Cameron suggested that the IMF should be headed by a non-European. By convention, the World Bank is run by an American and the IMF is run by a European. But Cameron suggested that the top job should perhaps instead go to an Asian. It may well be that, actually, when you think that the IMF has got to be listened to and taken seriously by countries not just in the West, but all over the world, it may well be it’s time actually to have a candidate from another part of the world in order to increase its standing in the world … We’ve got the rise of India and China and south east Asia, a shift in the world’s focus, and it may well be the time for the IMF to start thinking about their shift in focus too. • He suggested that Vince Cable and Kenneth Clarke was safe from the prospect of being sacked. That’s because he named them as “big figure” politicians who were an asset to the government. One of the strengths of this government is that the big figures of British politics have come together into this cabinet. As well as Vince Cable, we’ve got Ken Clarke, we’ve got Iain Duncan Smith, we’ve got William Hague, we’ve got Chris Huhne. It’s a cabinet of talented [people]. • Cameron said that getting net migration down to tens of thousands per year was an “ambition”. This seemed an attempt to placate the Liberal Democrats. Last week, after Vince Cable said that getting migration down to tens of thousands (ie, below 100,000) was not government policy, Tory sources insisted that he was wrong, and that this was policy. The Lib Dems insisted that this was just an aim, which was not the same as a policy. Today Cameron adopted Lib Dem terminology, describing the target as an ambition. (In practice, this is just a pedantic linguistic dispute – because there is no disagreement about what the government is trying to do – but it is important to the Lib Dems. “We all have our own way of explaining things,” Cameron said at one point.) • He said that “in principle” he was in favour of changing the provisions in the Act of Settlement saying that royals who marry a Catholic have to give up their right to the throne and that male heirs take precedence over female ones. But he stressed that this would take time, because other countries would have to change their laws too. • He defended the government’s right to put controls on the extent to which councils can raise council tax or impose bin charges. When it was put to him that these measures contradicted the government’s commitment to localism, he said: “There’s always a balance between wanting to protect people from excessive charging [and localism].” • He confirmed that there would be real changes to the health bill. The problem with the bill was not just a failure to communicate what it was trying to do, he said. He signalled, as he has down before, that when the new two-month consultation on the bill is over, the membership of the GP-led commissioning consortia will be widened. • He said the Lib Dems had been “excellent coalition partners”. 8.30am: I’ll post a full summary in a moment, but the strongest came when David Cameron was asked about Gordon Brown becoming managing director of the International Monetary Fund. Brown has been tipped as the favourite for the job. But Cameron said he would be the wrong candidate. It does seem to me that if you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK, when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems. • Cameron signals that he will stop Gordon Brown taking charge of the IMF. After the interview, Cameron remained in the studio and insisted on doing the racing tips, as he did on the programme at the end of last year. He picked a horse called “Stormin Gordon”. (But not for the IMF.) His other pick was called Red Samantha. (Warning to punters: Cameron’s previous tips both lost.) 8.27am: Q: Would you support Gordon Brown for managing director of the International Monetary Fund? Cameron says he would be concerned about someone who did not understand the dangers of debt taking the post. [That's a pretty clear no.] He also suggests that it might be time for the job to go to someone who is not a European. The last question is about Nick Clegg. Cameron says the Lib Dems have been good coalition partners. That’s it. The interview is over. 8.20am: Q: If you are committed to localism, why are you banning councils from doing things like imposing bin charges. Cameron says he is committed to localism. But there is always a “balance”. Q: But you should councils be banned from imposing charges for a recycling centre? Cameron accuses Davis of missing the bigger picture. He is introducing a general power of competence, that will give councils more power. He hopes this will encourage better people to become councillors. Q: Why are you penalising councils that want to put up their council tax? Cameron says the government is rewarding councils that freeze the tax. Q: But that amounts to penalising those what want to raise council tax. To suggest otherwise is “disingenuous”. Cameron says that if councils want to raise council tax by a certain amount, they will be able to hold a referendum on this. But he does not meet a lot of people who want to pay more tax, he says. Q: Do you agree with changing the rules saying an heir to the throne cannot marry a Catholic? Cameron says that “in principle” he is in favour of changing the rules about male heirs taking precedence and about anyone marrying a Catholic having to give up their right to the throne. But other countries would have to change their rules too. This will take time. 8.17am: On health, Cameron says the government was right to see if it could improve the health bill. He wants to see if he could get more “full-throated support” from those in the NHS. Q: The NHS chief executive has said that the NHS needs to press ahead with change on the ground. Why? Cameron says there is no mystery. There are elements of reform that everyone believes need to go ahead. Q: That sounds as if nothing is changing. Can you identify a substantive change you will make? Cameron says hospital doctors are worried that there will be no place for them in “GP commissioning”. They want a role too. Q: And will councillors be involved? Cameron says one of the aims of the bill is to heal the divide between medical care and social care. Q: So it was not just a failure of communication? The reforms had to change too. Cameron says that’s right. The plans did need to change. Cameron says he has a “very strong personal commitment” to what the NHS means. It’s a “precious thing”. 8.14am: Q: Is it policy to cut net migration down to tens of thousands? Cameron says that is the ambition. Q: If you fail to get migration down to tens of thousands, will that mean the policy has failed? Cameron says there are a series of policies in place. If those policies work, then immigration will come down. Q: Will it be a failure of policy if net migration comes down to 150,000, not 80,000? Cameron says he wants to get net migration down to the level it was in the 1980s and 1990s. Q: But what is policy? Cameron says there are a series of policies. “If we put those in place, we will achieve the ambition,” he says. 8.10am: Davis says there will be another interview about AV. But he will talk about the local elections. Q: Are we in coalition phase two? Is more dissent now allowed? Cameron says there are two parties in the coalition. But the need for the coalition is as strong as it was a year ago. The two parties have to sort out the economy. There is a lot further to go. Between them they have come up with a series of good and “decisive” policies. It’s not a “lower common denominator” government. Q: Are you comfortable with Lib Dems like Vince Cable expressing dissent? Cameron says what matters is that there is agreement over policy. And there is. Of course coalitions have their own tensions and difficulties and noises off, and you have to be relaxed about that. Q: Did you ever consider sacking Cable? Cameron says one of the strengths of the government is that the “big figures” of politics have come together. He mentions Ken Clarke, Iain Duncan Smith, William Hague and Chris Huhne. The government is dealing with problems that have foxed other governments, he says. 8.10am: Evan Davis is interviewing Cameron. He’s starting now. 8.01am: We’re hearing from David Cameron and Ed Miliband this morning. Cameron is doing an interview on the Today programme at 8.10am. The transcript of his most recent interview, on Sky at the weekend, is here . I expect he’ll be asked about subjects like Libyan and the health bill. But he won’t be asked about the alternative vote, Evan Davis revealed on Twitter this morning. That’s because of broadcasting rules about interviews with one side on the AV campaign having to be matched by an interview with someone from the other side. And Miliband will be holding a press conference at 10.15am. He will be discussing education and opportunities for young people alongside Gareth Thomas, the shadow universities minister. Today is the deadline for universities wanting to charge tuition fees of more than £6,000 to have to submit their plans to widen access to the government’s access watchdog, the Office for Fair Access (Offa). Otherwise, it’s a mixed day. Cameron and Andrew Lansley are holding an NHS “listening” event. Harriet Harman is on the campaign trail for Labour in Bristol. And members of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers will debate an urgent motion at their conference in Liverpool instructing its executive committee to consider whether a ballot for strike action is justified. As usual, I’ll be covering all the breaking political news, as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a lunchtime summary at around 1pm, and an afternoon one at about 4pm. David Cameron Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
PM indicates he will seek to block potential bid by Brown to become managing director of International Monetary Fund David Cameron has indicated he will stop any bid by Gordon Brown to become the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on the grounds that the former prime minister “might not be the most appropriate person” in the light of his record in office. Brown has emerged as the favourite to take the £270,000-a-year role when the incumbent managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, stands down. The former prime minister, who was reportedly networking at a US conference of policymakers at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire – where the IMF was founded – last week, would need to be nominated for the post by the government. It is believed any hopes of getting the job would be thwarted if his own country raised strong objections. In a swipe at Brown, Cameron raised doubts about his suitability for the post, saying it was important that the role went someone who “gets” the dangers of excessive debt and deficit. The PM said it was important that the IMF was headed by “someone extraordinarily competent and capable” and praised Strauss-Kahn for doing an “excellent job” in the role. Asked whether the coalition would veto a move by the former chancellor to take the helm, Cameron told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “I haven’t spent a huge amount of time thinking about this, but it does seem to me that, if you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem in the UK when we self-evidently do have a debt problem, then they might not be the most appropriate person to work out whether other countries around the world have debt and deficit problems.” Cameron suggested the IMF should look to “another part of the world” for its next leader in order to increase its global standing. “If you think about the general principle, you’ve got the rise of India and China and south Asia, a shift in the world’s focus, and it may well be the time for the IMF to start thinking about that shift in focus,” he said. “Above all, what matters is: is the person running the IMF someone who understands the dangers of excessive debt, excessive deficit? “And it really must be someone who gets that rather than someone who says that they don’t see a problem.” Cameron – who insisted on staying on the programme to do the racing tips – picked a horse called “Stormin Gordon”, saying: “What I said about Gordon Brown, if you disagree you could go for Stormin Gordon in the 2.10 at Pontefract.” But he said he would choose Red Samantha in the same race. Gordon Brown IMF Economics Global economy David Cameron Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
As tuition fees continue to make the news, the comedian Josie Long has taken her comedy – and her actions – into the political arena, setting up a charity to support students Josie Long possesses the kind of playful energy that could make even the most hardboiled curmudgeon mellow, so it takes a few moments to realise that the young comedian, known more for her whimsical musings on the minutiae of life than her political opinions, has a serious message to get across. For someone who is worried she is “going to say things that make me sound stupid,” Long displays a natural flair for articulating why, after more than a decade spent honing her comedy credentials, she is suddenly getting all political. In 2009, Long, who has accumulated a string of awards since entering the comedy world at just 17, embarked on a typically whimsical project: “a hundred days to make me a better person” (her comedy shows have upbeat titles such as Be Honourable! and Trying is Good). She set herself small arbitrary tasks such as writing a joke every day and speaking to strangers. One of the aims of the project was to become more politically aware because she felt a bit “woolly” on the subject. It was an experiment that sparked an unlikely journey and, later this month, she will launch an educational charity to help young people from underprivileged backgrounds get to university and tackle their debt. Underpinning the project is her desire to raise the profile of the liberal arts, which she believes have been sidelined by government ministers keen to push the idea of higher education as a route to employability rather than an end in itself. Long, who is now 29, says she has always been annoyed that she left university in debt, when her rich friends didn’t. “I’ve always believed that higher education shouldn’t make you have a massive debt at the end. It should be state–funded.” But the thing about being more politically active is that it has been a “world of hurt” every day, she says earnestly. “I began to feel like I couldn’t possibly be leading a good life unless I was doing more things. It came from feeling like I wasn’t doing anything to help society be more like how I wanted it to be. I guess it was just getting a bit older and feeling a bit disillusioned with being a comedian because it felt a bit too easy and good for me.” It was the prospect of a Tory government that made her think hard about education (she is proud of having studied English at Oxford despite coming from a modest background with “no connections” or family financial assistance). “I was thinking about how much my degree enriched my life, and how much it gave me for the future, in terms of learning how to study and read and research and think critically”. Rather than stay mired in vague exasperation or using comedy to vent (although she confesses to having enjoyed doing just that as part of her political awakening), Long decided to act on her impulses. First of all she took part in the student protests last year, ending up on the late-night political programme The Week at one point and giving Michael Portillo a run for his money debating tuition fee increases. She also became involved with UK Uncut, the disparate anti-tax avoidance network, taking part in some of the group’s occupations of high-street banks. But it still wasn’t enough, according to Long, so – despite having no voluntary or education sector experience whatsoever – she decided to set up her own charity. She is starting small with the mentoring where she lives in Hackney, east London, with “perhaps only a handful of pupils”, but the long-term aim is to help students all over the UK. Her new charity, Arts Emergency Service, is a collaboration with her friend Neil Griffiths, an experienced fundraiser. As well as running a small monthly lottery for graduates where winners get some and possibly all of their debts paid off, the pair also want to raise money for a long-term mentoring scheme and to convince their friends and others that “it’s not enough to have the ‘correct’ opinions and anxieties”, but that they should play an active part in effecting change. It’s not surprising, perhaps, that for all her earnestness Long seems unable to veer too far away from her comedy roots when talking about her plans. She beams mischievously while outlining one of her more quixotic ideas for Arts Emergency Service, which involves renting a van with a few friends and “going round for 10 days doing ad hoc [comedy] shows in the middle of nowhere – like in cul-de-sacs” to promote it. Another idea scheduled for later this month will entail using Twitter [@ artsemergency ] and the charity’s website [ arts-emergency.org ] to have a playful poke at Prince William. “We’ve got an idea to coincide with the royal wedding because prince thingy studied history of art – and he probably left debt-free.” Pausing for comic effect, Long adds: “I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t have a student loan.” She says the “ultimate aim” of Arts Emergency Service is “to reinstate free education for all at a tertiary level,” and, she says, giggling, trying to be as unrealistic as possible. “I’m almost perversely pro-stupid degrees now. I don’t care if you are studying beer management. Good for you – you enjoy yourself. Have three years of absolute flowering.” Long recalls the one-woman standup show she did at the Edinburgh festival in 2010, Be Honourable! It was her first foray into political comedy and was written as the concept of Arts Emergency Service was gestating. The critics loved it, with some saying she was unexpectedly filling a gap where political comedy should have been. “I’m just [trying] really hard not to be shit,” Long says half-seriously. “I didn’t intentionally start doing shows [that were political]. I just always believed that if I said what I really cared about I would build the right audience. That’s why this last show felt totally a part of all the other ones.” Whatever Long may have felt she was doing, there is a sense of someone who has put herself in the firing line – right in the middle of one of the most contentious issues of the day. When she first began mooting her views on the cuts and on education policy on Twitter, she was slightly thrown by the “massive resentment” of many of those who responded. “What’s been really upsetting has been getting loads of people saying things like ‘Why should I pay for other people to flit around?’ The idea is that you would want to [pay tax to fund education] because you feel responsible for everyone else in a society. I feel old-fashioned because that’s what I care about and believe in.” As she toured the country after the Edinburgh festival, Long, whose comedy is not the sort that tends to attract hecklers, found herself on the receiving end of some aggressive challenges. She recounts how one punter shouted that she shouldn’t be able to rant about government policy without any balance. “I was like, ‘yes I fucking can, it’s my gig you prick’. “There are people who don’t like me because of a [comedy] aesthetic,” Long adds, shrugging her shoulders. “But what I’ve encountered recently – which I’ve not really encountered before – is that I’ve made people angry and upset. That’s been really hard to deal with and quite sad.” But if it has been tough, it also seems to have reinforced her view that, with a few notable exceptions such as Mark Thomas, the contemporary scene is failing to embrace political satire. “I feel like there’s been a real aggressive attempt to make comedy apolitical and to send it back to pre-alternative comedy. A lot of the mainstream shows are just men coming on and going ‘Oh this is crap isn’t it I hate my wife’ and that’s been quite tedious.” Does she worry that by venturing beyond comedy and setting up a grassroots project – and one that could ironically be heralded by the Tories as a prime example of the “big society” in operation – potentially opens her up to accusations of naivety? “I would rather do something now than look back in 10 years and [realise] that I hadn’t done anything. I feel like I won’t be able to sleep at night unless I’m articulating these things at every opportunity and doing everything that I can.” Then does she at least acknowledge that she’s taken on a very ambitious task? Yes, she says, but that is beside the point. “We’ve got a lot of righteous indignation. It’s fuel. And I think the government is going to keep giving us fuel for at least the next four and a half years. If in five years’ time we have paid for even one person to go through university to study an arts degree, that would be wonderful.” Students Comedy Student politics Tuition fees Higher education Charities Voluntary sector Josie Long Mary O’Hara guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The lifestyles led by Chris Martin, Trudie Styler et al only perpetuate the consumerism that helped cause global warming There I was, kicking back in my Edun “natural indigo” organic jeans (£163), sipping on an icy cold glass of Fleury vintage organic champagne (£56 a bottle), having taken my new Porsche 918 hybrid supercar (£524,000) for a spin, when I started pondering where my next holiday might be. Would it be the languid lagoons of Cousine Island in the Seychelles, which boasts its own on-site ecologist? Or perhaps the Hacienda Tres Rios in Mexico with its philosophy of “intelligent and responsible use of our ecosystems and natural resources”? Organic produce, hybrid cars, eco-tourism resorts, ethical fashion – what could be finer than living such a fantastic, indulgent “champagne environmentalist” existence? But while the explosive growth in “eco-lifestyle” markets may seem good, in reality it is a perpetuation of the consumerist economic model that has largely got us into our current mess. The green scene is littered with compromised, hypocritical celebrities. Poor Prince Charles preaches and pontificates about harmony and simplicity, then ties himself in masochistic bondage knots of inconsistency by spending £100k on a biofuelled train tour to promote cycling . Famous frequent fliers abound, from Coldplay’s Chris Martin – who opined about global warming in song then racked up a personal carbon footprint massively bigger than the average Brit – to Sting’s wife, Trudie Styler, who flew her entourage (including hairdresser) by private jet from New York to Washington so she could go to a party. Most brilliantly, John Travolta encourages us all to “do our bit for climate change” while owning five private jets. As with the pejorative “champagne socialists”, the message is very much “do as we say, not as we do’. Like the highly discredited theory of “trickle-down” economics, there is a belief that this “eco-leadership” will somehow percolate into our collective consciousness and create demand for environmental goods and services at all levels of the economy. But this is missing the point. We fret about the environmental implications of global population growth in the belief that it is the fertility of our fellows in the developing world that is at the root of our resource problems. But this is a buck-passing, mean-spirited attempt at alleviating our own consumptive guilt. As studies have demonstrated , the richest 500 million people on the planet (about 7% of global population, and yes that includes all of us Brits) create 50% of global carbon emissions, while the poorest 50% create just 7%. So when we ask ourselves the question: “how will we live?”, the answer is fairly obvious: more simply and more frugally. Much of the nonsense written about green lifestyles is laughable, as if we can all carry on as we are, as long as we’re all buying organic, fair trade and ethical products. The real answer is that less really is more, and while the champagne environmentalists can lecture on how fantastic their sustainable lifestyle is as they throw another log from daddy’s woodland into the stove or go wild foraging on the family estate, that’s not going to mean much for the 80% of people who live in cities. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s vital that we promote a sense of positive hope, that life can be better for all of us when lived more sustainably. Its just that the “yes, you can have it all” mentality of some environmentalists is not just hypocritical, but potentially deceitful and distracting. I think the real fizz and excitement in sustainability is to be found where lifestyles and business models are being radically transformed. The Transition Network and the collaborative consumption movement. The high-end eco-products and aspirational lifestyles that alter our footprints by incremental percentage changes lull us into false security about dealing with the problem of climate change. The environmental lifestyle champagne has definitely gone flat. • Ed Gillespie is co-founder of Futerra Sustainability Communications Ethical and green living Carbon footprints Climate change Celebrity Ed Gillespie guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
UK performance still not good enough as bulk of profit increase came from Asian operations, says new boss Philip Clarke Tesco, Britain’s biggest retailer, has reported record profits of £3.8bn – more than £10m a day – but admitted that it needs to do better in its core UK operations. Results for the year to end February, released on Tuesday, showed the bulk of Tesco’s 12.3% profit increase came from its growing Asian operations. Total group sales were £68bn and in the UK sales grew 5.5% to £45bn, with trading profits ahead by 3.8% to £2.5bn. But the performance was not good enough, Tesco’s new boss Philip Clarke admitted. “We didn’t achieve our planned growth in the year and this was only partly attributable to the deterioration in the consumer environment during the second half. We can do better and we are taking action in key areas – for example, to drive a faster rate of product innovation and to improve the sharpness of our communication to customers.” The retailer’s US losses also worsened in 2010, rising to £186m. Tesco said the increased losses reflected acquisition costs and Clarke, who took over from Sir Terry Leahy six weeks ago, reaffirmed his commitment to the US Fresh and Easy business. “Fresh and Easy is loved by customers who shop in it. The easiest thing would be to cut and run, but the sensible thing is to improve the business and get more customers,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. Clarke suggested he would be taking a somewhat softer approach than his predecessor. “In the way I deal with the press and investors and our own people I can soften [the image] a little. I am a little more open and that’s the style I would like here.” Matthew McEachran, retail analyst at Singer Capital Markets, suggested the sharpening of Tesco’s UK focus would concern rivals. “With over £5bn of sales, and space potentially increasing by 10% per annum, intensification of their offer will result in more pressure for a number of general retailers including those already having to compete harder.” Tesco’s strongest growth came in Asia where profits grew by 30% to £570m. Shares in Tesco opened down by 0.6%, a fall of 2.5p to 397p. Tesco Supermarkets Retail industry Alex Hawkes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …David Cameron and his advisers want to make us feel better, but they don’t know how One of the best gauges of whether a statement actually means anything is to stick a not in its middle. If the opposite sounds ridiculous, then the chances are the original proposition is mush. Who would seriously argue that banks shouldn’t be well-regulated, that the starvation of African babies is perfectly OK, thanks, or that civil liberties aren’t worth a fig? Run the mush test over the launch of the campaign group Action for Happiness. “I’m up for more happiness!” was one slogan – as if anyone but a Dickensian villain, hobbling around Victorian London and sending ragged-trousered tots scattering in fear before him, would ever admit otherwise. The same combination of vagueness and grandiosity runs through the website . “Action for Happiness is a movement for positive social change” – other movements presumably go round calling for things to get worse. “We’re bringing together people from all walks of life who want to play a part in creating a happier society for everyone” – rather than recruiting from the narrowest demographic imaginable, in order to proselytise for misery. Big, baggy talk like this must be partly why the British debate on happiness has failed to get past the opening shots. Here is a big idea – that government ministers should make policy decisions with an eye to making us happier rather than ever-richer – that deserves a proper airing. What it has got instead is the policy equivalent of a Rorschach test, in which commentators and wonks talk about what makes them happy, which isn’t the same thing at all. Even when David Cameron says: “It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money and it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB – general wellbeing”, the statement gets treated as just another respray of the true blues rather than a yardstick against which to judge his policies. But one of the key findings of researchers is that unemployment is a surefire way of making people utterly miserable – which means that whatever else is wrong with the prime minister’s austerity economics, it also contradicts his goal of making voters happier. Seeking specifics, I went to the Action for Happiness launch. In a grand former church packed out with believers and activists, it felt like an inaugural love-in. One of the founders, LSE economist Richard Layard, described “the science of happiness”. Helping a stranger lights up the same part of your brain as eating a bar of chocolate, apparently – although the significance of that finding went unexplained, as did what would happen if you assisted a stranger in eating their Green & Black’s. A former Buddhist monk called Andy led the hall in meditation, battling the plaintive rings of an abandoned Nokia. “Help out a friend in need,” we were advised. “Make sure you get enough sleep.” Thanks, Mum. This is happiness in its banal and individualistic form: a kind of smile-high club. It also mis-sells the research it’s meant to be promoting – by both overstating its status as a science and understating its potential to affect the way governments set policy. At the moment, happiness is as much a science as that bit in the L’Oréal ads when a bunch of equations float across the screen. Action for Happiness claims : “If we could increase our levels of happiness to those in Denmark, Britain would have 2.5 million fewer people suffering from unhappiness.” Yet the best researchers in the field have no idea how we might do that. Between them, David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald practically invented happiness economics . They organised the world’s first ever economics of happiness conference at the LSE in 1993 (“We stuck up posters, we put out 100 chairs,” remembers Oswald. “About eight people turned up.”). In a paper produced this February for the Academy of Management Perspectives the two lay out the state of research. The most telling part comes when they discuss the mental wellbeing of the Danes and the Dutch – then remark: “We do not yet know why these countries are so perplexingly happy.” What they do know, however, is that the field could end up posing a major challenge to free-market orthodoxy. For a start, one thing that happiness research shows is that people aren’t as good at choosing for themselves as they like to think – a BMW, for instance, really doesn’t give us so much more pleasure than a Micra. And paying attention to happiness gives a whole different slant to economic policy-making than simply focusing on increasing income. Take air pollution, which is often seen as the necessary price paid for economic growth; research shows that dirty air makes people consistently and notably more upset. Where civil servants and politicians were once able to shrug off complaints about pollution as just so much whining nimbyism, in the future they might have costings that back up the anti-pollution campaigners. A few years ago, Layard wrote Happiness, the best starter book on the subject, and he knows the field might end up being revolutionary. When I asked him last week what Hayek, father of free-market thinking and another former LSE professor would make of his campaign, he replied: “God knows. The road to serfdom, no doubt” – a reference to the Austrian’s tract against big government. But in order to make their policies more attractive to Whitehall and Westminster, Layard and his colleagues have taken all the politics out and left nice-sounding aspirations about turning “the rising tide of excessive individualism”. You wouldn’t want to argue with it, let alone disagree. The problem is, you probably wouldn’t bother to engage, either. Economics Global economy Psychology David Cameron Aditya Chakrabortty guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Married couples are more harmonious than unmarried ones as they take it in turns to win arguments, according to new research. Can that really be right? A group of Tokyo economists have discovered that married couples take it in turns to win an argument, while the unmarried just trample all over each other . Couples were asked if they would rather go to the theatre or for a meal; and if they would prefer go-karting to dancing. Where the pair differed, boffins monitored the pattern of compromise. I use the word “boffin” sarcastically, since any couple agreeing to go-kart would clearly be 12. Anyway, there it is: marriage either confers or proves a more mature, even-handed attitude. But I have a problem with the methodology, which I’m going to illustrate with this argument from within the atavistic, Lord of the Flies-fest that is my unmarried relationship. My beloved and I were arguing over who was the aggressor and who the victim, between our two offspring (this is the starter- argument). He decided that, to save time, he was going to adopt the unspoken practice of rugby, where transgression is so complicated that the referee just gives out penalties in turns. I countered that, since they were two small children and not 22 huge men, it shouldn’t be beyond the wit of a moderately competent adult to see which one had started it (this is the correct argument). He said it was actually 26 huge men (this is the diversion argument) and, if I spent less time watching the children and more time watching telly, I would improve my sporting knowledge across the board (this is an attempt to argue away the opening parameters of the argument). He went on to argue that, while there were more men in rugby than we had children, they had only one ball, where we had about 7m toys (this is totally irrelevant). From this we can abstract the following: real arguments in couples are seldom between two competing and equivalent positions; one is usually right, where the other is wrong. So, to adopt a convention of turn-taking would be random and against reason, whether you were married or not. I don’t know about you, but I simply can’t limit myself to being right only one time in two. Marriage Relationships Zoe Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Britain’s first national park deserves support in its battle to balance the needs of locals and protection of the environment The Peak District national park , 60 years old this month, famously lacks any peaks and isn’t a park. But as Britain’s first national park, and almost certainly its busiest, it has played a proud part in preserving a special part of the English landscape and encouraging the public to enjoy it. The high gritstone Dark Peak countryside remains a true wilderness, even though on a mist-free day you can see the fringes of Manchester and Sheffield from its tops. The soft limestone countryside of the White Peak is still quietly rural, and a refuge for the millions of visitors who come each year from the Midlands and beyond. As Roger Redfern’s country diary records twice a month on these pages, the Peak District is part of the life of the cities on its borders, and has been since well before the famous Kinder mass trespass of 1932, which saw ramblers demand their right to walk across the Duke of Devonshire’s shooting estate. The national park authority has often found itself caught in the middle of a debate between access, development and preservation, and has done a decent job at all three. With limited resources, it has restricted quarrying and tried to balance the needs of locals for new homes with the protection of a delicate environment. It deserves strong support in this battle – as do the rights of all national parks, reported to be under scrutiny in a crowdsourcing exercise to test red tape. This Easter, there can no better place than the Peak to tramp the moors or wander past meadows and spring lambs. Peak District guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …