Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1427)
Arts vital for recovery – Puttnam

David Puttnam urges David Cameron to back ‘warm words’ with support for creative industries Britain’s economic wellbeing hangs on the government backing up its professed admiration for the arts with cash and commitment, according to Lord Puttnam. Speaking on the eve of giving a major speech in London about the value of the arts, the leading film producer and Labour peer said a viable financial future for Britain was wrapped up with the success of the country’s creative and entertainment industries. “I am not despairing, but there is a real danger we might undo the work of the last few years. There is that real possibility,” he said. “We have no chance of an economic revival without a full understanding of the role that creativity plays. It is warm words and apple pie at the moment.” Puttnam, 70, who first came to fame in the late 1970s and early 1980s when he produced hit films such as Bugsy Malone , Midnight Express and Chariots of Fire, and who is a former chairman of the National Film and Television School, said he wished he could talk to the prime minister, the chancellor of the exchequer and the culture ministers together to test their joint resolve on the arts. “I am fed up of just hearing about how important the creative economy is. We all say that. What I would like to know is: do David Cameron, George Osborne, Jeremy Hunt and Ed Vaizey really mean what they say about this?” Parliament has what Puttnam calls a “benign indifference” to the arts. “In the House of Lords, the same 15 people turn up to discuss the sector every time. Most members, I am sure, think of it as a good thing, something they might go to once a fortnight. But do they realise what an economic driver it is?” He also argues that the conservative instincts of many Tory politicians often go against the grain of creativity. Artistic endeavour, he says, always involves looking at something from a new or challenging perspective. “What the arts cause you to do is to reflect on your own experience and on the experience of others. The very act involves having your assumptions challenged. Conservatism is essentially trying to make people feel comfortable and not very challenged. It is not part of their ethos to trouble people too deeply with anything,” he said. Puttnam believes his experience working with organisations such as the Royal Opera House, Channel 4 and The Sage in Gateshead mean he has a clear sense of how long it takes to build up a useful creative institution: “It can take five years or longer. And we should not be taking funding and support away.” He also queried the viability of the new emphasis on private philanthropy. “There are two real problems with relying on individual philanthropists. First, they are usually looking to attach their money to success, so they are trawling for successes most of the time. And second, the fact is that 90% of philanthropic donations go to London. Getting things to happen outside London is bloody hard.” The difficulty, he said, is that outside the capital there are fewer wealthy local philanthropists around. “It is a question of the number of people you can talk to. In the context of Cornwall it might be just four people, in the north-east it might be half a dozen.” Puttnam invited the coalition government to convince him this spring that it appreciates the importance of the creative sector. “If they really believe what they say, there are some serious steps they could take. And if they don’t believe it, there are going to be some real consequences for this country.” Puttnam is to speak tomorrow evening at St Ethelburga’s, Bishopsgate, as part of a series of six talks run by the theatre company Jericho House , in collaboration with University College London. Arts funding Arts policy Vanessa Thorpe guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Arts vital for recovery – Puttnam

David Puttnam urges David Cameron to back ‘warm words’ with support for creative industries Britain’s economic wellbeing hangs on the government backing up its professed admiration for the arts with cash and commitment, according to Lord Puttnam. Speaking on the eve of giving a major speech in London about the value of the arts, the leading film producer and Labour peer said a viable financial future for Britain was wrapped up with the success of the country’s creative and entertainment industries. “I am not despairing, but there is a real danger we might undo the work of the last few years. There is that real possibility,” he said. “We have no chance of an economic revival without a full understanding of the role that creativity plays. It is warm words and apple pie at the moment.” Puttnam, 70, who first came to fame in the late 1970s and early 1980s when he produced hit films such as Bugsy Malone , Midnight Express and Chariots of Fire, and who is a former chairman of the National Film and Television School, said he wished he could talk to the prime minister, the chancellor of the exchequer and the culture ministers together to test their joint resolve on the arts. “I am fed up of just hearing about how important the creative economy is. We all say that. What I would like to know is: do David Cameron, George Osborne, Jeremy Hunt and Ed Vaizey really mean what they say about this?” Parliament has what Puttnam calls a “benign indifference” to the arts. “In the House of Lords, the same 15 people turn up to discuss the sector every time. Most members, I am sure, think of it as a good thing, something they might go to once a fortnight. But do they realise what an economic driver it is?” He also argues that the conservative instincts of many Tory politicians often go against the grain of creativity. Artistic endeavour, he says, always involves looking at something from a new or challenging perspective. “What the arts cause you to do is to reflect on your own experience and on the experience of others. The very act involves having your assumptions challenged. Conservatism is essentially trying to make people feel comfortable and not very challenged. It is not part of their ethos to trouble people too deeply with anything,” he said. Puttnam believes his experience working with organisations such as the Royal Opera House, Channel 4 and The Sage in Gateshead mean he has a clear sense of how long it takes to build up a useful creative institution: “It can take five years or longer. And we should not be taking funding and support away.” He also queried the viability of the new emphasis on private philanthropy. “There are two real problems with relying on individual philanthropists. First, they are usually looking to attach their money to success, so they are trawling for successes most of the time. And second, the fact is that 90% of philanthropic donations go to London. Getting things to happen outside London is bloody hard.” The difficulty, he said, is that outside the capital there are fewer wealthy local philanthropists around. “It is a question of the number of people you can talk to. In the context of Cornwall it might be just four people, in the north-east it might be half a dozen.” Puttnam invited the coalition government to convince him this spring that it appreciates the importance of the creative sector. “If they really believe what they say, there are some serious steps they could take. And if they don’t believe it, there are going to be some real consequences for this country.” Puttnam is to speak tomorrow evening at St Ethelburga’s, Bishopsgate, as part of a series of six talks run by the theatre company Jericho House , in collaboration with University College London. Arts funding Arts policy Vanessa Thorpe guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US shutdown averted, but cuts ahead

Barack Obama warns that vital programmes will suffer after US federal budget deal between Democrats and Republicans Barack Obama warned Americans yesterday that they faced painful times ahead after Democrats and Republicans struck a deal that would bring in the biggest annual spending cuts in the country’s history. The last-minute agreement averted the threat of a government shutdown that would have brought chaos – but it also removed $38bn (£23bn) of spending intended for important federal programmes. “Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programmes [that] people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances,” the president said in his weekly radio address yesterday. However, he welcomed the agreement and said that the country had to learn to live within its financial means. “Reducing spending while still investing in the future is just common sense. It is what families do in tough times. They sacrifice where they can, even if it’s hard, to afford what is really important,” he said. Though the president struck a conciliatory tone, the period leading up to the agreement had resulted in a remarkable spectacle of political infighting and squabbling that looked likely to bring the federal government to a grinding halt for the first time since 1994. Emboldened by their victory in the 2010 mid-term elections, and propelled by their Tea Party base, the Republicans in Congress had refused to pass the 2011 budget unless it introduced billions of dollars of cuts. Leading Republicans had wanted far more cuts than the $38bn eventually agreed. Democrats fought back, especially as the eventual sticking point appeared to focus, not so much on spending, but more on federal funding around social issues such as abortion. As the midnight deadline for a deal loomed on Friday, it appeared that neither side was able reach a compromise. But with around an hour to go, Republicans backed away from their demands for spending reductions in areas opposed by social conservatives, and reached an agreement to keep the government open. Many senior Republicans had urged the party’s leadership to avoid closing the government because they feared a repeat of 1994 – when a Republican-led shutdown turned voters against the party allowing Bill Clinton to win re-election as president in 1996. Though the central functions of government would have continued in the event of a shutdown, hundreds of thousands of workers would have been laid off, national parks would have shut and members of the military serving in wars abroad would not have been paid. Just the threat of a shutdown last week had slowed much vital government work to a crawl. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, said that the agreed cuts would eventually help boost the economy, which has struggled to create jobs even as growth rates recover from the recession. “This has been a lot of discussion and a long fight. But we fought to keep government spending down because it really will, in fact, help create a better environment for job creators in our country,” he said. His opponent in the talks, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, appeared less pleased, but was relieved that an agreement was reached. “We didn’t do it at this late hour for drama. We did it because it has been hard to arrive at this point,” Reid said. That certainly had been true just hours before, when Reid described Republican efforts to strip spending away from the Planned Parenthood organisation as “indefensible” and “truly shameful”. But those efforts failed, as Obama acknowledged. “[We] prevented this important debate being overtaken by politics and unrelated disagreements on social issues,” he said. The deal was agreed just after midnight. It will be voted on this week. When it passes, the agreement will ensure that the government is funded through to the end of the fiscal year. However, battles over spending are likely to continue, especially as the 2012 presidential election draws closer. Republican leaders have vowed to push for deeper cuts and a roll back of government spending. The debate will form much of the political battleground of the year ahead. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman who has emerged as a leading Republican figure seeking radical cuts, has described the scrap over the budget as “the first bite of the apple”. US federal government shutdown Barack Obama John Boehner Republicans Democrats Obama administration US economy Paul Harris guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
US shutdown averted, but cuts ahead

Barack Obama warns that vital programmes will suffer after US federal budget deal between Democrats and Republicans Barack Obama warned Americans yesterday that they faced painful times ahead after Democrats and Republicans struck a deal that would bring in the biggest annual spending cuts in the country’s history. The last-minute agreement averted the threat of a government shutdown that would have brought chaos – but it also removed $38bn (£23bn) of spending intended for important federal programmes. “Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programmes [that] people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances,” the president said in his weekly radio address yesterday. However, he welcomed the agreement and said that the country had to learn to live within its financial means. “Reducing spending while still investing in the future is just common sense. It is what families do in tough times. They sacrifice where they can, even if it’s hard, to afford what is really important,” he said. Though the president struck a conciliatory tone, the period leading up to the agreement had resulted in a remarkable spectacle of political infighting and squabbling that looked likely to bring the federal government to a grinding halt for the first time since 1994. Emboldened by their victory in the 2010 mid-term elections, and propelled by their Tea Party base, the Republicans in Congress had refused to pass the 2011 budget unless it introduced billions of dollars of cuts. Leading Republicans had wanted far more cuts than the $38bn eventually agreed. Democrats fought back, especially as the eventual sticking point appeared to focus, not so much on spending, but more on federal funding around social issues such as abortion. As the midnight deadline for a deal loomed on Friday, it appeared that neither side was able reach a compromise. But with around an hour to go, Republicans backed away from their demands for spending reductions in areas opposed by social conservatives, and reached an agreement to keep the government open. Many senior Republicans had urged the party’s leadership to avoid closing the government because they feared a repeat of 1994 – when a Republican-led shutdown turned voters against the party allowing Bill Clinton to win re-election as president in 1996. Though the central functions of government would have continued in the event of a shutdown, hundreds of thousands of workers would have been laid off, national parks would have shut and members of the military serving in wars abroad would not have been paid. Just the threat of a shutdown last week had slowed much vital government work to a crawl. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, said that the agreed cuts would eventually help boost the economy, which has struggled to create jobs even as growth rates recover from the recession. “This has been a lot of discussion and a long fight. But we fought to keep government spending down because it really will, in fact, help create a better environment for job creators in our country,” he said. His opponent in the talks, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, appeared less pleased, but was relieved that an agreement was reached. “We didn’t do it at this late hour for drama. We did it because it has been hard to arrive at this point,” Reid said. That certainly had been true just hours before, when Reid described Republican efforts to strip spending away from the Planned Parenthood organisation as “indefensible” and “truly shameful”. But those efforts failed, as Obama acknowledged. “[We] prevented this important debate being overtaken by politics and unrelated disagreements on social issues,” he said. The deal was agreed just after midnight. It will be voted on this week. When it passes, the agreement will ensure that the government is funded through to the end of the fiscal year. However, battles over spending are likely to continue, especially as the 2012 presidential election draws closer. Republican leaders have vowed to push for deeper cuts and a roll back of government spending. The debate will form much of the political battleground of the year ahead. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman who has emerged as a leading Republican figure seeking radical cuts, has described the scrap over the budget as “the first bite of the apple”. US federal government shutdown Barack Obama John Boehner Republicans Democrats Obama administration US economy Paul Harris guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Why Bob Dylan didn’t make a fuss in China

Bob Dylan didn’t mention Ai Weiwei or gripe about not being allowed to play two of his songs in Beijing. But then, he was never really political, was he? On 12 May, 1963, less than a fortnight shy of his 22nd birthday, a little-known singer-songwriter named Bob Dylan staged a walkout from The Ed Sullivan Show , America’s top entertainment programme. The host and his producers demanded that he replace the song he had been planning to perform with something more innocuous. Talkin’ John Birch Society Blues was an uproarious satire on red-baiting and commie-hunting and it fell foul of Sullivan’s notorious aversion to songs dealing with politics, sex or drugs. Sullivan and his people wouldn’t budge, so the young Dylan told them, “No, this is what I want to do. If I can’t play my song, I’d rather not appear on the show”, and promptly took a hike. No one was going to censor him. Almost half a century later, Dylan – now about to turn 70 – faced a similar dilemma. His Far Eastern tour had finally brought him to China after several years of negotiation (he played Beijing last Wednesday), but he had submitted his set list to the Chinese authorities – and some of his most famous songs were deemed unacceptable by the Chinese culture ministry. What’s more, Dylan was also under fire for not speaking out in favour of the imprisonment of celebrated Chinese artist Ai Weiwei (who was taken away by authorities last Sunday as he waited to board a flight at Beijing airport). “Back in the day, if he had been in Ai’s shoes, he [Dylan] would have expected someone to speak up for him,” said a spokesman for Human Rights Watch. “What does he have to lose?” It was not just any two songs to which Beijing objected, either. Blowin’ in the Wind was the civil rights anthem that had established Dylan’s reputation when it first appeared on his second album, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan , back in 1962, and Desolation Row was the marathon poetic masterpiece that had climaxed Highway 61 Revisited three years later. Unlike other far more lyrically explicit works from Dylan’s brief but cataclysmically influential “protest song” period – a term that he always hated – such as The Times They Are A-Changin’, Masters Of War or With God On Our Side, both songs are oblique and allusive, dealing in metaphor, imagery and allegory rather than any issue-based topical specifics. Nevertheless, metaphor, imagery and allegory are the philosophical and linguistic meat and drink of the culture that gave the world Confucius, Lao Tzu and the I Ching, and the Chinese authorities understood exactly what subtexts those songs carried, even though they were written several decades ago as critiques of another society entirely. They also understood that they didn’t want those songs performed in Beijing and they said so. Dylan didn’t perform them. The times they have indeed a-changed, even though the songs haven’t. Two questions arise and the answers may or may not be blowin’ in the wind. Has the 69-year-old Dylan lost the bottle displayed by his younger self? And why is post-millennial China rattled by the same songs as 1960s America? To address the second question first: Dylan was not the only victim, either in the 60s or now. In 1967, both the Rolling Stones and the Doors fell foul of Ed Sullivan, over Let’s Spend the Night Together and Light My Fire, respectively. They coped in their different ways: Mick Jagger sang the substitute line (“Let’s spend some time together’) while pulling exaggerated faces of disgust. For his part, Jim Morrison defiantly delivered the contentious phrase (“girl, we couldn’t get much higher”) on the uncensorable live transmission at the price of having bookings for a further half-dozen appearances cancelled. More recently, in 2006, the Stones played the half-time show at the SuperBowl and had two of their three songs censored: Jagger’s microphone was muted for the lines “You make a dead man come” (from Start Me Up) and “Once upon a time I was your little rooster, am I just one of your cocks?” (from Rough Justice). Later the same year they made their own Chinese debut and Rough Justice was vetoed, alongside Let’s Spend the Night Together, Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Women and Beast of Burden. Jagger may be one of rock’s veteran bad boys, but he’s also one of rock’s veteran businessman/performers, who has never been accused of not knowing on which side his bread is buttered. It must, however, be pleasing for these long-assimilated elderly rebels to know that someone, somewhere, is still scared of them and that their subversive potential has not yet been utterly absorbed and nullified. Which brings us back to Dylan. The notion of Dylan as a hardcore political activist and polemicist, or as a dyed-in-the-wool man of the left, is not only antiquated but was essentially erroneous even in the early 60s. His “protest period” lasted less than two years, and even then he was suspicious of leftie folkies who wanted him to be a singing placard: enter a cause, push a button, get a song. He paid a formal farewell to the Movement with My Back Pages (from Another Side Of Bob Dylan in 1964) and by 1966 was sufficiently irritated by his alleged ideological soulmates to hang a gigantic Stars and Stripes as a stage backdrop for his now infamous “electric” European tour. In the late 1970s he outraged his following by devoting an entire album, Slow Train Coming , to his conversion to born-again evangelical Christianity and, in the 1980s, by self-identifying as a hardcore Zionist with the song Neighborhood Bully. His priority is to follow his twinned muses as a poet and musician: indeed Robert Santelli, author of the invaluable The Bob Dylan Scrapbook 1956-1966 , doubts that Dylan was ever fundamentally interested in politics in the first place. And remember: he will turn 70 years old on 24 May. A 22-year-old with nothing much to lose will charge into battle at almost any provocation. A 70-year-old will choose his battles very carefully indeed, and the People’s Republic, as a nation, is eight years younger than Dylan himself. Our second question is that of China, its place in the world and the kind of society into which it is evolving. China, like Russia before it, was driven by historical circumstance to move directly from feudalism to communism without any intermediate phases, and both are now retracing their steps back to capitalism. In China’s case, this means a unique form of state capitalism that still retains many of the authoritarian practices common to both the feudal and communist stages of its history. Old-fashioned totalitarian societies control information by suppressing what they consider inconvenient for their people to hear, while the more sophisticated capitalist democracies control information by swamping the truth in a deluge of disinformation, through which it is virtually a full-time job to sift. China’s national narrative is veined with an ingrained distrust of the outside world: a lengthy period of utter isolation was followed by the opium wars (courtesy of Britain) and some nasty interactions with Japan, the reverberations of both still with us. Hence China’s battles with Google and the Great Firewalls the country’s techies erect around the internet; hence its fear of instability, whether generated internally or externally; hence the repression involved in the cases of Ai Weiwei, Liu Xiaobo and others less celebrated. These are not the manifestations of a secure or confident society, especially one considered in the west to be the coming masters of the new century and a phenomenon almost as terrifying as that of globalised Islamism. Ultimately, it all comes down to fear and paranoia. In the west, we’re scared of Islam and China; in China they’re still scared of Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, who are considered over here to be a bunch of eccentric pensioners who shot their respective bolts half a century back. Everybody concerned needs, essentially, to grow the hell up… and lighten the hell up. The times are always a-changin’, just neither as much as some of us hope, or as much as some of us fear. Charles Shaar Murray is an award- winning rock writer who started his career in 1970 at Oz magazine. His books include Crosstown Traffic: Jimi Hendrix And Post-War Pop Bob Dylan China Censorship Charles Shaar Murray guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …

Some opponents think owners of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant are trying to rush through a license extension before the risk of a newly-located earthquake fault can be evaluated: Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the big California utility, is seeking a 20-year license extension for its two reactors at Diablo Canyon, a nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, on the state’s central coast. That application, controversial even before an earthquake and tsunami crippled Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant last month, is now shaping up as a major test of Americans’ tolerance of nuclear power, especially in areas at high risk for natural disasters. Local politicians are lining up to fight the license extension, arguing that the process should be put on hold while PG&E studies the area’s earthquake risk. “The tragedy in Japan underscores the importance and critical evidence of the need for a pause in relicensing,” said Rep. Lois Capps (D., Calif.), who last month asked regulators to delay renewing Diablo’s license. National anti-nuclear groups, too, are making the Diablo case a focal point of their broader fight against nuclear power. “Diablo Canyon is just a striking and scary example of playing with some seriously explosive fire,” said Sean Garren of the activist group Environment America. Dozens of nuclear reactors operate in earthquake-prone regions around the world. Among them, least 34 are in high-hazard areas. Opponents may have trouble making much headway with the federal agency that oversees nuclear relicensing, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC sets strict limits on what issues can be considered in the relicensing, and has consistently rebuffed efforts to use the process to conduct broad-based reviews of plants’ operations.

Continue reading …
Assange defends WikiLeaks in debate

WikiLeaks founder defends organisation in his first formal public appearance since being arrested over sexual assault allegations WikiLeaks is more accountable than democratically elected governments because it accepts donations from members of the public, Julian Assange has claimed, in his first formal public appearance since being arrested in December following accusations of rape and sexual assault. Questioned at a public debate about the whistleblowing organisation’s own transparency, Assange told an audience of 700 people, many of them supporters: “We are directly supported on a week-to-week basis by you. You vote with your wallets every week if you believe that our work is worthwhile or not. If you believe we have erred, you do not support us. If you believe we need to be protected in our work, you keep us strong. “That dynamic feedback, I say, is more responsive than a government that is elected after sourcing money from big business every four years.” The WikiLeaks founder, who is currently appealing against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault, told the audience at a packed debate organised by the New Statesman and the Frontline Club that whistleblowing was essential in a democracy because “the only way we can know whether information is legitimately kept secret is when it is revealed”. He cited the examples of Vietnam and “the disaster that was the Iraq war”, saying that if whistleblowers had had the courage to speak up earlier about both conflicts, “bloodbaths” could have been avoided. He said he “could speak for hours” about the impact of the publication of leaked US embassy cables, much of it through the Guardian, and that leak’s positive impact. The Hindu newspaper had in recent weeks published 21 front pages based on so-called “cablegate” revelations, he said, leading to the Indian government walking out four times and a growing anti-corruption movement in the country. But the political commentator Douglas Murray, director of the centre for social cohesion, challenged Assange over the website’s sources of funding, its staffing and connections with the Holocaust denier Israel Shamir, who has worked with the site. “What gives you the right to decide what should be known or not? Governments are elected. You, Mr Assange are not.” Murray also challenged the WikiLeaks founder over an account in a book by Guardian writers David Leigh and Luke Harding, in which the authors quote him suggesting that if informants were to be killed following publication of the leaks, they “had it coming to them”. Assange repeated an earlier assertion that the website “is in the process of suing the Guardian” over the assertion, and asked if Murray would like to “join the queue” of organisations he was suing. The Guardian has not received any notification of such action from WikiLeaks or its lawyers. Jason Cowley, the editor of the New Statesman and chair of the debate, interjected to ask: “How can the great champion of open society be using our libel laws to challenge the press?” The WikiLeaks founder was obliged to leave before responding to all the questions in order to comply with the curfew conditions of his bail. WikiLeaks’ lawyer Mark Stephens could not be reached for comment. Asked after the debate whether he could shed any light on the supposed legal action, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristin Hrafnsson said “not really”. WikiLeaks Julian Assange Esther Addley guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Chris Hayes and Howard Fineman React to Budget Deal

Click here to view this media MSNBC stayed on the air to do some live coverage on the negotiations by the White House, John Boehner and Harry Reid to avoid a government shutdown. As John already noted, the President tried to put a “happy face” on this during his speech tonight. I’m really disgusted with the fact that he’s validating Republican talking points on the deficit and our debt and the fact that making cuts to our budget in the wrong places is only going to make our already fragile economy worse. Lawrence O’Donnell asked Chris Hayes about the statement coming out of Nancy Pelosi’s office which he read on the air. She commends the President for his hard work and perseverance. The then says, House Democrats look forward to viewing the components of the final funding measure. The American people’s top priority is creating jobs. As O’Donnell noted, Pelosi’s statement means that this budget compromise is not going to sail through the House with all of the Democratic support John Boehner might want. As Chris Hayes noted, the Democratic minority was not even part of these negotiations, which isn’t really that surprising given their numbers right now. But as Chris Hayes pointed out, even Rep. James Clyburn who’s in a leadership position in the House could not tell him earlier just what programs are going to be cut. Hayes is exactly right when he says where these cuts are coming from and who’s shoulders they’re resting on really matters, and Nancy Pelosi was just articulating that it does matter where these cuts are coming from. Then we move onto Howard Fineman who gave us the Villagers’ view of what the White House’s political game might be with the President deciding it was a good idea politically to be praising this deal with Republicans. And as Howard noted, a lot of Republicans in the House are not going to be crazy about voting for this deal as well. This passing is likely going to depend on some Democrats in the House voting for it as well. Whether Boehner can get enough of them to help him pass this remains to be seen. Fineman laid out what the White House is counting on here: FINEMAN: One other thing I would say is this. I’m fascinated by President Barack Obama’s ability to seem to be pushed in the places politically he wants to be. Ezra’s right that in terms of stimulus, in terms of macro-economic theory, this runs totally against the grain of Democratic liberal traditions. But politically, this is where Barack Obama wants to be. He wants to be the budget cutter. He has an unerring instinct for the middle of the political spectrum, the middle of the political conversation generally among independent voters right now, which is about budget cutting, so politically he’s making the gamble that he’s moved to the right political place and that economically, the economy is recovering fast enough now, we’ve had good growth, job growth numbers in the last couple months. He’s making a bet that those job growth numbers will continue and whatever stimulus is removed by this will not adversely affect the economy enough to counter balance what he thinks is a smart move to the center. And he looks like he’s been pushed there, but politically that’s where he wants to be. If the Obama administration honestly thinks throwing their base under the bus again during this budget fight is good for them politically, I’d like to have a little of what they’re smoking. Democrats in Wisconsin have figured out that if you stand with your base, your base is going to support you and be enthusiastic with that support. That’s apparently something that’s been lost on this administration.

Continue reading …
Lib Dem grassroots in health revolt

Growing list of members calls on government to incorporate amendments agreed at spring conference Nick Clegg’s problems with the NHS reforms have dramatically resurfaced as his party’s grassroots threaten to force MPs to vote against the government unless their demands for changes to the bill were met in full. The deputy prime minister and prime minister David Cameron promised on Wednesday to “pause and listen” to growing concerns over the scale of reforms in the health bill. But in an escalation of the controversy that now threatens to destabilise the coalition, Liberal Democrat activists demanded that amendments spearheaded by Shirley Williams and endorsed by the party’s spring conference be taken on in full. In an unprecedented show of force about 1,200 Liberal Democrat party members, councillors, former parliamentary candidates, peers, conference representatives and council leaders instructed their leadership to “fully respect the declared view of the party”. Organisers of the Liberal Democrat revolt also condemned efforts by the government to “spin” their way out of the row. Since announcing a “pause” to the progress of the health bill, the government has suggested that some amendments would be tabled to clarify that GPs who do not want to take charge of the NHS budget for their patients would be able to leave it to other GPs in their area. The ability of private firms to “cherry pick” the most lucrative NHS services would also be restricted and a regulator will be told to prioritise value for money, rather than promote market competition, it emerged. However the Liberal Democrat grassroots made it clear that they want the government to go further and declared they will pressure their MPs to block the bill unless they are satisfied by future changes. Dr Evan Harris, the party’s former health spokesman, said: “The Liberal Democrats have already compromised on health policy in making the Coalition Agreement and we are not prepared to see our parliamentarians being put under pressure to vote for market reforms and other changes that go beyond the terms of the coalition agreement and the motion that we passed.” The Liberal Democrats voted almost unanimously at the party’s conference in Sheffield last month to give councillors a central role in GP commissioning and in scrutinising foundation trusts. They called for a ban on all cherry-picking by private companies offering treatment services. GP commissioning boards must construct annual plans in conjunction with new health and well-being boards. And they declared there should be a continued separation of commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interest. Faced with certain defeat, the party’s leadership promised to take the critical messages back to government. However, Liberal Democrat activists fear their leadership is not being tough enough with the Conservatives. Health policy NHS Health Shirley Williams Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Lib Dem grassroots in health revolt

Growing list of members calls on government to incorporate amendments agreed at spring conference Nick Clegg’s problems with the NHS reforms have dramatically resurfaced as his party’s grassroots threaten to force MPs to vote against the government unless their demands for changes to the bill were met in full. The deputy prime minister and prime minister David Cameron promised on Wednesday to “pause and listen” to growing concerns over the scale of reforms in the health bill. But in an escalation of the controversy that now threatens to destabilise the coalition, Liberal Democrat activists demanded that amendments spearheaded by Shirley Williams and endorsed by the party’s spring conference be taken on in full. In an unprecedented show of force about 1,200 Liberal Democrat party members, councillors, former parliamentary candidates, peers, conference representatives and council leaders instructed their leadership to “fully respect the declared view of the party”. Organisers of the Liberal Democrat revolt also condemned efforts by the government to “spin” their way out of the row. Since announcing a “pause” to the progress of the health bill, the government has suggested that some amendments would be tabled to clarify that GPs who do not want to take charge of the NHS budget for their patients would be able to leave it to other GPs in their area. The ability of private firms to “cherry pick” the most lucrative NHS services would also be restricted and a regulator will be told to prioritise value for money, rather than promote market competition, it emerged. However the Liberal Democrat grassroots made it clear that they want the government to go further and declared they will pressure their MPs to block the bill unless they are satisfied by future changes. Dr Evan Harris, the party’s former health spokesman, said: “The Liberal Democrats have already compromised on health policy in making the Coalition Agreement and we are not prepared to see our parliamentarians being put under pressure to vote for market reforms and other changes that go beyond the terms of the coalition agreement and the motion that we passed.” The Liberal Democrats voted almost unanimously at the party’s conference in Sheffield last month to give councillors a central role in GP commissioning and in scrutinising foundation trusts. They called for a ban on all cherry-picking by private companies offering treatment services. GP commissioning boards must construct annual plans in conjunction with new health and well-being boards. And they declared there should be a continued separation of commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interest. Faced with certain defeat, the party’s leadership promised to take the critical messages back to government. However, Liberal Democrat activists fear their leadership is not being tough enough with the Conservatives. Health policy NHS Health Shirley Williams Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats David Cameron Conservatives Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …