Splitting the top Arabic literary prize between a woman and a Moroccan breaks two glass ceilings – but the decision is more likely to spark debate than quell it The International Prize for Arabic Fiction – or, as it’s popularly known, the “Arabic Booker” – has attracted a wealth of controversy in its first four years. A number of prominent authors have refused to let their books be nominated for the prize, which has been accused of, among other things, being too closely allied with governmental powers, discriminating against women and rewarding novels that cater to western interests. One commentator suggested that the favourite to win the 2011 prize – which was awarded yesterday – was Sudanese author Amir Tag al-Sir. This wasn’t so much because of the quality of el-Sir’s novel (although this was acknowledged), but because he was neither Egyptian nor Saudi (the nationalities of previous winners), and was neither a former Moroccan minister of culture (like the shortlisted author Mohammed Achaari) nor the current one (the shortlisted Bensalem Himmich). But the five judges didn’t opt for this “winner of least controversy”. Instead, they chose to split the prize between The Doves’ Necklace, by Saudi novelist Raja Alem, and The Arch and the Butterfly, by Moroccan politician, journalist and author Achaari. In so doing, IPAF organizers have their first female winner (well, half of one) and (half of) their first winner from the Maghreb region. Leading Arabic-French translator Richard Jacquemond predicted that gender might be one of the committee’s considerations. But having two Moroccan novels on the shortlist was “almost as important” as having two women, he said, “since Arabic literature from the Maghreb [west] has been … consistently marginalised by the dominant Mashriqi [eastern] literary scene.” Despite this year’s various hubbubs, 2011 was a much quieter award year than 2010. Last year, newspapers alleged shady back-room deals, and judge Sherine Abu al-Naga resigned before the final selection was made, protesting that the shortlist decision had been made without dialogue or discussion. This year, the judges, at least, seemed to agree on the two winners. In addition to being a woman, Alem is an accomplished author with a number of literary prizes under her belt as well as several books, two of which have appeared in acclaimed English translation. Her winning novel reclaims a past Mecca and is told in a high, historic-folkloric tone, not unlike Orhan Pamuk’s My Name is Red. The Meccan alley of Abu al-Roos, in its opening pages, reflects: “since no one has ever concerned themselves with my enlightenment I have learned to sit intoxicated in the gloom, inhaling a deep breath and trapping it for full minutes before slowly releasing it in the shape of rumours, legends and things forbidden with which I choke my inhabitants, who have begun scrabbling in their past for opiates, unable to bear their current grim reality or comprehend the atomic age that will grind them into the dust.” Achaari is a relative newcomer to the literary scene. While he has written poetry since his youth, The Arch and the Butterfly is only his second novel. The novel’s erudite main character has just lost the son whom he believed was studying engineering in Paris to “martyrdom” with the Taliban. The narrative intelligently and sympathetically follows the resulting crisis of family and identity. But although this year’s prize goes to two worthy novels and breaks two glass ceilings, it’s more likely to generate additional controversy (was Raja Alem chosen because she’s a woman? Did Achaari win because of his political connections and the novel’s western-friendly subject matter? Why couldn’t the judges choose just one winner?) than to quell it. United Arab Emirates Morocco Middle East Saudi Arabia Fiction Awards and prizes M Lynx Qualey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The first-time director and his star discuss crumpets, graphic sex scenes and making a coming-of-age film that’s really very good Richard Ayoade has ordered black tea with lemon (for squeezing). He will drink half of the tea before deciding it is not strong enough. The lemon will remain untouched. This tells me that he has trouble making decisions and when he does, questions them regularly. I consider myself an excellent judge of character. Craig Roberts, the star of Ayoade’s film Submarine , tells me how the director used to eat four crumpets every day before arriving on set. Ayoade says he doesn’t understand crumpets. He doesn’t get how the holes get in there. This is banter. I think about telling him that the holes are produced when air bubbles in a light, frothy crumpet batter rise and up and burst when the mixture is put in a pan on a medium heat, but I don’t, because I want him to feel at ease. Some people are threatened by knowledge. Ayoade’s film is based on a book by Joe Dunthorne . It’s about a teenage boy called Oliver Tate (played by Roberts) who has trouble communicating with his parents (who he thinks are about to split up) and his girlfriend, Jordana (who he thinks he would like to sleep with). It is thoughtful and funny and sad. The book contains a very graphic sex scene between Oliver and Jordana. The film, by contrast, does not. I wonder why this is. So I ask Ayoade and Roberts about the lack of sex in their movie and then worry that I sound like a pervert. Ayoade confirms that I do. “We cut all of the graphic sex scenes,” he says. “Because it was getting really fairly oppressive”. Perhaps, I venture, these scenes will make the DVD extras? “Yeah – in a way – even in jest, shall we truncate this? This is starting to sound really grim.” Erotophobia is an irrational and potentially debilitating fear of some object, person or act that is related to sex. Roberts, apparently oblivious to Ayoade’s condition, says something and we change tack. It is undoubtedly for the best. “I mean, doing this I’d like to erase most of the stuff I’ve done before – it was very over-the-top,” he is telling me. “I’ve never really done deadpan. I love deadpan. I think it’s probably the way forward. It’s more real.” Some deadpan performers that both Richard and Craig like: Buster Keaton, Dustin Hoffman, Jesse Eisenberg, Robbie Williams – “Especially in his video work,” Ayoade explains. “What’s he thinking? That’s that I want to know. What’s going on behind those eyes? The man’s an enigma. I always put him and Salinger in the same camp.” Ayoade does this a lot – swings between sarcastic and sincere. It’s interesting. He talks about his film as if it is something that happened to him, something that is beyond his control: “The thing that one person hates about it is the thing that another person likes. The only thing that feels easy is the stuff that you don’t have much to do with.” I think he means that he’s worried that people will misunderstand him. If so, I understand him. “Given enough space to talk about something, I will dissuade people from looking at anything I’ve done and say everything I’ve done is awful,” he says.” That’s generally where my head ends up going to in conversation.” His eye contact is poor now. Again, this is something I can relate to. Eye contact is one of those things – like tennis – that people think they are great at before they’re even OK. “Talking about something you’ve done is just really difficult because you just can’t really be objective about it,” Ayoade says. “Your concerns are probably not other people’s concerns, things that other people like are probably accidents. Who knows … it’s … yeah.” He pauses and stops. I think of the word monologophobia, which is the fear of using the same word twice. Then I think about a questionnaire that I would give to Ayoade and Roberts after this interview if I wanted to get to know them better. My first question would be this: Are you aware that your film is very good? Comedy Henry Barnes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The first-time director and his star discuss crumpets, graphic sex scenes and making a coming-of-age film that’s really very good Richard Ayoade has ordered black tea with lemon (for squeezing). He will drink half of the tea before deciding it is not strong enough. The lemon will remain untouched. This tells me that he has trouble making decisions and when he does, questions them regularly. I consider myself an excellent judge of character. Craig Roberts, the star of Ayoade’s film Submarine , tells me how the director used to eat four crumpets every day before arriving on set. Ayoade says he doesn’t understand crumpets. He doesn’t get how the holes get in there. This is banter. I think about telling him that the holes are produced when air bubbles in a light, frothy crumpet batter rise and up and burst when the mixture is put in a pan on a medium heat, but I don’t, because I want him to feel at ease. Some people are threatened by knowledge. Ayoade’s film is based on a book by Joe Dunthorne . It’s about a teenage boy called Oliver Tate (played by Roberts) who has trouble communicating with his parents (who he thinks are about to split up) and his girlfriend, Jordana (who he thinks he would like to sleep with). It is thoughtful and funny and sad. The book contains a very graphic sex scene between Oliver and Jordana. The film, by contrast, does not. I wonder why this is. So I ask Ayoade and Roberts about the lack of sex in their movie and then worry that I sound like a pervert. Ayoade confirms that I do. “We cut all of the graphic sex scenes,” he says. “Because it was getting really fairly oppressive”. Perhaps, I venture, these scenes will make the DVD extras? “Yeah – in a way – even in jest, shall we truncate this? This is starting to sound really grim.” Erotophobia is an irrational and potentially debilitating fear of some object, person or act that is related to sex. Roberts, apparently oblivious to Ayoade’s condition, says something and we change tack. It is undoubtedly for the best. “I mean, doing this I’d like to erase most of the stuff I’ve done before – it was very over-the-top,” he is telling me. “I’ve never really done deadpan. I love deadpan. I think it’s probably the way forward. It’s more real.” Some deadpan performers that both Richard and Craig like: Buster Keaton, Dustin Hoffman, Jesse Eisenberg, Robbie Williams – “Especially in his video work,” Ayoade explains. “What’s he thinking? That’s that I want to know. What’s going on behind those eyes? The man’s an enigma. I always put him and Salinger in the same camp.” Ayoade does this a lot – swings between sarcastic and sincere. It’s interesting. He talks about his film as if it is something that happened to him, something that is beyond his control: “The thing that one person hates about it is the thing that another person likes. The only thing that feels easy is the stuff that you don’t have much to do with.” I think he means that he’s worried that people will misunderstand him. If so, I understand him. “Given enough space to talk about something, I will dissuade people from looking at anything I’ve done and say everything I’ve done is awful,” he says.” That’s generally where my head ends up going to in conversation.” His eye contact is poor now. Again, this is something I can relate to. Eye contact is one of those things – like tennis – that people think they are great at before they’re even OK. “Talking about something you’ve done is just really difficult because you just can’t really be objective about it,” Ayoade says. “Your concerns are probably not other people’s concerns, things that other people like are probably accidents. Who knows … it’s … yeah.” He pauses and stops. I think of the word monologophobia, which is the fear of using the same word twice. Then I think about a questionnaire that I would give to Ayoade and Roberts after this interview if I wanted to get to know them better. My first question would be this: Are you aware that your film is very good? Comedy Henry Barnes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rolling covering of all the day’s political developments as they happen. 1.00pm: Here’s a lunchtime summary. • The British Medical Association has urged the government to abandon its health reforms. At an emergency meeting, BMA members called for “a halt to the proposed top-down reorganisation of the NHS”. The doctors said the health and social care bill should be abandoned. “What we have seen is an often contradictory set of proposals, driven by ideology rather than evidence, enshrined in ill-thought-through legislation and implemented in a rush during a major economic downturn,” Dr Hamish Meldrum, the BMA chairman, told the meeting. (See 12.16pm.) • Labour has tabled amendments to the health bill designed to give NHS providers some protection from private sector competition. Under the bill, Monitor, the new healthcare regulator, will be able to ensure that competition law applies to NHS contracts. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said this would give Monitor the same powers as the Office of Fair Trading to impose fines of up to 10% of turnover for anti-competitive practices. He said private firms could could use this to mount persistent challenges to deals struck by GP consortiums to commission services from local hospitals or hospices. Labour’s amendments to the bill would protect NHS contracts from competition law challenges of this kind. Healey said that, without changes to the bill, “private companies with big legal departments are going to cause havoc with the ability to plan and run services.” • Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, has said that his plans to reform the libel laws will protect anyone who “makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion”. Publishing his draft defamation bill, Clarke said: “The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society.” The draft bill would “ensure that anyone who makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion can do so with confidence”, he said. “However it is never acceptable to harm someone’s reputation without just cause, so the bill will ensure defamation law continues to balance the needs of both sides and encourage a just outcome in libel cases.” According to the Press Association, controversial issues for libel reform campaigners – including whether to give internet service providers greater protection and whether specific limits should be placed on a firm’s ability to bring a defamation action – have been left out of the bill. • William Hague, the foreign secretary, has confirmed that G8 foreign ministers failed to agree on the need for a no-fly zone over Libya when they met in Paris this morning. “While not every nation sees eye to eye on issues such as a no-fly zone, there is a common appetite to increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime,” Hague said. The foreign ministers are publishing a communique that does not mention no-fly zones. Germany’ foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said: “Military intervention is not the solution. From our point of view it is very difficult and dangerous. We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa and we would not like to step on a slippery slope where we all are at the end in a war.” 12.16pm: Almost 400 doctors attended the BMA’s emergency meeting today where members voted in favour of calling on Andrew Lansley to abandon his NHS reforms. Here’s an extract from the Press Association story about this morning’s vote. [Doctors] said the government should act on criticisms from those who are opposed to the bill and accept there is “no electoral mandate” for the plans. The proposals in the Bill were not part of the election manifesto of either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, they said … Doctors also accused Lansley of using “inaccurate and misleading information to denigrate the NHS”, by comparing UK cancer and heart disease rates with those in Europe. Doctors also voted for the government to recognise that primary care trusts (PCTs), which face abolition, are currently losing staff and risk collapse, and for the Government not to undermine their current functions. Addressing the meeting, BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said the government’s reforms could have “irreversible consequences” and would damage patient care. He said the NHS was potentially facing the biggest reorganisation of its 63-year history. He said: “The government’s proposed reforms have far-reaching and potentially irreversible consequences for how the NHS is run and the way we deliver care to our patients.” He said it was difficult to argue against some of the government’s claimed objectives, including greater involvement of clinicians in decision-making and more information for patients. “But, as on so many occasions, it’s the reality not the rhetoric that counts and it’s the reality that is causing all the problems,” he said. “Because what we have seen is an often contradictory set of proposals, driven by ideology rather than evidence, enshrined in ill-thought-through legislation and implemented in a rush during a major economic downturn.” 11.55am: The BMA has just voted in favour of a demand for Andrew Lansley to withdraw his health bill, the BBC is reporting. 11.41am: Getting other countries to agree to a no-fly zone over Libya seems to be a bit of a struggle. G8 foreign ministers have been meeting in Paris this morning. William Hague, the foreign secretary, said afterwards that there was agreement about wanting to “increase the pressure on Gaddafi” and tighten sanctions. But he confirmed that some countries were still opposed to a no-fly zone. While not every nation sees eye to eye on issues such as a no-fly zone, there is a common appetite to increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime. There is a common sense of being appalled at what has been done in the name of the Gaddafi regime and a clear appetite for further discussion at the United Nations security council about what we do. According to Reuters, the communique to be issued by G8 foreign ministers will not mention a no-fly zone. According to the Associated Press, Guido Westerwelle, Germany’s foreign minister, said his country was “very sceptical” about the prospect of a no-fly zone. Germany doesn’t want “to get sucked into a war in North Africa”, he said. 11.19am: The GMB union has also criticised Will Hutton’s public sector fair pay report. This is from Brian Strutton, the GMB’s national secretary. The report is strong on theory but confused in its recommendations. Openness, transparency and informed public debate are good principles and I hope Mr Hutton’s recommendation that private contractors and 3rd sector providers of public services be included is adopted; because it’s outside the public sector where the worst excesses occur. That’s all good sense. However the idea that basic pay should be ‘at risk’ or that there should be ‘productivity sharing deals’ do not seem practical or desirable in the current environment of massive public sector cuts. The main disappointment is that Mr Hutton has only focused on one end of the pay gap – he could have recommended steps to close the high/low pay disparity through improvements for the low paid. With hundreds of thousands of part-time female public service workers at or just above the minimum wage this is an economically disadvantaged group that Hutton should have given some hope to. 10.53am: The Unite union has strongly criticised Will Hutton’s public sector fair pay review. (See 9.34am.) The union is particularly unhappy about the fact that RBS – a state-owned bank – was not included in the scope of the review. But it is quite damning about the conclusions in general. This is from Gail Cartmail, Unite’s assistant general secretary. This was a golden opportunity to bring a sense of reality into bosses’ pay in the public sector – but what Will Hutton has come up with is both ineffectual and spineless. Will Hutton is a good man – but on this occasion, he is misguided. His conclusions will be used as window dressing, while this government gets on with its real business – that of placating the rich and powerful at the expense of working people. This was a great opportunity to inject much needed fairness into the pay of some chief executives in the public sector, which give such a bad image about the public service ethos. However, that opportunity has been squandered and made worse by the biggest earners being excluded from the remit of the review. 10.46am: You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here. As for the rest of the papers, here are three articles worth noting. • Sue Cameron in the Financial Times (subscription) says that David Cameron’s decision to attack “the bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules” in his speech to the Tory spring conference has infuriated senior civil servants. Officials expressed such dismay about the prime minister’s remarks that it is understood Jeremy Heywood, the senior civil servant at Number 10, was asked by Sir Gus O’Donnell, cabinet secretary, to “calm things down”. Mr Heywood, a high flyer once tipped as a contender for the cabinet secretary’s job, apparently saw an advance copy of the prime minister’s remarks – unlike Sir Gus, who is said to have been displeased by Mr Cameron’s words. Sir Gus asked Mr Heywood for an explanation on Wednesday at the regular weekly meeting of permanent secretaries, the top officials in each government department. Mr Heywood is believed to have said that Downing Street recognised it had not handled the matter adroitly and the speech had gone down badly in Whitehall. He also admitted that the speech had been prepared in a hurry and the resulting headlines had not been what Number 10 wanted. However, the attack on the “enemies of enterprise” was included in the briefing given to journalists on the eve of the speech, suggesting that Mr Cameron’s team was hoping the extracts would receive wide coverage. • Frances Gibb in the Times (paywall) says the reforms being announced by Kenneth Clarke today will try to end London’s reputation as libel capital of the world. Courts will be given powers to strike out all trivial claims and to stop “libel tourism” in which people abroad with tenuous links with Britain try to sue for libel here. Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is also expected to publish a draft Defamation Bill proposing the first statutory “public interest” defence to give the media greater protection when publishing stories. The law on publication on the internet will also be overhauled and updated and costly trial by jury will be all but abolished. The move comes as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose private Defamation Bill was the blueprint for the Government’s proposals, writes in The Times today that the present law of defamation is flawed and notorious. Its main beneficiaries are the “rich and powerful” and their “avaricious lawyers”, he says. • Helena Kennedy and 19 other lawyers say in a letter to the Times (paywall) that the argument that the alternative vote undermines the principle of one person, one vote, has been tested – and rejected – in the US courts. The allegation was legally tested in the United States, where more and more cities are adopting the alternative vote (AV) system because it challenges the power of big vested interests, creating a more level playing field. A court challenge was mounted after one city election. It was claimed that AV gave minority candidates two votes and treated voters “unequally”. If the claims held any water, such a system would be unconstitutional. The court found “no merit” in the claim. The judge ruled emphatically that AV was in full compliance with the US constitution. It did not give anyone more than one vote. It treated people equally. In his decision, Judge James Fleming wrote: “Each voter has the same right at the time he casts his or her ballot. Each voter has his or her ballot counted once in any count that determines whether one candidate has a majority of the votes. Each voter has the same opportunity as the next voter.” 10.33am: Extra firearms officers are being trained to respond to a possible Mumbai-style terror attack by gunmen on the streets of Britain, Lady Neville-Jones, the security minister, told a RUSI conference this morning. Here’s an extract from the Press Assocation story. Neville-Jones said the UK was preparing “to be able to respond to a terrorist incident like the world witnessed in Mumbai”. More officers are being trained to respond to an armed attack, the level of firearms training is increasing and ministers are involved in mock scenarios, she said. Lady Neville-Jones said the UK faced a “serious and sustained” threat which had not diminished in recent years. “The possibility of a scenario similar to the devastating incident in Mumbai in 2008 is one for which we must be prepared,” she said. “We have been training more officers to respond to armed attack and enhancing the existing levels of firearms training. “Police and other emergency responders have been working together to improve their response.” She added that the training exercises involving ministers were “very testing”, adding: “It clearly is only a fraction of the pressures ministers will face in a real situation.” 10.18am: The price of smartphone “apps” is going to help determine the level of inflation, the Office for National Statistics revealed today. Here’s an extract from the Press Association story. Smartphones and the “apps” that run on them have been added to the updated basket of goods and services used to calculate UK inflation rates. Phone applications are replacing mobile phone downloads, such as ringtones and wallpaper, while the updated basket will also include dating agency fees for the first time, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. The latest snapshot of the nation’s spending habits also showed the addition of sparkling wines due to their increased consumption. As new legislation is coming into force this year restricting the sale of cigarettes, vending machine cigarettes are being removed from the basket. Other casualties include the pork shoulder, which is being replaced by oven-ready joints as people consume more prepared foods. The ONS collects about 180,000 prices every month for a basket of about 650 goods and services – the most comprehensive survey of its kind in the UK. 10.08am: For the record, here are the latest YouGov GB polling figures. Labour: 44% (up 14 points from the general election) Conservatives: 35% (down 2) Lib Dems: 9% (down 15) Labour lead: 9 points Government approval: -28 9.34am: The TUC and the CBI have both sent out comments on the findings of Will Hutton’s review into fair pay in the public sector. Polly Curtis has written up the report’s findings in full for today’s paper. Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, is particularly keen on Hutton’s suggestion that publicly limited companies should have to publish “pay multiples” – the ratio between top pay and average pay. This review makes a range of challenging proposals for change in the public sector, including greater pay transparency at the top. But crucially it is also a welcome starting point to tackle the greatest unfairness – boardroom excess in the private sector. It has been the growing pay gap between the boardroom and ordinary staff in the private sector that has caused mounting household debt and squeezed wages over the last 30 years, not a few well remunerated chief executives in the public sector. Making PLCs publish pay multiples and introducing workforce representation on remuneration committees are welcome proposals that should be implemented in the budget. But the millions of public servants facing real terms pay cuts and pension hikes will be disappointed that the review has so little to say about low pay in the public sector. Our hope is that ministers use this report to take a closer look at fairness in pay across the public and private sectors. Failure to do this could turn it into a fruitless exercise in public sector bashing. But the CBI isn’t so keen on getting PLCs to publish “pay multiples’ data. This is from Katja Hall, its chief policy director. We must be careful about judging pay fairness by a single number, like the ratio of executive to median pay. While Hutton is right that there should be more transparency and understanding about how pay is set in the public sector, a single ratio can be misleading. Differences in the sizes and make-up of workforces lead to a variety of pay differentials based on very valid grounds. You can read the Hutton report in full here (pdf). And here is a summary. 8.57am: Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, is under fire at the moment on various fronts. He was on BBC News this morning defending himself. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he had to say. • Lansley played down reports that two more health organisations have refused to sign up to the government’s “responsibility deal” on public health. Around 170 organisations have signed up, he said. • He claimed that co-operating with the food and drink industry on public health was delivering results. Working together is enabling us to do more. Now, where alcohol is concerned, for example at the moment we’ve had only about 15% up to now of drinks having unit labelling. We think that would have got to 30 or 40% without this action. The industry is committed, by the end of of 2030 to get to 80%. • He said that he had already changed the health bill to rule out competition on price. The BMA was worried, they said ‘Look, we don’t want to be in a position – I understand this – where there is any conflict between the price that is payable to a healthcare provider, the services provider and our decision on behalf of our patients’ … We’ve amended [the legislation] to make it very clear that at the point, the competition in the NHS will be on the basis of quality. At the point where patients choose, GPs refer patients, they will do so between a range of providers who will have the same price paid to them, so the competition, the decision that is made by everybody within the NHS, will be on the basis of quality. 8.37am: Things may change, of course, but at the moment it looks as if it’s going to be a relatively humdrum day on the politics front. Here are the items in the diary. 9am: Lady Neville-Jones , the security minister, gives a speech at a RUSI conference on terrorism. 10am: The British Medical Association holds an emergency meeting to discuss the government’s health reform plans. “We want to put more pressure on the government to change what are flawed and very risky proposals for the NHS,” Dr Hamish Meldrum , the BMA chairman, told the BBC earlier. 10am: Peter Luff , the defence minister, and Bernard Gray , head of MoD procurement, speak at the Defence Academy. 10.30am: Sir David Nicholson , chief executive of the NHS, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about NHS trust procurement. 11am: The People’s Pledge launches its campaign for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. 11.45am: Kenneth Clarke , the justice secretary, publishes the draft defamation bill. 2.15pm : The OECD launches an economic survey of the UK. 2.30pm: Chris Huhne , the energy secretary, gives evidence to a Commons committee on electricity market reform. 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. Kenneth Clarke Health policy Health Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rolling covering of all the day’s political developments as they happen. 1.00pm: Here’s a lunchtime summary. • The British Medical Association has urged the government to abandon its health reforms. At an emergency meeting, BMA members called for “a halt to the proposed top-down reorganisation of the NHS”. The doctors said the health and social care bill should be abandoned. “What we have seen is an often contradictory set of proposals, driven by ideology rather than evidence, enshrined in ill-thought-through legislation and implemented in a rush during a major economic downturn,” Dr Hamish Meldrum, the BMA chairman, told the meeting. (See 12.16pm.) • Labour has tabled amendments to the health bill designed to give NHS providers some protection from private sector competition. Under the bill, Monitor, the new healthcare regulator, will be able to ensure that competition law applies to NHS contracts. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said this would give Monitor the same powers as the Office of Fair Trading to impose fines of up to 10% of turnover for anti-competitive practices. He said private firms could could use this to mount persistent challenges to deals struck by GP consortiums to commission services from local hospitals or hospices. Labour’s amendments to the bill would protect NHS contracts from competition law challenges of this kind. Healey said that, without changes to the bill, “private companies with big legal departments are going to cause havoc with the ability to plan and run services.” • Kenneth Clarke, the justice secretary, has said that his plans to reform the libel laws will protect anyone who “makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion”. Publishing his draft defamation bill, Clarke said: “The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society.” The draft bill would “ensure that anyone who makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion can do so with confidence”, he said. “However it is never acceptable to harm someone’s reputation without just cause, so the bill will ensure defamation law continues to balance the needs of both sides and encourage a just outcome in libel cases.” According to the Press Association, controversial issues for libel reform campaigners – including whether to give internet service providers greater protection and whether specific limits should be placed on a firm’s ability to bring a defamation action – have been left out of the bill. • William Hague, the foreign secretary, has confirmed that G8 foreign ministers failed to agree on the need for a no-fly zone over Libya when they met in Paris this morning. “While not every nation sees eye to eye on issues such as a no-fly zone, there is a common appetite to increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime,” Hague said. The foreign ministers are publishing a communique that does not mention no-fly zones. Germany’ foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said: “Military intervention is not the solution. From our point of view it is very difficult and dangerous. We do not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa and we would not like to step on a slippery slope where we all are at the end in a war.” 12.16pm: Almost 400 doctors attended the BMA’s emergency meeting today where members voted in favour of calling on Andrew Lansley to abandon his NHS reforms. Here’s an extract from the Press Association story about this morning’s vote. [Doctors] said the government should act on criticisms from those who are opposed to the bill and accept there is “no electoral mandate” for the plans. The proposals in the Bill were not part of the election manifesto of either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, they said … Doctors also accused Lansley of using “inaccurate and misleading information to denigrate the NHS”, by comparing UK cancer and heart disease rates with those in Europe. Doctors also voted for the government to recognise that primary care trusts (PCTs), which face abolition, are currently losing staff and risk collapse, and for the Government not to undermine their current functions. Addressing the meeting, BMA chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum said the government’s reforms could have “irreversible consequences” and would damage patient care. He said the NHS was potentially facing the biggest reorganisation of its 63-year history. He said: “The government’s proposed reforms have far-reaching and potentially irreversible consequences for how the NHS is run and the way we deliver care to our patients.” He said it was difficult to argue against some of the government’s claimed objectives, including greater involvement of clinicians in decision-making and more information for patients. “But, as on so many occasions, it’s the reality not the rhetoric that counts and it’s the reality that is causing all the problems,” he said. “Because what we have seen is an often contradictory set of proposals, driven by ideology rather than evidence, enshrined in ill-thought-through legislation and implemented in a rush during a major economic downturn.” 11.55am: The BMA has just voted in favour of a demand for Andrew Lansley to withdraw his health bill, the BBC is reporting. 11.41am: Getting other countries to agree to a no-fly zone over Libya seems to be a bit of a struggle. G8 foreign ministers have been meeting in Paris this morning. William Hague, the foreign secretary, said afterwards that there was agreement about wanting to “increase the pressure on Gaddafi” and tighten sanctions. But he confirmed that some countries were still opposed to a no-fly zone. While not every nation sees eye to eye on issues such as a no-fly zone, there is a common appetite to increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime. There is a common sense of being appalled at what has been done in the name of the Gaddafi regime and a clear appetite for further discussion at the United Nations security council about what we do. According to Reuters, the communique to be issued by G8 foreign ministers will not mention a no-fly zone. According to the Associated Press, Guido Westerwelle, Germany’s foreign minister, said his country was “very sceptical” about the prospect of a no-fly zone. Germany doesn’t want “to get sucked into a war in North Africa”, he said. 11.19am: The GMB union has also criticised Will Hutton’s public sector fair pay report. This is from Brian Strutton, the GMB’s national secretary. The report is strong on theory but confused in its recommendations. Openness, transparency and informed public debate are good principles and I hope Mr Hutton’s recommendation that private contractors and 3rd sector providers of public services be included is adopted; because it’s outside the public sector where the worst excesses occur. That’s all good sense. However the idea that basic pay should be ‘at risk’ or that there should be ‘productivity sharing deals’ do not seem practical or desirable in the current environment of massive public sector cuts. The main disappointment is that Mr Hutton has only focused on one end of the pay gap – he could have recommended steps to close the high/low pay disparity through improvements for the low paid. With hundreds of thousands of part-time female public service workers at or just above the minimum wage this is an economically disadvantaged group that Hutton should have given some hope to. 10.53am: The Unite union has strongly criticised Will Hutton’s public sector fair pay review. (See 9.34am.) The union is particularly unhappy about the fact that RBS – a state-owned bank – was not included in the scope of the review. But it is quite damning about the conclusions in general. This is from Gail Cartmail, Unite’s assistant general secretary. This was a golden opportunity to bring a sense of reality into bosses’ pay in the public sector – but what Will Hutton has come up with is both ineffectual and spineless. Will Hutton is a good man – but on this occasion, he is misguided. His conclusions will be used as window dressing, while this government gets on with its real business – that of placating the rich and powerful at the expense of working people. This was a great opportunity to inject much needed fairness into the pay of some chief executives in the public sector, which give such a bad image about the public service ethos. However, that opportunity has been squandered and made worse by the biggest earners being excluded from the remit of the review. 10.46am: You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here. As for the rest of the papers, here are three articles worth noting. • Sue Cameron in the Financial Times (subscription) says that David Cameron’s decision to attack “the bureaucrats in government departments who concoct those ridiculous rules” in his speech to the Tory spring conference has infuriated senior civil servants. Officials expressed such dismay about the prime minister’s remarks that it is understood Jeremy Heywood, the senior civil servant at Number 10, was asked by Sir Gus O’Donnell, cabinet secretary, to “calm things down”. Mr Heywood, a high flyer once tipped as a contender for the cabinet secretary’s job, apparently saw an advance copy of the prime minister’s remarks – unlike Sir Gus, who is said to have been displeased by Mr Cameron’s words. Sir Gus asked Mr Heywood for an explanation on Wednesday at the regular weekly meeting of permanent secretaries, the top officials in each government department. Mr Heywood is believed to have said that Downing Street recognised it had not handled the matter adroitly and the speech had gone down badly in Whitehall. He also admitted that the speech had been prepared in a hurry and the resulting headlines had not been what Number 10 wanted. However, the attack on the “enemies of enterprise” was included in the briefing given to journalists on the eve of the speech, suggesting that Mr Cameron’s team was hoping the extracts would receive wide coverage. • Frances Gibb in the Times (paywall) says the reforms being announced by Kenneth Clarke today will try to end London’s reputation as libel capital of the world. Courts will be given powers to strike out all trivial claims and to stop “libel tourism” in which people abroad with tenuous links with Britain try to sue for libel here. Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, is also expected to publish a draft Defamation Bill proposing the first statutory “public interest” defence to give the media greater protection when publishing stories. The law on publication on the internet will also be overhauled and updated and costly trial by jury will be all but abolished. The move comes as Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose private Defamation Bill was the blueprint for the Government’s proposals, writes in The Times today that the present law of defamation is flawed and notorious. Its main beneficiaries are the “rich and powerful” and their “avaricious lawyers”, he says. • Helena Kennedy and 19 other lawyers say in a letter to the Times (paywall) that the argument that the alternative vote undermines the principle of one person, one vote, has been tested – and rejected – in the US courts. The allegation was legally tested in the United States, where more and more cities are adopting the alternative vote (AV) system because it challenges the power of big vested interests, creating a more level playing field. A court challenge was mounted after one city election. It was claimed that AV gave minority candidates two votes and treated voters “unequally”. If the claims held any water, such a system would be unconstitutional. The court found “no merit” in the claim. The judge ruled emphatically that AV was in full compliance with the US constitution. It did not give anyone more than one vote. It treated people equally. In his decision, Judge James Fleming wrote: “Each voter has the same right at the time he casts his or her ballot. Each voter has his or her ballot counted once in any count that determines whether one candidate has a majority of the votes. Each voter has the same opportunity as the next voter.” 10.33am: Extra firearms officers are being trained to respond to a possible Mumbai-style terror attack by gunmen on the streets of Britain, Lady Neville-Jones, the security minister, told a RUSI conference this morning. Here’s an extract from the Press Assocation story. Neville-Jones said the UK was preparing “to be able to respond to a terrorist incident like the world witnessed in Mumbai”. More officers are being trained to respond to an armed attack, the level of firearms training is increasing and ministers are involved in mock scenarios, she said. Lady Neville-Jones said the UK faced a “serious and sustained” threat which had not diminished in recent years. “The possibility of a scenario similar to the devastating incident in Mumbai in 2008 is one for which we must be prepared,” she said. “We have been training more officers to respond to armed attack and enhancing the existing levels of firearms training. “Police and other emergency responders have been working together to improve their response.” She added that the training exercises involving ministers were “very testing”, adding: “It clearly is only a fraction of the pressures ministers will face in a real situation.” 10.18am: The price of smartphone “apps” is going to help determine the level of inflation, the Office for National Statistics revealed today. Here’s an extract from the Press Association story. Smartphones and the “apps” that run on them have been added to the updated basket of goods and services used to calculate UK inflation rates. Phone applications are replacing mobile phone downloads, such as ringtones and wallpaper, while the updated basket will also include dating agency fees for the first time, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. The latest snapshot of the nation’s spending habits also showed the addition of sparkling wines due to their increased consumption. As new legislation is coming into force this year restricting the sale of cigarettes, vending machine cigarettes are being removed from the basket. Other casualties include the pork shoulder, which is being replaced by oven-ready joints as people consume more prepared foods. The ONS collects about 180,000 prices every month for a basket of about 650 goods and services – the most comprehensive survey of its kind in the UK. 10.08am: For the record, here are the latest YouGov GB polling figures. Labour: 44% (up 14 points from the general election) Conservatives: 35% (down 2) Lib Dems: 9% (down 15) Labour lead: 9 points Government approval: -28 9.34am: The TUC and the CBI have both sent out comments on the findings of Will Hutton’s review into fair pay in the public sector. Polly Curtis has written up the report’s findings in full for today’s paper. Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, is particularly keen on Hutton’s suggestion that publicly limited companies should have to publish “pay multiples” – the ratio between top pay and average pay. This review makes a range of challenging proposals for change in the public sector, including greater pay transparency at the top. But crucially it is also a welcome starting point to tackle the greatest unfairness – boardroom excess in the private sector. It has been the growing pay gap between the boardroom and ordinary staff in the private sector that has caused mounting household debt and squeezed wages over the last 30 years, not a few well remunerated chief executives in the public sector. Making PLCs publish pay multiples and introducing workforce representation on remuneration committees are welcome proposals that should be implemented in the budget. But the millions of public servants facing real terms pay cuts and pension hikes will be disappointed that the review has so little to say about low pay in the public sector. Our hope is that ministers use this report to take a closer look at fairness in pay across the public and private sectors. Failure to do this could turn it into a fruitless exercise in public sector bashing. But the CBI isn’t so keen on getting PLCs to publish “pay multiples’ data. This is from Katja Hall, its chief policy director. We must be careful about judging pay fairness by a single number, like the ratio of executive to median pay. While Hutton is right that there should be more transparency and understanding about how pay is set in the public sector, a single ratio can be misleading. Differences in the sizes and make-up of workforces lead to a variety of pay differentials based on very valid grounds. You can read the Hutton report in full here (pdf). And here is a summary. 8.57am: Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, is under fire at the moment on various fronts. He was on BBC News this morning defending himself. According to PoliticsHome, this is what he had to say. • Lansley played down reports that two more health organisations have refused to sign up to the government’s “responsibility deal” on public health. Around 170 organisations have signed up, he said. • He claimed that co-operating with the food and drink industry on public health was delivering results. Working together is enabling us to do more. Now, where alcohol is concerned, for example at the moment we’ve had only about 15% up to now of drinks having unit labelling. We think that would have got to 30 or 40% without this action. The industry is committed, by the end of of 2030 to get to 80%. • He said that he had already changed the health bill to rule out competition on price. The BMA was worried, they said ‘Look, we don’t want to be in a position – I understand this – where there is any conflict between the price that is payable to a healthcare provider, the services provider and our decision on behalf of our patients’ … We’ve amended [the legislation] to make it very clear that at the point, the competition in the NHS will be on the basis of quality. At the point where patients choose, GPs refer patients, they will do so between a range of providers who will have the same price paid to them, so the competition, the decision that is made by everybody within the NHS, will be on the basis of quality. 8.37am: Things may change, of course, but at the moment it looks as if it’s going to be a relatively humdrum day on the politics front. Here are the items in the diary. 9am: Lady Neville-Jones , the security minister, gives a speech at a RUSI conference on terrorism. 10am: The British Medical Association holds an emergency meeting to discuss the government’s health reform plans. “We want to put more pressure on the government to change what are flawed and very risky proposals for the NHS,” Dr Hamish Meldrum , the BMA chairman, told the BBC earlier. 10am: Peter Luff , the defence minister, and Bernard Gray , head of MoD procurement, speak at the Defence Academy. 10.30am: Sir David Nicholson , chief executive of the NHS, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about NHS trust procurement. 11am: The People’s Pledge launches its campaign for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU. 11.45am: Kenneth Clarke , the justice secretary, publishes the draft defamation bill. 2.15pm : The OECD launches an economic survey of the UK. 2.30pm: Chris Huhne , the energy secretary, gives evidence to a Commons committee on electricity market reform. 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. Kenneth Clarke Health policy Health Andrew Sparrow guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Democracy is okay only when it doesn’t threaten the royal families of the Middle East, I guess: Saudi Arabia has moved decisively to bolster Bahrain’s embattled royal family, sending military forces across the causeway linking the two kingdoms after violent weekend pro-democracy protests by Shia demonstrators all but overwhelmed police. Although the deployment on Monday was at Bahrain’s request and came under the guise of the Gulf Co-operation Council, whose other members also sent troops, it marked another stage in Saudi Arabia’s reluctant emergence as the key regional policeman, at a time when the Arab world faces unprecedented turmoil. Confirming local media reports, Nabeel al-Hamer, a former Bahrain information minister, said the reinforcements were already in place. “Forces from the Gulf Co-operation Council have arrived in Bahrain to maintain order and security,” he said. “GCC forces will arrive in Bahrain today to take part in maintaining law and order,” the Gulf Daily News reported. “Their mission will be limited to protecting vital facilities, such as oil, electricity and water installations, and financial and banking facilities.” The deployment followed clashes in Bahrain on Sunday that injured dozens of people in what was one of the most violent demonstrations since troops killed seven protesters last month. Responding to demands for more democracy and an end to sectarian discrimination, Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, has promised national dialogue, enhanced powers for parliament, electoral reform, and a nationwide referendum on any new deal. But opponents, including the largest Shia party, Wefaq, remain sceptical. Wefaq said today it had held talks with the prince about a national dialogue. But it deplored the GCC intervention, reportedly saying a deployment of Saudi troops would be an occupation and amount to a declaration of war.
Continue reading …Democracy is okay only when it doesn’t threaten the royal families of the Middle East, I guess: Saudi Arabia has moved decisively to bolster Bahrain’s embattled royal family, sending military forces across the causeway linking the two kingdoms after violent weekend pro-democracy protests by Shia demonstrators all but overwhelmed police. Although the deployment on Monday was at Bahrain’s request and came under the guise of the Gulf Co-operation Council, whose other members also sent troops, it marked another stage in Saudi Arabia’s reluctant emergence as the key regional policeman, at a time when the Arab world faces unprecedented turmoil. Confirming local media reports, Nabeel al-Hamer, a former Bahrain information minister, said the reinforcements were already in place. “Forces from the Gulf Co-operation Council have arrived in Bahrain to maintain order and security,” he said. “GCC forces will arrive in Bahrain today to take part in maintaining law and order,” the Gulf Daily News reported. “Their mission will be limited to protecting vital facilities, such as oil, electricity and water installations, and financial and banking facilities.” The deployment followed clashes in Bahrain on Sunday that injured dozens of people in what was one of the most violent demonstrations since troops killed seven protesters last month. Responding to demands for more democracy and an end to sectarian discrimination, Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, has promised national dialogue, enhanced powers for parliament, electoral reform, and a nationwide referendum on any new deal. But opponents, including the largest Shia party, Wefaq, remain sceptical. Wefaq said today it had held talks with the prince about a national dialogue. But it deplored the GCC intervention, reportedly saying a deployment of Saudi troops would be an occupation and amount to a declaration of war.
Continue reading …
Mika Brzezinski might be horrified by a hand-tossed pizza, but she's completely unfazed by the 2012 Republican presidential field.
Continue reading …
Experts predict prices will continue to fall as fewer people are getting loans and many are falling behind repayments The average price of a UK home fell by 1.4% in January to £208,552 according to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The annual rate of house price inflation dipped to 0.5% in January, compared to 3.8% in December and a peak of 10.6% in May 2010, according to the DCLG house price index. It was the eighth consecutive month during which the annual rate of house price inflation has fallen. Negative housing market data was also announced by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which showed new loans to borrowers reached £37bn in the fourth quarter of 2010 – a drop of 10% compared to the previous quarter and an 11% fall compared to the final quarter of 2009. The FSA said the number of new arrears cases increased in the final three months of last year to 38,800 – 6% higher than the previous quarter but still 5% below the 40,900 cases in the fourth quarter of 2009 . The total number of accounts in arrears at the end of 2010 was 343,400, unchanged from last quarter. The DCLG added that average house prices increased by 1.0% in England in the year to January, but decreased by 1.8% in Wales and fell by 3.2% in Scotland and 14.1% in Northern Ireland. It takes the average price of a home to £216,304 in England, £147,862 in Northern Ireland, £165,078 in Scotland and £145,744 in Wales. House prices increased in five of the nine English regions during the year to January 2011. The largest increase was in the east (4.0%) and the smallest was in the south east (0.6%). Yorkshire and the Humber saw the largest annual fall of 4.6%, while Scotland and the West Midlands both recorded a 3.2% fall. DCLG also said the average price for properties bought by first time buyers increased by 1.5% to £153,608 over the year to January , compared to an annual increase of 1.4% in December. During January alone, prices paid by first time buyers increased by 0.7%, compared to a 0.5% monthly increase in January last year. Housing experts said the DCLG data, based on mortgage completions figures collected by the Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML), further reinforced their belief that the housing market is weakening. The CML data last week showed a 29% drop in house sales in January compared to December. Nicholas Ayre of property search agent Home Fusion , said: “The 1.4% decline in January does seem indicative of the direction house prices will go during 2011, namely down. At best, the market will remain flat this year, at worst it is heading for further falls, especially in areas where unemployment is rising sharply. “In the property market, the negatives outweigh the positives and in some areas, especially those overly reliant on public sector jobs, there are very few positives. Supply has slowed in recent weeks, easing the pressure on prices, but this could change rapidly when interest rates rise. This week’s unemployment data will also have a bearing on consumer confidence and therefore the demand for property. “As ever, there is a split in the market between the top end, where demand is still strong and mortgage finance achievable, and the lower end, where demand is weak and mortgage finance very difficult to secure.” Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight , said the figures were “fully consistent” with his view that house prices will continue to trend down in 2011 after losing ground overall in the latter months of 2010. “Specifically, we suspect that house prices will fall by around 5% in 2011 and end up losing around 10% from the peak levels seen in the first half of 2010,” he said. “We believe that the fundamentals remain largely unfavourable for the housing market, even though fewer houses recently coming on to the market could provide significant support for house prices if sustained. Even then this is likely to be countered by the ongoing low housing market activity reflecting the pressure on buyers.” The FSA said fixed-rate products increased in popularity throughout the year, accounting for 46% of new mortgages by the final quarter of 2010 compared to 36% in the first quarter. House prices Property Mortgage arrears Mortgages Borrowing & debt Mortgage lending figures Housing market Real estate Mark King guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A multi-million pound levy on gravel and sand extraction used for nature projects will now be pocketed by the Treasury – it’s another false economy from Defra Having united the Socialist Workers Party with the National Trust , the UK’s department for environment (Defra) has pulled off another unlikely pairing: the Mineral Products Association (MPA) and the Wildlife Trusts . The issue is the pocketing by the Treasury of about £20m a year in taxes from the aggregates industry – gravel and sand quarrying – that had until now been spent on conservation schemes. “I can’t understand why the government has cut this funding. The money comes from a tax that encourages industry to reduce the amount of quarrying, and the industry is happy to see this money used to put something back, for nature and people,” Jeremy Biggs told me. He is director of Pond Conservation, which, along with the RSPB and others, has joined the campaign to reverse the cut . “Cutting the aggregates fund will reduce the quality of habitat restoration after quarries are worked out, and seems unbelievably short-sighted and counter-productive.” The aggregates levy – £2 per tonne for the 200m tonnes a year the UK produces – goes directly into the general tax pot, but a small proportion was used to pay for local conservation projects. One is in prime minister David Cameron’s own constituency in Oxfordshire: the Lower Windrush Valley Project . Hundreds more around the country have benefited from the scheme, which ends on 1 April. Nigel Jackson, the MPA’s chief executive, says: “Our industry has provided a legacy of sites of great conservation value. It is vital that aggregates levy revenue continues to be used for this vital purpose.” You can see his point, given the conclusion of a December 2010 independent review commissioned by Defra itself : “Overall, the value-for-money assessment is good and many areas offer evidence of excellent potential value for money, particularly in the medium term.” A Defra spokesman told me: “”In a very tight spending review, we had to look closely at where we could make best use of the available funds. The government is committed to protecting our natural heritage, which is why we’re producing the first white paper on the natural environment in 20 years, and why funding for Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) will increase by more than 80% by 2014.” The HLS budget increase is indeed very good news and the white paper – depending on what it says – may also be welcome. And conservationists have told me they were impressed by the work done by environment secretary Caroline Spelman at the UN biodiversity summit. But like flood defence spending , this cut means an end to valuable and cost-effective work. Once again, Spelman’s spending review gift to Cameron of the biggest budget cut in Whitehall has forced another false economy on her department. Mining Biodiversity Wildlife Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …