Click here to view this media While answering questions before Parliament Tuesday, a man appeared to try to throw a pie in the face of News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch’s wife, Wendi, was seen throwing a punch at the man.
Continue reading …MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer: Pie Attack on Murdoch ‘Encapsulates What the British People are Feeling’
July 19, 2011 No Comment
MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer on Tuesday insisted that a pie throwing attack on Rupert Murdoch, which occurred live on air, ” encapsulates what the British people are feeling right now about Rupert Murdoch .” As the cable network aired live coverage of Murdoch's testimony to the British Parliament about the phone hacking scandal, a man appeared in the left corner of the screen and attempted to attack the media mogul. [See video below. MP3 audio here .] Brewer described the event as the “attention getter of the day.” She highlighted members of Parliament “looking on in horror and then oddly added, “And I think, in some ways, this encapsulates what the British people are feeling right now about Rupert Murdoch and those involved in this phone hacking scandal.” Considering that no one knew at the time what the man's intentions were and what contents made up the pie, it's odd to link such an extremist to the legitimate anger Britons feel over the hacking. Thanks to MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons for the video. A transcript of the exchange, which occurred at 12:06pm EDT on MSNBC News Live, follows: 07/19/11 CONTESSA BREWER: Yeah, we're just being told a white substance. And that picture of the protester after he'd been taken into police custody. And the protester himself has it covering his face and his shoulders and neck. There he is behind the glass and we can see him his arms now cuffed behind his back in custody of police. It does seem like we've been told that Rupert Murdoch did get some of that white substance on him. And then, as you mention here, Wendy Deng jumped up to defend her husband. We saw kind of an arm swat there many the video. I mean, the thing is we've been watching this testimony for the last few hours here. It's been compelling testimony in and of itself, Thomas. And then this has been the attention getter of the day. When you're standing here and you're listening to it and all of a sudden you hear the whole crowd, the MPs, the members of Parliament who have been involved in the questioning erupting audibly and looking with horror. And you can see that reaction from James Murdoch, you know, “What's going on here?” That was the attention getter. And I think, in some ways, this encapsulates what the British people are feeling right now about Rupert Murdoch and those involved in this phone hacking scandal. Richard Wolffe is an MSNBC contributor and has been following this as well. The testimony today though polite, though the questions and answers have been mostly civil. They have been tough. RICHARD WOLFE: They have been tough. And this whole experience never mind actually what the Brits would call that is a custard pie confusingly with shaving cream. But, anyway, absent that, this is all a new experience for the British public and for the members of Parliament. These committees that you're seeing may be familiar over here, they're a relatively new phenomenon. They came up in 1979. They weren't given any teeth. And it's really since the expenses scandal in London involving some of the people around that table that these committees have taken on these new powers. So, the whole thing, you know, Rupert Murdoch said early on this was the most humble day of his life. And the whole experience is humbling for the people. At one end the Murdochs, never mind again this outrageous attack on him, but it's also interesting seeing these MPs, these members of Parliament trying to figure out what is the right approach here. Cross examining, trying to get at the story. There's legal disputes. And of course you have the Murdochs trying to say we knew nothing. We were running a big company, we knew nothing.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media President Barack Obama has decided to nominate Richard Cordray instead of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) doesn’t care. He says Republicans still plan to block the nomination. “I would remind [President Obama] that Senate Republicans still aren’t interested in approving anyone to the position until the president agrees to make this massive government bureaucracy more accountable and transparent to the American people,” McConnell announced on the Senate floor Monday. He continued: “Back on May 5 of this year, 44 Republican Senators signed a letter to the president stating — quote — ‘We will not support the consideration of any nominee, regardless of party affiliation, to be the CFPB director until the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is reformed.’” “We have no doubt that without proper oversight, the CFPB will only multiply the kind of countless, burdensome regulations that are holding our economy back right now and that it will have countless unintended consequences for individuals and small businesses that constrict credit, stifle growth, and destroy jobs. That’s why everyone from florists to community bankers opposed its creation in the first place. That’s why we’ll insist on serious reforms to bring accountability and transparency to the agency before we consider any nominee to run it.”
Continue reading …
Institute for Fiscal studies research suggests parents’ educational qualifications more influential on child development than marriage Marriage confers “little if any benefit” in terms of a child’s development, according to new research, challenging the rationale behind the prime minister’s desire to offer tax breaks to couples who tie the knot. New research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has found “little or no evidence” that marriage itself has any effect on children’s “social or cognitive” development. Before the election the Tories had made the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family a key plank of their “broken Britain” analysis. David Willetts, the Conservative thinker on families and now higher education minister, argued that marriage in Britain was in danger of becoming an exclusive middle-class institution – and action was needed bolster it. The idea is still floated by key Tories, such as work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith, but is opposed by Lib Dems. The work by the IFS accepts that those who marry tend to be relatively better educated and relatively better off. But the institute points out: “differences in outcomes between children whose parents are married and those who cohabit may simply reflect these differences in other characteristics rather than be caused by marriage.” By examining data from the Millennium Cohort Study , a sample of children born in the UK in the early 2000s, the institute shows that children born out of wedlock are behind in cognitive development at three, five and seven-years-old but this is because “cohabiting parents tend to have lower educational qualifications than married parents”. The same pattern is observed with “socio-emotional” development. The thinktank said it had also repeated its work using another dataset to account for the idea that “getting married could itself lead to changes in some of the things we want to control for, like relationship quality, income and education”. The results were the same. Ellen Greaves, research economist at the IFS, and one of the authors of the report, said: “It is true that children born to married couples are on average more cognitively and emotionally successful than children born to cohabiting couples. But careful analysis shows that this largely reflects the differences between the types of people who decide to get married and those who don’t.” Children Social trends Communities Marriage Parents and parenting Family Welfare Conservatives Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Dylan Ratigan Protests ‘Since When Is It My Job to Be a Democrat or a Republican?’
July 19, 2011 No Comment
In a discussion with The Atlantic last week about “What I Read,” Dylan Ratigan claimed he's unfairly typecast as a lefty just because he's on MSNBC: One of my great frustrations with working in cable news is that the entire cable news infrastructure has been branded through partisan political lenses and so people assume that if you're on MSNBC you're left and if you're on Fox News you're right. There's no question that I'm painted as left because of the network I'm on. The branding precedes the talent in cable networking. Since when is it my job to be a Democrat or Republican? I recognize that both political parties are bought by six industries: energy, banking, health care, defense, agribusiness and communications. So he sounds like Bill Moyers, but wants to be recognized as nonpartisan and objective. Welcome to the land of Major Media Poseurs, Mr. Ratigan! But too many remember gems like Ratigan tagging the Tea Party as pyromaniacs who want to “burn the whole town down” and then turned around and promoting Ted Rall on
Continue reading …
More than £1bn of NHS services are to be opened to competition from private companies and charities, including wheelchair services for children The government will open up more than £1bn of NHS services to competition from private companies and charities, the health secretary announced today, increasing fears that it will inevitably lead to the “privatisation of the health service”. In the first wave, beginning next April, eight NHS areas – including musculo-skeletal services for back pain, adult hearing services in the community, wheelchair services for children and primary care psychological therapies for adults – will be open for “competition on quality not price”. If successful, the policy, known as “any qualified provider”, would see non-NHS bodies allowed from 2013 to deliver more complicated clinical services in maternity and “home chemotherapy”. Admitting that the government’s initial plans for competition in the NHS were too ambitious – and stung by criticism by Steve Field, the senior doctor called in by David Cameron to review the government’s reforms, that the proposals were “unworkable”, Andrew Lansley has slowed down the roll-out of competition in the health service. The health secretary said his plans would now “enable patients to choose [providers] … where this will lead to better care”, Critics, however, warned of “huge dangers lurking in the plans”. The trade union Unison said that “patients will be little more than consumers, as the NHS becomes a market-driven service, with profits first and patients second. And they could be left without the services they need as forward planning in the NHS becomes impossible.” A spokesman for the British Medical Association questioned “the assumption that increasing competition will always mean improving choice. The ultimate consequence of market failure in the NHS is the closure of services, restricting the choice of patients who would have wished to use them.” Officials in the Department of Health dismissed these charges. One senior civil servant said the policy would benefit patients by bringing many services out of hospital – which would make it easier to access healthcare. “It is a pain to turn up for hospital and wait for 45 minutes for a blood test. Far better that you could walk into a local Boots or Lloyds chemist or a local health centre and get it done.” The civil servant, who briefed on the condition of anonymity, also said that the new policy would promote innovation – highlighting the “Tony Blair example”. He pointed out that the former prime minister’s abnormal heart rhythms could today be treated by using the telephone to measure the heart beats and give an instant diagnosis, followed by a call from a nurse advising on whether the patient needed to “go to hospital or not”. “You could cut dramatically the number of hospital admissions like this.” He also pointed out that major savings could be made, citing the example of chronic leg wounds, where the NHS pays out £18,000 per patient over four years, often without curing them. One not-for-profit company – Wound Healing Centre in Sussex – manages to treat patients successfully for £720. To underline the commitment to the new policy, Lansley’s commissioning czar, Dame Barbara Hakin, said the NHS must push ahead with the agenda to offer patients more choice despite the financial challenges and the period of “significant transition”. The NHS has to save £20bn over the next four years in efficiencies. Labour disputed the gains, saying the policy was just a step towards privatisation. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, said: “The Tory-led government is pushing ahead with its wasteful and unnecessary NHS reorganisation, rather than focusing on improving patient care. David Cameron’s plans for the NHS are not about giving more control to patients, but setting up a full-scale market.” NHS Health Privatisation Andrew Lansley Voluntary sector Randeep Ramesh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Elisabeth Warren Sidesteps Question About Possible Run in Conference Call, Praises President’s Choice To Head CFPB
July 19, 2011 No CommentClick here to view this media In a conference call yesterday afternoon, Elizabeth Warren sidestepped the question of whether she’s running for the Senate seat from Massachusetts. “I’ve been hard at work setting up this consumer agency, working 14-hour days,” she said. “I can’t remember the last time I had a day off. My plans include taking my grandchildren to Legoland. That’s as far as I can see right now. I have to get back home to Massachusetts.” The Progressive Change Campaign Committee seems to take that as a maybe, since they’re already sending out a Draft Elizabeth Warren email. Warren said she supported President Obama’s choice of Robert Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “I don’t want to hurt this agency. That’s what matter most to me. If I’m drawing fire to the agency, that’s it. I want to do what works for the agency,” she said. “This is the White House strategy, and I’m 100 percent behind it.” She said pointedly that “the people who are trying to prevent this agency are the Republicans. We wouldn’t have this agency if it wasn’t for this president. They like the old system, with seven different agencies for consumer protection, nobody responsible and accountable to the American people. I’m saving all the rocks in my pocket for Republicans.” Warren said that having a nominee “frees us up to have a big political discussion, or, if you like, fight. We are now able to have a free and open discussion about this agency. The Republicans want that fight. We can now have that fight in a full and vigorous way, at high volume.” She warned that Republicans are counting on the word about the new agency “not drifting back to their constituents at home” and asked bloggers to keep writing about it. “There are still very powerful Republican senators who think crippling this agency is important,” she said. I asked if the new bureau would be addressing consumer arbitration, an area rife with abuse. “We have a responsibility to review the impact of arbitration. What I’ll say is, watch this space,” she said. To a question about Sheila Bair’s recent statement about the size of the mortgage fraud problem, she responded, “I’ll stand with Sheila Bair on this one. She testified three weeks ago that we still don’t know the depth of the problem. I think that says it all. We don’t know. She said millions of mortgage could be affected by this? I have to agree with her.” Saying “change comes from people pushing on many different pieces,” Warren was very positive about the potential for keep the CFPB accountable to the people. “In the hiring, it’s been very important to me that two things happen simultaneously. We’re here to serve American families – not the banks, not Congress. We come to that position from a variety of backgrounds,” she said, citing the wide and varied expertise of the new agency employees. “For instance, we’re not going to hire just one group of economists who all have the same view. That carries with it the risk of intellectual capture. We’ve increased the odds that we’ll stay on mission. “I spent a lot of time thinking about this,” she said.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media After discussing the House Republicans and their ridiculous game with insisting that they vote on this balanced budget bill that’s never going to become law, Andrea Mitchell ask Rep. Tom Price about the Republicans decision to keep the SEC from doing their job by making cuts to their funding and if they’re essentially handcuffing the SEC. Price denies it of course and rather than follow up and call him out for it, Mitchell just gives him a pass and ends the interview. Think Progress has more on the subject here — House Republicans Propose Deep Cuts To Financial Regulators, Effectively Blocking Financial Reform : When Congress approved a continuing resolution in March to keep the government funded, it did not include additional money for the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. The two agencies, which were given important new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank, have already had to restrict some activities , delay implementation of various aspects of the law, and put off hiring personnel to fill key new positions policing Wall Street and the nation’s biggest banks. The budget that the Obama administration proposed yesterday included boosts for both the SEC and the CFTC, as well as a proposal to allow the CFTC to begin collecting fees to raise additional revenue. In fact, under the budget, the CFTC would receive an 82 percent funding boost ( to $308 million ), as it has the vast new task of overseeing the derivatives market . However, House Republicans have made it quite clear that they have no intention of giving the regulators any additional money. In fact, their proposed continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal 2011 year (which ends in October) explicitly cuts funding from both the SEC and CFTC: This is essentially an attempt to repeal Dodd-Frank through the backdoor, by simply making it impossible for the regulators to implement and enforce the law. As Michael Ettlinger and Adam Hersh noted, this is only inviting another devastatingly expensive financial crisis , in the name of modest savings in the short-run:
Continue reading …
• Figures down on £19bn paid out in 2007 • Average finance bonus of £12,500 disguises huge disparities • Base salaries rise for high-earners in City City bonuses were kept in check last year as banks and insurance companies restricted the total to £14bn, according to analysis by the Office for National Statistics. The figure reveals a dramatic fall in payments to financial sector staff since the height of the banking boom in 2007 when £19bn was paid out in bonuses, though it marks a recovery from 2008 when the figure was £12bn. Overall, £35bn was paid out in bonuses to staff across the whole economy, unchanged on the year before. The latest figure is expected to cheer Tory and Liberal Democrat politicians who have called for pay restraint in the City to help overcome public anger at the part played by bonus incentives in the banking crash. George Osborne has emphasised the need for bankers to accept lower bonuses to help restore trust in the sector. However, the average £12,500 annual bonus paid to finance staff in the year to April is likely to disguise huge disparities in the amounts paid to senior investment bankers compared with retail banking staff outside London and the south-east. Earlier this year Barclays revealed that its new chief executive Bob Diamond got a bonus of £6.5m for 2010 on top of his £250,000 annual salary. According to the bank’s remuneration report he was awarded the sum for his performance as head of Barclays’ investment banking and wealth management operations. A trend to pay higher salaries also offsets the effect of lower bonus payments in City institutions, according to a report by recruitment firm Kennedy Associates. In a recent report it found an average investment bank managing director received £300,000 to £400,000 in base salary as opposed to £175,000 four years ago, at the peak of the market. The average paid to finance staff also contrasts with the average public sector annual bonus of £180. Public sector employees, who make up 22% of the workforce, accounted for 1.5% of the £35bn bonus payments across the economy. TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said City bonuses were still too high. “The chancellor’s austerity message has failed to reach the City, where a small clique of super-rich bankers has grabbed 40% of all bonuses paid out in the UK. “City bonuses are still far too high and the incentives for risky and damaging decisions far too great, especially when bankers know that taxpayers will have to pick up the tab.” Bonuses have played an increasing role in the incomes of ordinary private sector workers after a 58% rise in payments since 2000. Most payments will be related to individual, team or company performance. Executive pay and bonuses Banking Financial sector Phillip Inman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Authorities failing to enforce law aimed at tackling sex with trafficked women
July 19, 2011 No Comment
Only 40 cases have been prosecuted since new offence came into effect in April 2010, Home Office strategy reveals The failure of police and prosecutors to enforce a law that criminalises men who pay for sex with trafficked women is jeopardising the attempt to tackle human trafficking into Britain. A Home Office strategy published on Tuesday says that only 40 cases have been prosecuted since the new offence came into effect in April 2010 and that includes prosecutions of kerb crawlers. “Enforcement of this offence would be a key part of the chain that leads to women being trafficked into the country and help deter those that may consider paying for sexual services from someone who may be trafficked, thereby reducing demand,” says the strategy. The document calls for a greater effort to target the demand for “inexpensive, unprotected and often illegal labour” and to create a business environment where it is neither considered desirable or readily available. “There is growing awareness amongst consumers of the harm caused by unethical business practices. But more needs to be done to increase understanding and encourage greater corporate moral and social responsibility within the private sector,” the strategy acknowledges. Home Office minsters are to review by the end of this year the current legislation on trafficking to ensure that it supports the effective prosecution of human traffickers. The strategy recognises that there are some problems caused by the fact that trafficking for sexual exploitation is prosecuted under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act while labour trafficking comes under the 2004 Asylum and Immigration Act which has a different standard of proof. “While there have been successful prosecutions under both, there are some disparities which make the legislative framework less straightforward than it could be for prosecutors. In addition, the different levels of proof mean that it is more difficult to prosecute for labour exploitation,” says the new strategy. Crown Prosecution figures show that just 48 people were prosecuted over trafficking offences in England and Wales. The official strategy says a key element in disrupting the market for trafficking and reducing its profitability is to target those who pay for sexual services from trafficked women. In particular it cites the 2009 Policing and Crime Act which introduced an offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force, deception, threats or any other form of coercion. “This means that someone who pays for the sexual services of a woman (whether or not they know the woman has been trafficked) can be arrested and prosecuted,” says the strategy. It notes that as of June only 40 offences have involved somebody being charged since April 2010 and that includes cases of kerb crawling. The strategy confirms that from this month the Salvation Army will play a central role in the £2m-a-year programme to support the adult victims of trafficking. It also advocates a more targeted focus on the countries that are the major source of trafficking; extending the use of powers to seize the assets of traffickers and establish closer relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies. The immigration minister, Damian Green, said the new strategy would send the message that Britain was not a soft touch for traffickers. “We will pursue and disrupt trafficking networks overseas wherever possible to stop them before they ply their trade in the UK and then bring them to justice,” he said. Human rights charities have criticised Britain’s human trafficking strategy in the past, arguing that it has backfired, increased the suffering of victims and undermined attempts to prosecute the criminal gangs who abused them. The Crown Prosecution Service earlier this month issued new guidance that women and children who were suspected of having been trafficked should no longer be treated as criminals. Human trafficking Prostitution Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …