Germany’s answer to MI6 faces difficult questions as Angela Merkel orders inquiry into security breach There may be high fences and security cameras around the building site in Berlin, but that wasn’t enough to prevent the blueprints for one of the city’s biggest construction projects from going missing. The site is for the headquarters of Germany’s answer to M16, making the loss all the more embarrassing. The spy agency is facing difficult questions after it emerged that it could not even keep the plans for its new hi-tech offices from going astray. According to a report in Focus magazine, the blueprints contained sensitive information relating to the security of the Berlin headquarters. The government has set up an investigation and requested a revision of security measures at the site. “It’s a serious issue and the government is interested in clearing up this case as quickly as possible,” said Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert. The blueprints showed highly sensitive areas of the headquarters, including its logistical nerve centre, anti-terror installations, emergency exits and alarm systems. The data, most likely stored on a USB stick, was stolen a year ago, public broadcaster ARD reported on Tuesday, citing an unnamed government official. The core of the building may now have to be redesigned, the TV station reported. The security leak is a huge embarrassment to the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency. It is based in Pullach, a Bavarian village near Munich, but the government decided to move the agency to the capital following the terror attacks of 11 September 2001. The cost of the project had been estimated at €500m (£440m) but had risen to around €1.5bn. The headquarters, which will be located right next to where the wall once stood in the former east Berlin, are expected to be completed by 2014 and will house some 4,000 agency staff.Wolfgang Bosbach, a member of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats and chairman of the parliamentary domestic affairs committee, expressed deep concern about the vanished blueprints. “This is a serious incident,” he told the Guardian, adding that it is still not clear if the blueprints had been stolen or mislaid due to “sloppiness”. “The big worry is that these plans have fallen into the wrong hands,” he said. “We could also lose the trust of our foreign partners, who may think: how can we give the Germans information and documents if they don’t look after them carefully?” Germany Europe Surveillance Angela Merkel guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Wave of condemnation for new law forbidding citizens from promoting academic, consumer or cultural boycotts Israeli civil rights groups have launched legal challenges to a new law that in effect bans citizens from calling for boycotts of Israeli goods, services, businesses or cultural or academic institutions. The passing of the law late on Monday night prompted a wave of criticism and condemnation in the Israeli press, with one eminent law professor describing it as “the blackest day in Knesset [Israeli parliament] history”. Gush Shalom, an organisation that campaigns for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, filed a petition to the supreme court, saying the new law was an attempt “to silence criticism against the government’s policies in general and its policies in the occupied territories in particular, and prevent an open and productive political discourse, which is the backbone of a democratic regime”. The Association of Civil Rights in Israel filed a petition to the high court of justice, saying the new law was “unconstitutional and undemocratic” and set a precedent for limiting freedom of expression. A coalition of four rights groups – Adalah, a legal rights organisation for Israeli-Arabs, Physicians for Human Rights, the Public Committee Against Torture and the Coalition of Women for Peace – also pledged to launch a high court challenge. The new law “gives protection to the illegal West Bank settlements in Israeli law by penalising their opponents”, the coalition said. In defiance of the law, Peace Now launched a new campaign calling for the boycott of wine and olive oil produced in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Under the terms of the law, passed by 47 votes to 38, an individual or organisation proposing a boycott may be sued for compensation by any individual or institution facing possible damage as a result. Evidence of actual damage will not be required. It bans consumer boycotts of goods and services produced in West Bank settlements and the blacklisting of cultural and academic institutions in settlements. It also bars the government from doing business with companies that comply with boycotts. Israel’s finance minister, Yuval Steinitz, defended the law on Israeli Army Radio: “Boycotts against the state of Israel certainly cannot be considered legitimate from Israel’s point of view and boycotts against the settlements or any other region of the country are not a democratic way to determine democratic oversight.” Israel has occupied the West Bank for 44 years but its settlements there are illegal under international law. The absence of the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, from the vote on the new law came under fire. Sima Kadamon in Yedioth Ahranoth questioned why Netanyahu, who was reportedly at home on Monday evening, missed the vote. “Could it be that [he] realises that this is one of the most anti-democratic and individual right-denying laws ever passed … and that he was simply ashamed to be present?” Ehud Barak, the defence minister, also was absent from the vote although the bill, sponsored by Ze’ev Elkin, the chairman of the governing coalition, was endorsed in advance by the cabinet. Ben Caspit, a commentator for the Maariv newspaper, said: “This is a blatant and a resounding shutting of people’s mouths. This is thought police. There is no choice but to use this word. Fascism at its worst is raging.” In the same paper, law professor Amnon Rubenstein said: “This law will serve as a weapon in the hands of those people who claim that Israel is not a democracy and does not respect human rights. It will also increase Israel’s isolation in the academic world and among western liberal democracies. Paradoxically, this law increases the danger of anti-Israel boycotts … It seems to me that yesterday will be remembered for years to come as the blackest day in Knesset history.” Israel Palestinian territories Middle East Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Interviewer and columnist has been suspended for two months pending outcome of internal investigation Johann Hari, the Independent interviewer and columnist accused of plagiarism , has been suspended. Hari was suspended on Tuesday for two months pending the outcome of an internal investigation by former Independent editor Andreas Whittam-Smith. He seemed to have survived the initial plagiarism allegations last month, but is now facing separate claims of “sock puppetry” – that he used an online comment alias to hit back at fellow journalists who had criticised his work. It is understood both allegations will be considered by Whittam-Smith. Chris Blackhurst, who replaced Simon Kelner as editor of the Independent earlier this month , said: “Johann Hari has been suspended for two months pending the outcome of an internal enquiry. We have no further comment to make.” More details soon… • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook The Independent Independent News & Media Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Jason Deans guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Core work, including supervising offenders and writing pre-sentence reports, to be taken out of the public sector Core probation services, including the supervision of criminals, are to be put out to competition, in the most arresting example yet of the impact of the “big society” drive on the criminal justice system. The 35 chief officers of probation have been told they need to examine the “potential for core probation services” to be put up for competition. Michael Spurr, the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, has written to chief probation officers telling them: “We intend to examine a range of possible options for service improvements and different models of delivering offender services within the community. “The aim is to create a long-term direction for probation which is consistent with the government’s key objective for reform.” He said it was hoped the competition process would also ensure that those probation functions remaining in the public sector were delivered with clear benefits in terms of costs, efficiency, quality and risk management. It is not thought that entire probation areas would be turned over to the private or voluntary sector. It is, however, highly likely that chunks of key probation work – such as supervising offenders in the community and prisoners on release, and writing pre-sentence reports for the courts, including recommendations of what should happen on conviction – will be taken out of the public sector. So far, the electronic tagging of offenders and the management of bail hostels and other probation support services have been put out to tender, but core probation services have been left untouched. The Community Justice Partnership – which includes the charities Working Links and Nacro, and the private security company Sodexo Justice Services – immediately said it would be bidding for some of the work. “This is unprecedented in the justice sector and may be the shape of things to come, as private and charitable bodies come together to provide the scope and scale to successfully deliver end-to-end services in large geographical areas,” said Debbie Ryan of Working Links, which works with the long-term unemployed. Harry Fletcher of Napo, the probation union, said: “Probation services do not lend themselves to the normal laws of supply and demand, it is unclear who the customer is. The government has little if any understanding of how complex work with offenders is and how demanding supervision can be,” he said. “Privatisation so far has been a disaster. Cleaning and maintenance of probation premises was put out to tender several years ago and has hardly been a success story. The privatisation of bail beds was so poor that the contract had to be taken away.” He predicted that selling off the work to the lowest bidder for profit would not raise standards. “Indeed the reverse is the case. The quality of the work will fall and public protection will be compromised,” he said. Prisons and probation UK criminal justice Crime Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Brother of Afghan president Hamid Karzai shot dead by security guard was seen as keystone of security in the south Ahmed Wali Karzai, the powerful half-brother of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has been killed by one of his security guards inside his house in Kandahar, raising the prospect of turmoil in a city widely seen as the key to the war in Afghanistan. The president confirmed the death at a press conference in Kabul intended to mark the visit of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, to the capital. “Ahmed Wali Karzai was killed at about 11.30am,” General Abdul Razaq, Kandahar’s chief of border police, said. “He was killed by his bodyguard inside his house.” Officials said the assassin, named as Sardar Mohammed, reportedly Ahmed Wali Karzai’s chief of security, had been killed on the spot. “After Sardar Mohammed killed Ahmed Wali Karzai, other bodyguards shot Sardar Mohammed,” Colonel Mohammad Mohsen, of the Afghan national army 205 Atal (Hero) Corps in Kandahar, said. “The bodies have been taken to the [local] hospital. We expect some officials including President Karzai to come to Kandahar for his brother’s funeral.” Razaq said an investigation into the assassination was under way, but according to initial reports from Kandahar, Sardar entered his boss’s home and approached him with papers to sign, shooting him at close range with a pistol concealed under the papers. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assassination, saying it was one of their “biggest and most successful” operations. However, western officials said it was possible that he could have been killed as part of a settling of scores among tribal leaders or drug traffickers. Ahmed Wali Karzai had frequently been accused by western officials of being a regional kingpin and warlord in the opium trade. He also faced allegations of being on the CIA’s payroll. He rejected all the charges, claiming they were made by western forces to cover their own shortcomings. Ahmed Wali Karzai was a powerful figure in Afghan politics. He had been a member of the provincial council in Kandahar since 2005 and was its chief at the time of his death, although his family, tribal and business contacts gave him influence far beyond his official title. “He was the president of Kandahar,” said provincial elder Abdul Samat Zarih. “The governor, police chiefs and other officials all had to discuss things with him before they made a decision.” Zarih added that Ahmed Wali Karzai had many enemies, including the Taliban. “Maybe the Taliban killed him because he was close to the government. Maybe he didn’t obey or follow whatever the foreigners said to him. It’s a situation in which you can’t figure out what is going on,” he said. Ahmed Wali Karzai was also seen as a keystone of security in the south and his assassination will raise fears about a potential power and security vacuum in the insurgent-ridden region. President Karzai also valued him as a trusted liaison between the government in Kabul and the nation’s second-biggest city. “People are asking what tomorrow will bring,” said a senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Who is capable of replacing Ahmed Wali on the provincial council? As an intermediary between Kabul and Kandahar? Who is going to try and keep at bay the different rivalries bandaged over for the last few years? Who will fill the various holes occupied by AWK? These are all important questions.” He added his death was “first and foremost a setback for Afghanistan as a whole”. Other western officials predicted that although there would be “turbulence” in the short term, while a new power structure took shape in Kandahar, in the longer term the absence of Ahmed Wali Karzai as a power broker could provide an opportunity to strengthen legitimate local government. Ahmed Wali Karzai had been the target of previous assassination attempts. In 2009 four suicide bombers stormed the provincial council office in Kandahar, killing 13 people. Departing US commander General David Petraeus said the International Security Assistance Force had halted the Taliban’s momentum in key areas. However, the Taliban strategy of targeted assassinations in Kandahar province demonstrates its continued ability to strike Isaf and the Afghan government where it hurts. The Kandahar deputy governor, Abdul Latif Ashna, and provincial police chief, General Mohammad Mojayed, were killed in suicide attacks this year. The Taliban claimed responsibility for both deaths. The Isaf spokesman, Carsten Jacobson, agreed it was not yet certain the Taliban had carried out the attack. He denied the assassination was a setback for Isaf. “We must find out how he was killed,” Wahid Mujda, a former member of the Taliban turned analyst, said. “We don’t know whether it was carried out by a power rival or by the Taliban.” Mujda added the death would have an impact on the government and the progress being made in reconciliation talks with the Taliban. Karzai supported the peace process and had chalked up a few reintegration successes in the province. Haji Padsha, an elder of the Alikozai tribe in Kandahar province, said Karzai had been shot on his return from a meeting with foreigners at the former house of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the fugitive leader of the Afghan Taliban. Karzai had come under criticism in the past from Afghans for renting the property to international officials. It was reported in the New York Times in 2009 that he received rent from the CIA and American special operations forces for allowing them to occupy a large compound outside the city that is the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar. The Kandahar Strike Force, a militia run by the CIA, also shares the compound. Hamid Karzai Afghanistan Julian Borger guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs from all parties likely to support motion calling on News Corporation to withdraw bid in wake of phone-hacking scandal The government will support Labour’s motion asking MPs to call on Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp to withdraw its BSkyB bid in a Commons debate on Wednesday. MPs from all sides seem likely to back the motion, which reads: “The house believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.” The vote would constitute an expression of Commons opinion and not be binding on a private company. However, Ed Miliband said it was necessary sometimes for parliament to speak on behalf of public opinion. Government sources said the Competition Commission review would continue for now and News Corp declined to comment. Shortly after the wording of the motion emerged the prime minister’s spokesman said: “We are intending to support it.” Asked whether the government believed that News Corp should heed the will of parliament, the spokesman replied: “Ultimately, that is a decision for News Corp but we would always expect people to take seriously what parliament has said.” News Corp withdrew on Monday an offer to spin off Sky News, triggering a referral of its bid to the Competition Commission. The commission’s inquiry will take a minimum of six months and then be referrred to the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Many Liberal Democrat MPs will also support the motion, regarded as in order by the parliamentary clerks It also emerged that Miliband would meet David Cameron and Nick Clegg on Tuesday night to discuss the terms of reference of two government inquiries – one judicially led – into the multiplying scandals. Miliband is trying to ensure that the judicially-led inquiry in which witnesses will give evidence under oath, is broadly drawn, looking at relations between police and newspapers across Britain, as well as phone hacking and other illegal activities in all newspapers, not just the now closed News of the World. Miliband is also calling for the judicial inquiry to look more broadly at relations between the media and politicians. At his Friday press conference, David Cameron suggested the planned terms of reference meant that the non-judicial inquiry would look into issues of press culture and regulation, as well as media relations with politicians. Miliband said: “There are times when the House of Commons has got to rise to the occasion and speak for the public. “We have said the purchase of BSkyB should not proceed until after the criminal inquiries are complete. The simplest way to achieve this is for the Rupert Murdoch to recognise the feelings of the public and the will of the House of Commons and withdraw this bid. I am calling on parliament to show its will tomorrow.” One reason for the motion is that it would allow the bid to be deferred at least until the criminal investigation into phone hacking at News International has been completed, and even until the judicial inquiry has reported – which might take two years. Hunt has no power to defer a Competition Commission inquiry that will take between six and nine months. He can then take as long as he wishes to decide whether to accept the findings of the commission inquiry. If the motion is passed on Wednesday, the Murdoch group of companies will have to decide whether they want to defy parliament and press ahead with the bid. A long deferral of the bid would have damaging commercial consequences for the company because the full takeover of BSkyB is seen as important to create synergies across its worldwide satellite investments. Miliband added that a clear vote would be seen as a way of telling Hunt that the Commons regards a Murdoch takeover of BSkyB as not in the public interest, at the least until the extent of the criminality has been discovered. Phone hacking Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Ed Miliband David Cameron Jeremy Hunt News International News Corporation Media business BSkyB Television industry Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
enlarge About the time you think Arizona might be getting its sanity back now that Russell Pearce will face a recall election, they prove you wrong. Via the Arizona Guardian : Republican Sen. Lori Klein was showing off her raspberry-pink handgun when she aimed it at a journalist who was interviewing her in the lounge just outside the Senate chambers. According to the story that was published Sunday in the Arizona Republic, Klein’s .380 Ruger was loaded and did not have a safety to keep the gun from going off. But Klein told the reporter, Richard Ruelas, that he didn’t need to worry because, “I just didn’t have my hand on the trigger.” Cool. That makes me feel soooo much better.
Continue reading …
CNN's Anderson Cooper and Gloria Borger took turns casting President Barack Obama as the centrist 'adult' in a room teeming with unruly Republican children who would rather invite economic calamity than compromise on a debt-reduction plan. Discussing a topic that would have made a perfect “Keeping Them Honest” segment, Cooper insisted, incorrectly, on Monday's “AC 360″ that the Democratic president has never raised taxes since taking office in 2009: “Now, in fact the stimulus was about one-third tax cuts. So in fairness, he did not raise taxes. He and Congress later passing a payroll tax holiday that is in effect right now. A year later he and Congress did approve tax breaks to help employers hire more people.” According to Politifact, Cooper is way off base in claiming the president “did not raise taxes.” In February, the fact-checking website gave Obama's claim that “I didn't raise taxes once” a “false” rating. Citing tax hikes on cigarettes, indoor tanning, and Medicare for families that make more than $250,000 per year, Politifact asserted, “The idea that Obama did not raise taxes is just plain wrong.” Cooper had the opportunity to fact check Obama himself in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment that aired only moments earlier, but the CNN anchor decided instead to focus on a pledge signed by Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. After Cooper implied Obama is a moderate, Borger attempted to erase any doubt: “The president was offering [Republicans], you know, a very, very good deal here.” CNN's senior political analyst later marveled at Obama's centrist leadership: “Right now, I think the Republicans are kind of up against the wall here because the president looks like the adult. He's put something on the table.” Unfortunately for Borger, the president didn't produce a detailed plan: he gave a speech at a press conference. And as CBO Director Dough Elmendorf pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't estimate speeches . Unlike Obama, who hasn't put much of anything on the table – at least nothing the CBO can score – House and Senate Republicans have put forward a number of cost-saving measures in their plan to ” cut, cap, and balance .” House Speaker John Boehner said as much during his rebuttal press conference on Monday: The American people will not accept, and the House cannot pass, a bill that raises taxes on job creators. The House can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. My colleagues and I feel we should enact a balanced budget amendment to keep the federal government from spending us into the same situation again. I think we also need real reductions in spending right now and spending caps to ensure that progress we make is not undone in the future… A bill that doesn’t meet these tests can’t pass the House of Representatives. ( H/T RedState ) Borger can claim the GOP is “up against the wall,” but it was the Obama administration that called for a “clean” vote on raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending. Since then, the debate has shifted from whether Congress will cut spending to how much and how soon. Yet Borger still maintains the pragmatic president has outmaneuvered the recalcitrant Republicans. A transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN AC 360 July 11, 2011 10:14 p.m. ET ANDERSON COOPER: “Raw Politics” tonight: just 22 bargaining days until the U.S. Treasury runs out of money to pay the bills, throwing the country into default and the economy into a greater crisis. President Obama and congressional leaders met for a second straight day trying to hammer out a deficit-reduction deal. Republicans have said without such a deal they won't allow vote to allow more borrowing to raise the debt ceiling. Now, bear in mind lawmakers have always griped, but they've have never failed to do that ever. They will talk again tomorrow. Today, the President called for action. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States: I have been hearing from my Republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious way. I have been hearing from them that this is one of the things that's creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. And so, what I have said to them is, “Let's go.” COOPER: Unclear though whether he can deliver the left wing of his own party. Unclear also whether the Tea Party Republicans will sign on to any deal with any revenue increasers beyond selling government property and other fairly minor measures. House Speaker Boehner, who seemed receptive to a grand compromise which might have included tax concessions from Republicans in exchange for cost savings in Medicare and Social Security from the White House, backed away on Saturday. Today he said, no tax increases or no deal. Rep. JOHN BOEHNER, Speaker of the House: The American people will not accept and the House cannot pass a bill that raises taxes on job creators. Now, the House can only pass a debt limit bill that includes spending cuts larger than the hike in the debt limit as well as real restraints on future spending. COOPER: His colleague Majority Leader Eric Cantor standing firm too, holding up a quote from President Obama back in 2009 about not raising taxes during a recession. Now, here's what the President said back then in 2009 to NBC's Chuck Todd in response to a voter's question. OBAMA: First of all, he's right. Normally, you don't raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven't and why we have instead cut taxes. So I guess what I would say to Scott is, his economics are right. You don't raise taxes in a recession. We haven't raised taxes in a recession. COOPER: Now, in fact the stimulus was about one-third tax cuts. So in fairness, he did not raise taxes. He and Congress later passing a payroll tax holiday that is in effect right now. A year later he and Congress did approve tax breaks to help employers hire more people. Now, you can decide for yourself whether that's a tax cut or the kind of wasteful spending through the tax code the president says he's now against when it comes to corporate jets. In any case, here's how Mr. Obama today reconciled that 2009 statement with his current position on taxes. OBAMA: I want to be crystal clear: nobody has talked about increasing taxes now. Nobody has talked about increases – increasing taxes next year. We're talking about potentially 2013 and the out years. COOPER: The question is what will the economy look like then? The answer to that depends heavily on what happens now. Here to talk about it is chief political analyst Gloria Borger and David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office. Currently he's president and CEO of the Comeback America Initiative. David, is there any case to be made for not raising the debt ceiling? DAVID WALKER, former United States comptroller general: No, there really isn't. We have to raise the debt ceiling because the fact is we don't know what the markets would do, what would to happen to the stock markets, what would to happen to the interest rates. And for every one percent or 100 basis point increase in interest rates, it's $150 billion a year on our total debt. COOPER: So how do you see the debate that is happening now? I mean what's your take on it? WALKER: Well, both sides have agreed that they're going to raise the debt ceiling limit, but it looks like it's going to be a smaller deal rather than a bigger deal because the Republicans don't want to do anything that could even be called remotely a tax increase. I think after the 2012 elections, we're going to get comprehensive tax reform that will broaden the base, lower rates and generate more revenues, among other things, along with starting to deal with entitlement reforms. But I think right now, we're going to get a smaller deal and kick the can down the road with regard to the tough stuff. COOPER: Gloria, politically, is that what it seems like, a smaller deal? GLORIA BORGER, CNN senior political analyst: Yes, it does, Anderson. And I think if you sort of step back for a moment and take a look at this it seems to me really to be a defining moment for the Republican Party here. The base of this party is conservative and it's anti-tax. And you had the House speaker, a Republican, the president of the United States, sitting down and believing that they could try to cut a huge deal that would actually go a long way towards solving the deficit problem. But John Boehner, the Speaker, took that back to his conservative Republicans in the House, which I believe represent the base of the party, and they said, absolutely no way, because 230 of those Republicans in the House have taken a no-tax pledge, no-new-tax pledges and they're going to stick by it. And I think things may change after the next election, but as for now, the Republican Party is stuck and they can't even accept a good deal. The president was offering them, you know, a very, very good deal here. You know, $3 in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases. WALKER: Well, John Boehner is correct that the base of the Republican Party will not support any type of tax increases, even if it's eliminating tax expenditures where there can be a bipartisan agreement. He's wrong to say the American people won't. He's just wrong. And right now the President has got the high ground because he's basically saying, let's go for a long-term deal. I will put Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security on the table. All you need to do is to put tax expenditures on the table. By the way, we have the lowest revenues as a percentage of GDP in decades. It's less than 16 percent. Nonetheless, we are where we are and I think both parties are going to have to go to the electorate in 2012. COOPER: But can you get a compromise without some sort of tax-increasing revenues somehow? WALKER: I can come up – I can come up with $2 trillion to $3 trillion worth of deficit reduction without any tax increases, ok? BORGER: You know, Anderson, I was talking to a senior White House adviser today, for example, who suggested that perhaps they could get a deal, a smaller deal of closing some of these tax loopholes and extending the payroll tax holiday for a certain period of time, so there would be no net tax increase. So a little bit of trickery, but maybe they could do it that way. COOPER: Just politically, Gloria, how does this play out, do you think? I mean, obviously we have this presidential election coming up. David is saying Obama seems like he's perceived as taking the high ground. BORGER: He does. COOPER: Clearly he's interested in getting independents on board. BORGER: Right. COOPER: He's lost a lot of independent support over the years. How does this play for both sides? BORGER: Well, I think the President as you point out is clearly talking to independent voters. Independent voters care about the deficit and they also want Washington to work together, which is what we heard the President talk about an awful lot today in his press conference. It kind of reminded me a little bit of Bill Clinton there. In the end, I think they all know they have to get something done or they will all suffer. Right now, I think the Republicans are kind of up against the wall here because the president looks like the adult. He's put something on the table. I'm not sure that he have could have sold it to his own party, but he put it on the table. So it's up to the Republicans now to come back and he told them today to go home, do your homework and tell me how we're going to make up the rest of this money we have got to raise without – without those revenues. So they're on the spot. COOPER: Do you think this goes – do you think this goes to August 2nd or do you think this is going to be done sooner, David? WALKER: Well, I think they can do it before August 2nd. I mean, you know, it depends upon how big a deal they're trying to do. You have to turn this into legislative language and frankly you have to sell it to the caucuses. I mean they're not going to take a fait accompli deal. And that's one of the reasons why Congress has to stay in session until a deal is done and until there's agreement. BORGER: And complicating all of this, Anderson, is the fact that you've got Republican presidential candidates out there saying don't raise the debt limit. Tim Pawlenty said he was hoping and praying that they would vote against raising the debt limit. So that plays into the Republican congressional discussions as well. COOPER: Never easy to work out this stuff in the midst of an election year? WALKER: You have to work it out. The stakes are too high. Quite frankly anybody who says – I don't care who they are – who says they will vote against the debt ceiling increase irrespective of the deal is irresponsible. COOPER: David Walker, I appreciate it. It's always good to have you on. Gloria Borger as well. Thank you very much. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
Continue reading …
Chris Huhne sets out how the government thinks the UK can cut the carbon emissions stocking global warming, while keeping the lights on, at a price people can afford • The key questions to be answered 4.49pm: Here’s the motherlode: the several hundred pages of the Electricity market reform white paper from Decc . Enjoy, and let me know what you find. 4.42pm: Final snap from Fiona Harvey before she gets writing the news story: Huhne rejected the claim that the reforms would favour nuclear power. He said no public subsidy would be given to the nuclear industry. However, while this is true, observers have noted that putting a minimum price on carbon would enable nuclear plants to make higher profits by penalising fossil fuel competitors, and the new long term contracts are also likely to favour nuclear power. Huhne has to say nuclear is getting no subsidy for political expediency. But it’s an idiotic position in my opinion . Even the Treasury accepts it gives money to nuclear , and as a windfall for the existing reactors. 4.39pm: More from Fiona Harvey: The cover of the EMR white paper bills it as a plan for “secure, affordable and low carbon electricity”. Note the order in which those words appear. Huhne says he is sending a very positive signal to those who want to build new gas fired power plants. But he also said gas prices going through the roof was cause of people having cardiac arrest over their energy bills. 4.35pm: Fiona Harvey, who has until now been locked in DECC reading the Electricity market reform white paper, emails some early thoughts from the bunker: As Huhne spoke, note how little he mentions climate change and emissions and how often he talks about keeping the lights on. This is the government’s new mantra, to try to counter the critics who rail against green taxes putting energy prices up. 4.29pm: Huhne rolls through the four measures: carbon floor price, capacity payment, emissions performance standard and contracts for difference. Then he adds a fifth: “transitional arrangements to make sure there is no hiatus in investment”. That’s better late than never . Meg Hillier, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for energy and climate change, welcomes the reforms, then teases Huhne for agreeing with his predecessor – Ed Miliband – and about the U-turn on solar feed-in-tariffs. She says Decc is run “on remote control” from the Treasury. Bit unfair that, I think, Huhne’s stood up for green growth and won. 4.26pm: Huhne has started speaking. His opener is that current levels of investment in electricity have to double to total £110bn by 2020. Bills are going up: “We will have to pay to secure clean, low-energy”. But he warns against locking in to high-carbon energy, which would cost more in the long term. 4.06pm: Huhne is having to wait until urgent questions on the Southern Cross care home collapse are answered. In the meantime, my colleague Fiona Harvey notes how Decc have stopped talking about the £200bn that Ofgem estimated was needed in investment in energy infrastructure by 2020. Instead, they have been briefing a figure of £110bn . But the smaller figure is for new electricity generation alone: the larger figure includes all energy infrastructure needed, such as gas and grids. 3.43pm: Energy demand reduction may not get high priority in the white paper, but plenty of people think it’s key. Nick Mabey, Chief Executive of E3G (and businesses too ) say: Making energy demand reduction a priority is a huge and necessary strategic shift. For 20 years the design of the electricity market has effectively blocked investment in the demand side. This has raised costs to consumers and increased our exposure to volatile global energy markets. It’s not easy given that the big six companies that have the closest relationships with consumers all make money from selling energy, not saving it. 3.30pm: Fiona Harvey, who is holed up in the DECC bunker reading the white paper, tells me Huhne’s speech is delayed by 10 minutes. So I have time for this political take from Matthew Spencer, head of the Green Alliance. He says the EMR white paper will be muddled because the government still has not decided on a clear growth strategy. The ” trolls of the treasury ” back deregulation, a war on red tape, and accept plans to cut carbon only on sufferance. Those backing green growth, like Huhne, see smart regulation as opening up the markets of the future . Last year the UK plummeted from 5th to 13th in the clean-tech investor rankings and there is nothing in this week’s energy policy paper that will reverse that trend. Our competitive position will continue to slide until the coalition come to a common view about the role of green growth in the UK’s economic recovery. 3.13pm: Let’s get straight into issue likely to create the most sparks: cost. Chris Huhne says the changes will keep bills lower , yes lower, than they otherwise would be: These reforms will secure our energy future. They will get us off the fossil fuel hook and on to clean, green and secure energy. Crucially, they will keep bills lower than they would be if we stuck with the existing arrangements. Here’s DECC’s workings: If we were to leave the market as it is now, we estimate electricity bills will be around £200 higher in 2030 compared with today’s average annual household bill (about £500). But if we act now – reform the market and get the secure clean energy we need more cost-effectively – we estimate we can limit this increase to £160. This is £40 lower than it would otherwise be. But Consumer Focus, the UK’s statutory consumer champion, is warning that homeowners won’t sign blank cheques : Keeping the lights on and tackling climate change is in consumers’ long term interests. However, consumers can’t be expected to write a blank cheque to decarbonise electricity generation. If today’s policy is to be the least worse option for consumers it needs to be done in the most cost effective way. In order to deliver value for money and minimise the impact on consumers, Government must ensure that: consumers on the lowest incomes are protected; a step change in energy efficiency is delivered; the energy market becomes more competitive. 2.54pm: At 3.30pm today, the UK’s secretary of state for energy and climate change, Chris Huhne, is going to set out how he thinks the nation can meet the three “Cs” of energy in the 21st century: carbon, cost and continuity of supply. The challenge, in other words, is to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that stoke global warming, while keeping the lights on at a price people can afford. It’s the biggest reform in quarter of a century, and will reverse the free market set up by Margaret Thatcher , which has failed to invest for the future. In my preview, I wrote that the government decided long ago that new nuclear power stations are crucial to meeting the “trilemma” of the 3 Cs, and all sides of the debate agree this is the central aim of the complex measures set out in the white paper. The details are pretty technical – contracts for difference and so on – but this piece walks you through the labyrinth . The key questions to be answered are, I think: • What will it cost energy customers? The UK’s creaking energy infrastructure and global fuel prices mean that energy prices are going up whether it’s coal, gas, oil, nuclear or renewables. But the higher the cost, the more hard-pressed consumers will object, making it less likely future ministers will stick to the plans. • Are there incentives for energy efficiency? Crucial, as reducing demand is very often cheaper than increasing supply, to cutting waste will help keep bills down. • Is there help for new entrants to the market? The UK’s big six supply 99% of the energy. Huhne has promised to help break this up, but how? Again it is important for cost: more competition means lower prices. • Which of the UK’s big six energy companies is happy? This will tell you which electricity generation technologies got the best deal. EDF back nuclear, SSE back renewables. • Is there any obligation to build renewables? If not, gas looks an easier, cheaper alternative. I’ll post some thoughts from elsewhere in the run up to Huhne’s speech in the House of Commons . But please let me know your thoughts in the comments below, or via Twitter. I am @dpcarrington . . . Energy Energy bills Energy efficiency Energy industry Energy Nuclear power Coal Gas Gas Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Cenk Uygur had better not stay on vacation for too much longer or he might find his job in jeopardy from the Rev. Al Sharpton who’s been filling in for him for the last week or so. Sharpton has shown himself to be more than willing to go head to head with these right-wing conservative House members over the last week and this Monday’s interview with Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) and self proclaimed astroturf “tea party” member was no exception. I wish more people would give these people the same treatment every time they came on the air and maybe they’d decide doing television interviews wasn’t such a good idea any more, but I don’t have any hope of that happening any time soon. Sharpton started out with hitting him for his uber-patriotic nonsense of claiming to “love America” and asking him if he also loved actual Americans like seniors on Social Security and working people who need Medicaid. Sharpton summed that up nicely when he said to Graves “I appreciate you loving America, but do you love Americans that have to survive in America?” Graves comeback to that was to say that Sharpton had probably never been to a tea party rally, but a lot of them are on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and pretended that their policies are actually going to preserve our social safety nets rather than destroy them and that their new slogan of “cut, cap and balance” was just common sense that most Americans should agree with. Sharpton countered Graves by showing him some of what’s posted on his own web site where he says no way in hell should the Republicans be compromising with President Obama on anything. You know, when we hear the word “compromise” on Capitol Hill, that’s what got us into this mess over the last several decades, and it’s been Republican and Democrat. This is no time to compromise. After Graves responded that Republicans should not be compromising, Sharpton asked him why he thought most seniors in the “tea party” who are on Social Security would object to things like taking away the tax breaks for those with corporate jets. Graves tried to change the subject to President Obama, which Sharpton stopped him cold on and brought the conversation right back to him defending tax cuts for the rich. Graves countered by saying he was one of the few Republicans who voted against corporate loopholes that Sharpton was addressing and Sharpton asked him if he really was against those things, why doesn’t he ask his party to agree to include them in the debt ceiling talks going on right now. Graves retreated to asking Sharpton if he’d be in support of Republicans and their ridiculous balanced budget amendment and Sharpton put that right back in his face with former Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett’s statement on the subject , and I’ll add, they left the last line out in the interview but I’m going to include it here. In short, this is quite possibly the stupidest constitutional amendment I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin. Every senator cosponsoring this POS should be ashamed of themselves. Graves tried to turn it around to President Obama again saying “so Barack Obama is following the advice of the Reagan administration now? Is that what you’re telling me?” Sharpton again didn’t let him get away with trying to deflect the conversation away from himself and onto the Obama administration, and told him no, this is what Al Sharpton is asking you. After that Graves was forced to admit that yes, he supports the amendment. Sharpton wrapped it up with driving home the fact that Graves claims he’s for cutting corporate welfare, but doesn’t support it being part of these debt ceiling negotiations and pinned him down on his doublespeak. In the end all he could resort to is to claim that going after those loopholes really isn’t going to make a dent in the budget, so naturally they should just be ignored right now. Sharpton then showed him a graph of just how much money in the budget would be saved if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire and here’s how the segment wound up. SHARPTON: The bigger issue is, well I can show you (crosstalk) if you let the Buch tax cuts expire now, you have a huge amount of money to work with. But again, it’s not what you say, and there’s the graph right there, $424 billion you cut into if you let the tax cuts just expire. But Congressman, what I’m saying is, is I’m a preacher. GRAVES: You’re a preacher. SHARPTON: I know the difference between talking the talk, walking the walk. You claim you voted for it, but you don’t want to walk with it. Because you have an opportunity right now, on national T.V. to say to your party and to your Speaker, put it on the table! I voted against it. That’s what I’m telling everybody. GRAVES: I want on the table and what I’ve made clear is, cut the deficit now, cap the spending and balance the budget. That’s the answer to the deficit crisis and the debt crisis we have in this nation. And if we’re to preserve America and our future, it’s going to take big, bold proposals. That is big. Compromise and deals, that is not big. (crosstalk) SHARPTON: And also we cannot ever talk about dealing with the rich and the corporate jets, but grandma and working people, you, are, expendable. GRAVES: As long as you are on the air, there will be a lot of talk about it. SHARPTON: Thank you for your time this evening. GRAVES: Thank you Al. I don’t think we’re going to see Graves come on the air with Sharpton any time again soon and I’ll just echo his words, thank you Al.
Continue reading …