Mark Zuckerberg’s social network giant poised to announce ‘awesome’ launch this week according to technology blog Facebook is reportedly planning this week to team up with Skype to launch a video chat function for its millions of users. It would mean that Facebook members, already accustomed to posting status updates and photographs, sharing news stories and sending messages via their profiles, would also be able to video chat live with other members. The news was reported by a respected technology blog, Tech Crunch , in a story written by its editor, Michael Arrington, a well-known figure in social media circles across the world. “Next week, says a source with knowledge of the partnership, Facebook will launch a new video chat product, powered by Skype,” Arrington wrote. Rumours about a tie-up between Facebook and Skype have swirled for several years without a finished product emerging. But this latest round of speculation is given credence by the fact that Facebook’s young founder, Mark Zuckerberg, has announced a major news conference for a new product this Wednesday. Zuckerberg told reporters that the firm would “launch something awesome” that had been developed by the firm’s Seattle research engineering office. Predictions that this would involve video chat were also boosted by the fact that press invitations to the event were decorated with a small chat icon with a silhouette of a person in one of them. “Suddenly those chat icons in the invitation have a lot more meaning,” Arrington commented. Another influential tech blog, Mashable , confirmed the story. “While Facebook and Skype aren’t saying anything officially, our sources confirm that Skype-powered video chat on Facebook will indeed be launching next week,” the website reported. If true, the move is likely to cement Facebook even further into the lives of its growing number of global users. The company, founded in 2004, is already one of the biggest and most influential in the world, with an estimated 500 million-plus active users. Through the exploding industry of social media, Facebook’s influence is spreading through the media, entertainment and advertising industries. Having a video chat function using Skype would extend its reach even further, potentially encroaching on the mobile telephone sector. Facebook’s success has turned 27-year-old Zuckerberg into one of the richest self-made men in the world, worth billions of dollars. Last year he was the subject of the Hollywood film The Social Network , which was nominated for eight Oscars. Facebook Skype Social networking Mark Zuckerberg Telecoms Paul Harris guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rural poor hope for the return of billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra after election Suk Somboon village turned red in the early hours of Thursday morning, when its 200 residents gathered and chanting monks made offerings. They tied scarlet thread around neighbours’ wrists, put up flags along the roadside and erected a metal sign declaring their new status. “It’s a red district anyway. The point is the symbolism,” said Kwanchai Praipana, a prominent redshirt leader from Thailand’s Udon Thani province. “The aim is to show we want justice, democracy and Thaksin [Shinawatra] to return.” Hundreds of north-eastern settlements have proclaimed themselves “red democracy villages” since today’s general election was announced, in the latest evolution of the anti-government redshirt movement. It highlights a bitter division that claimed more than 90 lives last year and is focused on one man: the former prime minister, whose beaming face adorns Suk Somboon’s new sign. Thaksin Shinawatra – who was the owner of Manchester City FC for 15 months from June 2007 – defines Thai politics even from 3,000 miles away in Dubai, where he lives to avoid a jail sentence for abuse of power. The redshirt-associated party Puea Thai – led by his sister Yingluck, but Thaksin’s in all but name – is on course to beat the incumbent Democrats. Jon Ungpakhorn, an activist and former senator, warned last week : “There is a clear danger of violence on a scale closer to civil war if either side is provoked by extreme measures – for example, if a Puea Thai election victory were to be derailed by a legal judgment or military coup, or if a Puea Thai government were to swiftly facilitate the return of a defiant Thaksin Shinawatra by means of amnesty and pardon.” Prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, arriving for his party’s final, rain-drenched rally on Friday, said: “The core issue is whether the Thai people want to move the country forward beyond the conflict created by and surrounding one man.” But Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak, director of the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University, suggested that the underlying issue was the awakening of a marginalised grassroots electorate that is challenging the political status quo. Thaksin, a former telecoms tycoon who recently told Der Spiegel he had “barely a billion” left , might not seem an
Continue reading …
Renowned American intellectual accuses the Venezuelan leader of concentrating too much power in his own hands Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar’s praise for Venezuela’s socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism. Venezuela’s president, who hasrevealed that he has had surgery in Cuba to remove a cancerous tumour, turned one of Chomsky’s books into an overnight bestseller after brandishing it during a UN speech. He hosted Chomsky in Caracas with smiles and pomp. Earlier this year Chávez even suggested Washington make Chomsky the US ambassador to Venezuela. The president may be about to have second thoughts about that, because his favourite intellectual has now turned his guns on Chávez. Speaking to the Observer last week, Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an “assault” on Venezuela’s democracy. “Concentration of executive power, unless it’s very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela's] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that’s a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not.” Chomsky, a linguistics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke on the eve of publishing an open letter (see below) that accuses Venezuela’s authorities of “cruelty” in the case of a jailed judge. The self-described libertarian socialist says the plight of María Lourdes Afiuni is a “glaring exception” in a time of worldwide cries for freedom. He urges Chávez to release her in “a gesture of clemency” for the sake of justice and human rights. Chomsky reveals he has lobbied Venezuela’s government behind the scenes since late last year after being approached by the Carr centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Afiuni earned Chávez’s ire in December 2009 by freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges. Cedeño promptly fled the country. In a televised broadcast the president, who had taken a close interest in the case, called the judge a criminal and demanded she be jailed for 30 years. “That judge has to pay for what she has done.” Afiuni, 47, a single mother with cancer, spent just over a year in jail, where she was assaulted by other prisoners. In January, authorities softened her confinement to house arrest pending trial for corruption, which she denies. “Judge Afiuni has suffered enough,” states Chomsky’s letter. “She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free.” Amnesty International and the European parliament, among others, have condemned the judge’s treatment but the intervention of a scholar considered a friend of the Bolivarian revolution, which is named after the hero of Venezuelan independence, Simón Bolívar, is likely to sting even more. Speaking from his home in Boston, Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. “I’m sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It’s striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her … that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation.” He also faulted Chávez for adopting enabling powers to circumvent the national assembly. “Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo [authoritarianism] and it has to be guarded against. Whether it’s over too far in that direction in Venezuela I’m not sure, but I think perhaps it is. A trend has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don’t think is a healthy development.” Chomsky expressed concern over Chávez’s cancer and wished the president a full and prompt recovery. Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance became a publishing sensation after Chávez waved a copy during a UN address in 2006 famous for his denunciation of President George W Bush as a devil. Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a “vicious, unremitting” campaign against Venezuela. The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity, Chomsky said. “It’s hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world.” Leonardo Vivas, co-ordinator of Latin American initiatives at the Carr Centre, said that Afiuni’s case was the most prominent example of the erosion of justice in several Latin American countries. The centre hoped that Caracas would now heed Chomsky. “He is one of the most important public intellectuals in the US and is respected by the Venezuelan government.” The decision to lobby publicly was taken because quiet diplomacy had limits, said Vivas. Chávez, who is convalescing in Cuba, has a reputation for lashing back at criticism, raising the risk that the Afiuni initative could backfire. “That could happen,” said Vivas. “But that would mean recognition of the problem.” Chomsky’s letter Judge María Lourdes Afiuni has suffered enough With this public letter I want to express my open support of the liberty of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, detained in Venezuela since December 2009. In November of last year I was informed of her situation by the Latin American initiative of the Carr Centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Ever since, I have been directly involved in mediation efforts with the Venezuelan government, with the purpose of releasing her from prison through a gesture of clemency by President Chávez. Judge Afiuni had my sympathy and solidarity from the very beginning. The way she was detained, the inadequate conditions of her imprisonment, the degrading treatment she suffered in the Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina, the dramatic erosion of her health and the cruelty displayed against her, all duly documented, left me greatly worried about her physical and psychological wellbeing, as well as about her personal safety. Those reasons motivated me in December 2010 to address, jointly with the Carr Centre, a petition for an official pardon from the president in the context of the yearly presidential amnesties. In January I received with relief the news that Venezuela’s attorney general had suggested house arrest for judge Afiuni given her fragile health condition, which ended up with emergency surgery. Being in her house with her family and with adequate medical attention has been without doubt a significant improvement of her situation. However, judge Afiuni has suffered enough. She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free, not only due to her physical and psychological health conditions, but in conformance with the human dignity the Bolivarian revolution presents as a goal. In times of worldwide cries for freedom, the detention of María Lourdes Afiuni stands out as a glaring exception that should be remedied quickly, for the sake of justice and human rights generally and for affirming an honourable role for Venezuela in these struggles. For the above reasons I want Venezuelans to be aware of my total solidarity with judge Afiuni, while I affirm my unwavering commitment with the efforts advanced by the Carr Centre in Harvard University to release her from imprisonment. At the same time, I shall keep high hopes that President Chávez will consider a humanitarian act that will end the judge’s detention. Hugo Chávez Noam Chomsky Venezuela Human rights Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Speaking Of Independence, Haitian Farmers March To Support Their Own Agriculture — Not Multinational Corporations
July 2, 2011 No CommentYou know, it’s nice that Bill Clinton was all teary-eyed about the effect his and everyone else’s American policies had on poor battered Haiti, but the fact is, the country is still colonized by corporations and I don’t see him doing a damned thing to stop it: Hinche, Haiti – Last week, thousands of farmers and supporters of Haitian peasant agriculture marched for hours under the hot Caribbean sun to call for more government support for locally grown seeds and agriculture. The demonstration was organized by the Peasant Movement of Papay and other farmer associations, human rights and women’s groups, and the Haitian Platform for Alternative Development (PAPDA), the Haitian online agency AlterPresse reported from the march. The official theme of the peaceful demonstration was “Land Grabbing is Endangering Agricultural Sovereignty.” Singing slogans like “Long Live Haitian Agriculture!” and “Long live local seeds!” the crowd – wearing straw hats and red T-shirts – wound its way on foot, donkeys, and bikes through this dusty provincial capital. The demonstration ended at a square named for farmer Charlemagne Péralte, who lead the “Caco” peasant revolt against the U.S. army occupation from 1916 until 1919, when U.S. Marines assassinated him. One year ago, thousands of farmers covered the same march route to protest the import of a “gift” of seeds from Monsanto. The farmers burned some of the seeds, calling them a “death plan” for peasant agriculture. Last spring, in violation of Haitian law, the Minister of Agriculture gave the agribusiness giant Monsanto permission to “donate” 505 tons of seeds to Haiti. The first shipment of 60 tons, reportedly of maize and vegetable seeds, arrived in May 2010. Some of the seeds were coated with a chemical (Thiram)[1] so toxic that the EPA forbids its sale to home gardeners in the U.S.. Monsanto announced its $4 million gift was “to support the reconstruction effort” in Haiti.
Continue reading …
Government plans to fight human trafficking are basically about immigration control, says former Tory MP Experts have condemned the government’s forthcoming strategy against human trafficking, accusing it of being more concerned with immigration control than caring for slavery victims. Former Tory MP Anthony Steen, chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation, said it was a matter of “regret” that the thrust of the coalition’s review of its anti-trafficking strategy, published last month, seemed more focused on political concerns than helping victims. Steen, who founded the all-party parliamentary group for human trafficking, said coalition claims of making the issue a “priority” did not reflect reality: “It should be about being hostile to traffickers, being compassionate and caring to victims, a human rights approach as opposed to an immigration issue.” The foundation cites planned changes to the domestic workers’ visa, which they say threatens to put migrant domestic workers back into bonded labour and slavery in the UK, as indicative of official policy. Concerns are rising that UK border agency staff are encouraged to stress the immigration status of trafficked individuals instead of the crime against them. The Poppy Project charity points to a growth in attempted forced deportations of potential trafficking victims who had not exhausted all legal options in the UK. Part of the new policy review will concentrate on disrupting trafficking networks in “source” countries. In one of Europe’s principle hubs of trafficked men and women – the port of Odessa in southern Ukraine – charities have demanded more resources to combat traffickers. A spokesman for Faith, Hope and Love, an Odessa-based group dedicated to tackling human slavery, said they would welcome outside assistance to help target the criminal syndicates and corrupt state officials that facilitate the export of women. A Home Office spokesman rejected claims that policies to tackle trafficking clashed with immigration concerns, pointing to a series of recent raids on sex trafficking gangs by UKBA officials. Immigration and asylum Human trafficking Slavery Mark Townsend guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Lately, education reform has gotten a bad name. This is largely because all efforts to improve our institutions of learning are suspected to be more Rhee-form than reform, with an emphasis on statistics over students, testing over tutoring, one-size fits all approaches as opposed to creating the kind of cultural change within our schools that will lead to their renaissance. This is why, for me, it was quite literally a breath of fresh air when I recently was introduced to Steve Edwards, CEO of Edwards Educational Services . Edwards, who speaks so passionately about education that there is no doubting his sincerity, has built a model consulting practice on the premise that leadership skills are of paramount importance , safety, lowering dropout rates and student achievement go hand in hand, and building a relationship of “trust” between students, administrators and educators is key. In summary, Edwards and his entire organization are so successful because as EES itself states, we can’t apply “simplistic solutions to address complex problems…The educational system of each city and town must be structured and continually adjusted to meet the needs of its population, as well as the demands of society’s evolving dynamics.” Adding to this, Edwards told me: There are a number of indicators of student performance, of which testing is only one. It is considered 95% of the pie by those dominating many reform conversations today. It should be about 20%. Let’s not create conformity so kids do not learn to think. Let’s not substitute rigidity for the ability to study data and demographics from local communities, and see what that tells us about which strategies will be most successful. Let’s develop programs so teachers and students can learn to communicate and interact. Let’s prioritize safety and achievement, and acknowledge the obvious relationship between them. Let’s ensure there is teacher accountability, but not judge teachers based on results from one test, but on how they handle all of these important facets of the educational experience for our children. If that sounds different than Rhee-form, that’s because it is. Innovation should be about updating improving how we teach our children, not figuring out the best way to profit from it. Yes, change is necessary, no it doesn’t need to come in the form of some Randian version of public schooling. How do we know EES’ strategies work? Because even before he took his innovative student-centric approach national, Edwards displayed its effectiveness as principal of East Hartford High School in East Hartford, Connecticut for a decade, during which time he and the school were recognized by USA Today as national leaders in education innovation. What happened during his tenure there? Only a 50% reduction in suspensions, over 50% drop in incidents of fighting, no student expulsions in seven years, a reduction in the dropout rate to under 1.8%, and increased graduation rates—all while improving scores on the standardized tests that are so all-important to Rhee’s crowd. More recently, from 2005 to 2008, Edwards Educational Services worked with 48 Toledo Public Schools. When compared to the 14 schools that did not work with EES, the results speak for themselves. EES’s emphasis on creating a culture of collaboration and data-based decision-making led to an increase in achievement scores of over 60% among the 48 public schools they worked with, while the other 14% saw their achievement scores go up by just over 10%. I don’t need Isaac Newton to explain to me that those numbers mean something. In the years since, Edwards has learned what works on the ground level, joining The National Crime Prevention Council as vice president, to develop strategies to lessen youth, family, and community violence. Edwards also provided kids with the training, skills, and confidence they need as Vice President of Global Initiatives with 180-Degree, and a decade sitting on the Board of the National Dropout Prevention Center —all contributors to the development of the groundbreaking programs of Edwards Educational Services. As if these results and strategic imperatives don’t speak for themselves, one need only look to a recent piece by Sarah D. Sparks in Education Week, entitled, “Study Links School Safety to Student Achievement, Relationships,” to see the power of The Edwards Approach: School safety depends far less on the poverty and crime surrounding the campus than on the academic achievement of its students and their relationships with adults in the building, according to a new study of Chicago public schools. Read the rest, it is well worth it. I’m excited to be working with Edwards Educational Services in trying to achieve some pretty lofty goals, but I’m even more excited that in EES we have the answer to Rhee-form. And as you could have guessed, it’s real, it’s tangible, and it’s student-focused….REFORM. Cliff Schecter’s on Twitter, Follow him @cliffschecter
Continue reading …
Liberal Democrats warn that George Osborne’s ringfencing could prove too weak to protect customers Senior Liberal Democrats are demanding drastic action to break up UK banks into separate retail and investment divisions, as banking reform threatens to cause a new rift in the coalition. In a letter to the Observer on the eve of the deadline for industry groups to respond to a government-commissioned report on reform, peers, MPs and senior figures in the national party insist that chancellor George Osborne’s suggested approach falls short of what is needed. The Lib Dems join a list of more than 50 politicians, academics and economists to demand that the party honours its commitments – most recently made at its spring conference – to achieve a full breakup. The group, drawn together by the centre-left pressure group Compass and the New Economics Foundation, says that the Greek financial crisis, and the exposure of British banks to it, highlights the urgent need for action to promote financial stability. Raising concerns that the chancellor is ready to accept only limited reform, as recommended in an initial report by the economist Sir John Vickers, they say that far tougher action is needed. “Ringfencing retail and investment banking through ‘chinese walls’ in the manner suggested and endorsed by the chancellor, George Osborne, will not produce a banking system that is safe and fit-for-purpose,” they write. “If companies can continue to move capital between retail and investment banking, the latter could still endanger the former. As a first step, full separation of banking functions is needed to better insulate the taxpayer against failure. Full separation would provide depositors with institutions they can trust.” The letter suggests that senior Lib Dem and Labour figures are now prepared to work together on banking reform as part of a “progressive alliance” against key Tory policies. The signatories include the Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders and Labour MPs Yasmin Qureshi and Jon Cruddas. Other Lib Dems who signed the letter include Lord Trevor Smith, Linda Jack of the Liberal Democrat Federal Policy Committee, Prof Richard Grayson, a former head of policy, and Stephen Knight, leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. Many Lib Dems believe disagreements over banking reform could cause a coalition split similar to that over the proposed NHS reforms. Splitting up the banks was a cause célèbre for Vince Cable when he was a radical critic of Labour’s handling of the financial crisis. However, the issue was fudged when the coalition agreement was struck after the general election, with both parties signing up to the idea that an independent commission would report on the future of the banks. Led by Vickers, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, the commission issued its first report in April, calling for a “ringfence” around customers’ deposits to stop them being used to fund risky investment banking activities, derided as “casino banking” by Cable in opposition. Osborne surprised financial markets by using his Mansion House speech last month to suggest that he would accept the proposals before the final Vickers report is produced in the autumn. But now his hope of drawing a line under the financial sector controversy looks in trouble as a growing number of politicians and experts are warning that the proposals lack teeth. Former chancellor Nigel Lawson said that he expected the Vickers commission to shrug off Osborne’s efforts to pre-empt its final conclusions. Lawson believes the ringfence suggested in Vickers’s preliminary report – and apparently endorsed by Osborne – is not sufficiently radical. “My fear is that it works on paper, but it would not work in the real world,” he said. “I think there needs to be a structural solution.” Paul Fisher, a director at the Bank of England, conceded last week that uncertainty about regulatory reform was weighing on financial markets. The government has faced relentless lobbying from City banks threatening an exodus from the Square Mile and Canary Wharf if a full-blown breakup went ahead. But the bank’s governor, Sir Mervyn King, has called for a “clean” solution to the problem of banks that have become “too big to fail”. The New Economics Foundation’s Tony Greenham warned that the Vickers proposal, involving Chinese walls protecting retail banking, would be bureaucratic and complex. “Behavioural remedies are never as effective as institutional remedies,” he said. “You can create a set of rules to help people behave in a certain way, but they will find ways around that — that’s what highly paid bankers do. It would be a much less bureaucratic solution just to split them up.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Banking Liberal Democrats Conservatives George Osborne Bank of England Toby Helm Heather Stewart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Liberal Democrats warn that George Osborne’s ringfencing could prove too weak to protect customers Senior Liberal Democrats are demanding drastic action to break up UK banks into separate retail and investment divisions, as banking reform threatens to cause a new rift in the coalition. In a letter to the Observer on the eve of the deadline for industry groups to respond to a government-commissioned report on reform, peers, MPs and senior figures in the national party insist that chancellor George Osborne’s suggested approach falls short of what is needed. The Lib Dems join a list of more than 50 politicians, academics and economists to demand that the party honours its commitments – most recently made at its spring conference – to achieve a full breakup. The group, drawn together by the centre-left pressure group Compass and the New Economics Foundation, says that the Greek financial crisis, and the exposure of British banks to it, highlights the urgent need for action to promote financial stability. Raising concerns that the chancellor is ready to accept only limited reform, as recommended in an initial report by the economist Sir John Vickers, they say that far tougher action is needed. “Ringfencing retail and investment banking through ‘chinese walls’ in the manner suggested and endorsed by the chancellor, George Osborne, will not produce a banking system that is safe and fit-for-purpose,” they write. “If companies can continue to move capital between retail and investment banking, the latter could still endanger the former. As a first step, full separation of banking functions is needed to better insulate the taxpayer against failure. Full separation would provide depositors with institutions they can trust.” The letter suggests that senior Lib Dem and Labour figures are now prepared to work together on banking reform as part of a “progressive alliance” against key Tory policies. The signatories include the Lib Dem MP Adrian Sanders and Labour MPs Yasmin Qureshi and Jon Cruddas. Other Lib Dems who signed the letter include Lord Trevor Smith, Linda Jack of the Liberal Democrat Federal Policy Committee, Prof Richard Grayson, a former head of policy, and Stephen Knight, leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. Many Lib Dems believe disagreements over banking reform could cause a coalition split similar to that over the proposed NHS reforms. Splitting up the banks was a cause célèbre for Vince Cable when he was a radical critic of Labour’s handling of the financial crisis. However, the issue was fudged when the coalition agreement was struck after the general election, with both parties signing up to the idea that an independent commission would report on the future of the banks. Led by Vickers, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, the commission issued its first report in April, calling for a “ringfence” around customers’ deposits to stop them being used to fund risky investment banking activities, derided as “casino banking” by Cable in opposition. Osborne surprised financial markets by using his Mansion House speech last month to suggest that he would accept the proposals before the final Vickers report is produced in the autumn. But now his hope of drawing a line under the financial sector controversy looks in trouble as a growing number of politicians and experts are warning that the proposals lack teeth. Former chancellor Nigel Lawson said that he expected the Vickers commission to shrug off Osborne’s efforts to pre-empt its final conclusions. Lawson believes the ringfence suggested in Vickers’s preliminary report – and apparently endorsed by Osborne – is not sufficiently radical. “My fear is that it works on paper, but it would not work in the real world,” he said. “I think there needs to be a structural solution.” Paul Fisher, a director at the Bank of England, conceded last week that uncertainty about regulatory reform was weighing on financial markets. The government has faced relentless lobbying from City banks threatening an exodus from the Square Mile and Canary Wharf if a full-blown breakup went ahead. But the bank’s governor, Sir Mervyn King, has called for a “clean” solution to the problem of banks that have become “too big to fail”. The New Economics Foundation’s Tony Greenham warned that the Vickers proposal, involving Chinese walls protecting retail banking, would be bureaucratic and complex. “Behavioural remedies are never as effective as institutional remedies,” he said. “You can create a set of rules to help people behave in a certain way, but they will find ways around that — that’s what highly paid bankers do. It would be a much less bureaucratic solution just to split them up.” Liberal-Conservative coalition Banking Liberal Democrats Conservatives George Osborne Bank of England Toby Helm Heather Stewart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
A leaked letter, from the office of Eric Pickles has warned that welfare reform will make 40,000 more people homeless David Cameron has been warned by one of his most trusted cabinet ministers that his welfare policies risk making 40,000 families homeless. The extraordinary claim, in a letter to the prime minister from the office of Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, exposes deep splits at the heart of government over plans to cap benefit at £500 a week per family. The letter, leaked to the Observer , reveals Pickles’s belief that the cap – announced with great fanfare at last year’s Tory conference – will increase the burden on taxpayers, because thousands of families will be unable to pay their rent and will have to seek local government help. It blows apart the government’s public insistence that a limit on benefit payments will have little impact on homelessness and child poverty. Written by Nico Heslop, Pickles’s private secretary, at the clear instigation of the minister, the letter lays bare fears of mass homelessness “disproportionately impacting on families”. It says: ■ 40,000 families will be made homeless by the welfare reforms, putting further strain on services already “seeing increased pressures”. ■ An estimated £270m saving from the benefits cap will be wiped out by the need to divert resources to help the newly homeless and is likely to “generate a net cost”. ■ Half of the 56,000 affordable homes the government expects to be constructed by 2015 will not be built because developers will realise they will not be able to recoup even 80% of market rates from tenants. The leak is the first time that disagreements over welfare cuts have surfaced within the Tory high command. Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said the letter suggested ministers had not come clean over the effects of their policy. “We were assured by ministers that costs wouldn’t rise. Now top-level leaks reveal the truth. Iain Duncan Smith has promised the House of Commons he will not U-turn on the benefits cap. Perhaps now David Cameron will order him to think again.” Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat welfare spokeswoman who has already warned that a rigid cap would increase child poverty, said she remained “very worried” about the proposals, which are due to come into effect in 2013. Last month, employment minister Chris Grayling rebuffed an attempt by Labour to protect those facing homelessness from the benefit cap. Dismissing a Labour amendment to the welfare reform bill, he said: “It is not yet clear to what extent they would be affected by the overall benefit cap.” The bill has since passed to the Lords, although the revelations will only fuel existing concerns among Liberal Democrat and Labour peers. Labour MP Karen Buck, who sits on the Commons committee, said Pickles’s letter proved there was confusion and division at the centre of government. “The housing department and the benefits department are pursuing policies which don’t just cut across, but actively undermine, each other,” she said. Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, the charity for the homeless, said: “With 21% of people struggling to meet housing costs, it’s naive to think you can cut support without putting some people at risk of losing their home. The coalition government should stop bulldozing through badly thought-through policies while ignoring independent evidence, its own expert panel and the views of those who will deal with the very real impact on people.” Enver Solomon, policy director at the Children’s Society, said: “The social costs of the cap are huge and would have disastrous consequences for many children.” The leaking of the letter will be a source of considerable embarrassment to the government. It was sent by Heslop to Cameron’s private secretary, Matthew Style – the normal channel of communication used by cabinet ministers for formal matters of policy. Over two pages, the fears of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are spelled out over “some very serious practical issues for DCLG priorities”. The letter says: “Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to the housing benefit. We are already seeing increased pressures on the homelessness services.” It adds: “We are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m [per year] from 2014-2015, does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost.” The letter then claims that with the reduction in the benefit families can claim, developers will not be able to recoup anything close to a market rent and so will not have an incentive to build homes. “Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost,” the letter says. “And reductions would disproprortionately affect family homes rather than small flats.” Of a proposed policy that families would be required to divert part of the general benefits, such as child benefit, to cover housing costs, it adds: “It is important not to underestimate the level of controversy that this would generate.” A spokesman for Pickles said: “We are fully supportive of all the government’s policies on benefits. Clearly action is needed to tackle the housing benefit bill which has spiralled to £21bn a year under Labour.” Welfare Eric Pickles David Cameron Iain Duncan Smith Child benefit Communities Children State benefits Daniel Boffey Toby Helm guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A leaked letter, from the office of Eric Pickles has warned that welfare reform will make 40,000 more people homeless David Cameron has been warned by one of his most trusted cabinet ministers that his welfare policies risk making 40,000 families homeless. The extraordinary claim, in a letter to the prime minister from the office of Eric Pickles, the communities secretary, exposes deep splits at the heart of government over plans to cap benefit at £500 a week per family. The letter, leaked to the Observer , reveals Pickles’s belief that the cap – announced with great fanfare at last year’s Tory conference – will increase the burden on taxpayers, because thousands of families will be unable to pay their rent and will have to seek local government help. It blows apart the government’s public insistence that a limit on benefit payments will have little impact on homelessness and child poverty. Written by Nico Heslop, Pickles’s private secretary, at the clear instigation of the minister, the letter lays bare fears of mass homelessness “disproportionately impacting on families”. It says: ■ 40,000 families will be made homeless by the welfare reforms, putting further strain on services already “seeing increased pressures”. ■ An estimated £270m saving from the benefits cap will be wiped out by the need to divert resources to help the newly homeless and is likely to “generate a net cost”. ■ Half of the 56,000 affordable homes the government expects to be constructed by 2015 will not be built because developers will realise they will not be able to recoup even 80% of market rates from tenants. The leak is the first time that disagreements over welfare cuts have surfaced within the Tory high command. Liam Byrne, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said the letter suggested ministers had not come clean over the effects of their policy. “We were assured by ministers that costs wouldn’t rise. Now top-level leaks reveal the truth. Iain Duncan Smith has promised the House of Commons he will not U-turn on the benefits cap. Perhaps now David Cameron will order him to think again.” Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat welfare spokeswoman who has already warned that a rigid cap would increase child poverty, said she remained “very worried” about the proposals, which are due to come into effect in 2013. Last month, employment minister Chris Grayling rebuffed an attempt by Labour to protect those facing homelessness from the benefit cap. Dismissing a Labour amendment to the welfare reform bill, he said: “It is not yet clear to what extent they would be affected by the overall benefit cap.” The bill has since passed to the Lords, although the revelations will only fuel existing concerns among Liberal Democrat and Labour peers. Labour MP Karen Buck, who sits on the Commons committee, said Pickles’s letter proved there was confusion and division at the centre of government. “The housing department and the benefits department are pursuing policies which don’t just cut across, but actively undermine, each other,” she said. Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, the charity for the homeless, said: “With 21% of people struggling to meet housing costs, it’s naive to think you can cut support without putting some people at risk of losing their home. The coalition government should stop bulldozing through badly thought-through policies while ignoring independent evidence, its own expert panel and the views of those who will deal with the very real impact on people.” Enver Solomon, policy director at the Children’s Society, said: “The social costs of the cap are huge and would have disastrous consequences for many children.” The leaking of the letter will be a source of considerable embarrassment to the government. It was sent by Heslop to Cameron’s private secretary, Matthew Style – the normal channel of communication used by cabinet ministers for formal matters of policy. Over two pages, the fears of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are spelled out over “some very serious practical issues for DCLG priorities”. The letter says: “Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap. This on top of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to the housing benefit. We are already seeing increased pressures on the homelessness services.” It adds: “We are concerned that the savings from this measure, currently estimated at £270m [per year] from 2014-2015, does not take account of the additional costs to local authorities (through homelessness and temporary accommodation). In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost.” The letter then claims that with the reduction in the benefit families can claim, developers will not be able to recoup anything close to a market rent and so will not have an incentive to build homes. “Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost,” the letter says. “And reductions would disproprortionately affect family homes rather than small flats.” Of a proposed policy that families would be required to divert part of the general benefits, such as child benefit, to cover housing costs, it adds: “It is important not to underestimate the level of controversy that this would generate.” A spokesman for Pickles said: “We are fully supportive of all the government’s policies on benefits. Clearly action is needed to tackle the housing benefit bill which has spiralled to £21bn a year under Labour.” Welfare Eric Pickles David Cameron Iain Duncan Smith Child benefit Communities Children State benefits Daniel Boffey Toby Helm guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …