Despite jump since Lord Davies issued 25% target, proportion of executives who are female is barely above 13% Britain’s biggest companies have more than doubled the number of women they are appointing to boardroom jobs since Lord Davies, the government’s champion of female board representation, told businesses this year that within four years a quarter of senior bosses should be women. FTSE 100 companies have recruited 23 women to their boards this year – representing about 30% of total board appointments – after Davies said they should sign up to a voluntary target of 25% board representation by 2015. The data was collected by the Cranfield School of Management. This year’s recruitments mark a jump on the 18 women appointed to FTSE 100 boards made for the whole of 2010, representing 13.3% of last year’s total. In another sign of progress, the number of blue-chip companies without a single woman on their boards has fallen to 14, down from 21 last December . The appointments include Lucinda Bell, who became British Land’s finance director in March, and Elizabeth Doherty, appointed chief financial officer at consumer goods group Reckitt Benckiser in February. Baroness Vadera of Holland Park, a former business minister, has taken independent non-executive directorships at pharmaceuticals company AstraZeneca and BHP Billiton, the mining group. However, Cranfield points out that despite this year’s jump, still only 13.9% of FTSE 100 board positions are held by women – or 152 out of 1,086 seats – compared with 12.5% in December. Female board representation in the FTSE 250 is still low, at 8.7% (up from 7.8% in December). Lord Davies of Abersoch welcomed the leap in FTSE 100 board representation but said there was “a danger that the issue becomes forgotten”. He said he was working with business secretary Vince Cable and the prime minister’s office on “ways to keep the pressure up”. In February, Davies told FTSE 350 companies to set their own “challenging targets” and called on chairmen to announce their goals within six months and for chief executives to review the percentage of women they aim to have on their executive committees in 2013 and 2015. “We are making progress but we have to make sure all companies publish their targets in the autumn. Even though it is voluntary, I have written to every company secretary laying out what we are expecting and I am getting letters from boards saying they are going to comply.” He added: “Post August, I intend to make sure I keep the pressure up and there is going to be a bit of naming and shaming of companies not supporting it… There will be an event in the autumn that will make the corporate sector realise the government has not forgotten,” Davies said. “All members of the government want to make sure that companies realise this is not just about publication of the report, but about a long-term transformation of the boardroom. This is a continuous issue that’s not going to go away.” However, he said he had no plans to introduce mandatory quotas, which many women oppose as it could create a perception that they have been hired only because of their sex. Cable said: “These figures are good news. However, we still need to see more women appointed to senior decision-making positions in our largest companies. I strongly urge all chairman to publish their aims by September of this year.” Dr Ruth Sealy, Cranfield’s deputy director of the international centre for women leaders, described her latest female board figures as “very, very encouraging” and “pretty much entirely down to the Davies report”. She added that the recent appointment of Christine Lagarde as the IMF’s first female head “can only be a good thing”. Lagarde has backed quotas as the only way of forcing change. Corporate governance Equality Gender Tom Bawden guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Former party chief executive in Scotland says Huhne must go over ‘conspiracy’ to protect nuclear industry A prominent Liberal Democrat has called for Chris Huhne to resign immediately as energy and climate change secretary after emails were released detailing his officials’ efforts to co-ordinate a PR response to the Fukushima disaster with the nuclear industry . Civil servants in the energy and business departments were apparently trying to minimise the impact of the disaster on public support for nuclear power. Andy Myles, the party’s former chief executive in Scotland, said: “This deliberate and (sadly) very effective attempt to ‘calm’ the reporting of the true story of Fukushima is a terrible betrayal of liberal values. In my view it is not acceptable that a Liberal Democrat cabinet minister presides over a department deeply involved in a blatant conspiracy designed to manipulate the truth in order to protect corporate interests”. The leader of the Lib Dems in the European parliament, Fiona Hall, said nuclear plans should be put on hold. “These emails corroborate my own impression that there has been a strange silence in the UK following the Fukushima disaster … in the UK, new nuclear sites have been announced before the results of the Europe-wide review of nuclear safety has been completed. Today’s news strengthens the case for the government to halt new nuclear plans until an independent and transparent review has been conducted.” Liberal Democrats Liberal-Conservative coalition Nuclear power Energy Japan disaster Rob Edwards guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former party chief executive in Scotland says Huhne must go over ‘conspiracy’ to protect nuclear industry A prominent Liberal Democrat has called for Chris Huhne to resign immediately as energy and climate change secretary after emails were released detailing his officials’ efforts to co-ordinate a PR response to the Fukushima disaster with the nuclear industry . Civil servants in the energy and business departments were apparently trying to minimise the impact of the disaster on public support for nuclear power. Andy Myles, the party’s former chief executive in Scotland, said: “This deliberate and (sadly) very effective attempt to ‘calm’ the reporting of the true story of Fukushima is a terrible betrayal of liberal values. In my view it is not acceptable that a Liberal Democrat cabinet minister presides over a department deeply involved in a blatant conspiracy designed to manipulate the truth in order to protect corporate interests”. The leader of the Lib Dems in the European parliament, Fiona Hall, said nuclear plans should be put on hold. “These emails corroborate my own impression that there has been a strange silence in the UK following the Fukushima disaster … in the UK, new nuclear sites have been announced before the results of the Europe-wide review of nuclear safety has been completed. Today’s news strengthens the case for the government to halt new nuclear plans until an independent and transparent review has been conducted.” Liberal Democrats Liberal-Conservative coalition Nuclear power Energy Japan disaster Rob Edwards guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
New constitution the monarch’s response to demands for greater freedoms resulting from the Middle East unrest Moroccans voted on Friday on whether to adopt a new constitution that the king has championed as an answer to demands for greater freedoms – but that protesters say will still leave the monarch firmly in control. The referendum on the constitution is near certain to result in a resounding yes vote, like all past referendums in this North African country and generally throughout the Arab world. It is buoyed by a huge media and government campaign, and is seen by some as a way to tentatively open up Moroccan politics, while heading off the kind of tumultuous regime change seen elsewhere in the region. Some voters at the country’s nearly 40,000 polling stations described the ballot as a vote of confidence in King Mohammed VI, a 47-year-old who assumed the throne in 1999 and is seen as a relatively modern monarch. Preliminary results are expected after polls close Friday night. A popular tourist destination, the generally stable, Muslim kingdom is a staunch US ally in a strategic swath of northern Africa that has suffered terrorist attacks – and in recent months, popular uprisings against autocratic regimes. Morocco, like the rest of the Middle East, was swept by pro-democracy demonstrations at the beginning of the year, protesting a lack of freedoms, weak economy and political corruption. The king, however, seems to have managed the popular disaffection by presenting a new constitution that guarantees the rights of women and minorities, and increases the powers of the parliament and judiciary, ostensibly at the expense of his own. Protests have continued nevertheless, and the 20 February pro-democracy movement has called for a boycott. It insists that the new constitution leaves the king firmly in power and will be little different from its predecessor. Their voices have been drowned out as nearly every political party, newspaper and television station has for the past several weeks pressed for Moroccans to vote in favour of the constitution. The monarch was among those voting, casting his ballot in a chic Rabat neighbourhood and, like every other voter, his voting card and ID were checked against the list. He voted with his brother, Prince Moulay Rachid. Crowds were small but steady at voting stations in a working class neighbourhood of Sale, outside the capital, Rabat. Voters were given two pieces of paper – one for a yes vote and one for a no vote – and placed one in an envelope which they put into the urn. The yes ballot was white, and the no ballot light blue, so that illiterate voters could participate. In the Moroccan countryside, voter turnout was stronger in the morning, before a searing heat descended. Officials at different voting stations said turnout was around 25% to 35% by late morning. Cafile Roqiya, a 54-year-old in glasses and a headscarf in the town of Benslimane, said she was voting yes “because there has been much progress”. “It is much better than before. The king keeps us stable and at peace amidst much upheaval,” she said. On the eve of the referendum, a pro-democracy demonstration of a few hundred people was swamped by thousands of government supporters who had been bussed in for the occasion wearing matching T-shirts supporting the constitution. The activists had to take refuge in a gas station under the protection of police while they were hounded by raucous pro-government demonstrators who threw eggs at them and called them “traitors” and “agents”. During the weekly prayers on 24 June, imams in the mosque read out sermons issued by the government urging Moroccans to vote yes as an act of faith. In cities around the country, banners paid for by local merchants exhort people to come out and vote, a practice seen throughout the Arab world when governments call a referendum and local businessmen want to stay in the good graces of officialdom. Most observers agree that the real signs of change for Morocco will come with how the new constitution is implemented. “We say yes to the constitution, but how it turns out in practice, well that’s another struggle,” said Saadeddin al-Othmani, a top official in the Islamist Development and Justice party, which like most political parties supports the new constitution. Al-Othmani sees it as a beginning of reform and Morocco’s own way of responding to the Arab Spring – not by toppling their leader or repressing the people, but through gradual measures. The February 20 movement, and the groups that support it, including smaller labour unions, leftist parties and the country’s banned Justice and Charity Islamist movement, lack al-Othmani’s faith in the process. They see the king’s 9 March speech and three-month consultation period before the new constitution was presented 17 June as the latest in a long line of cosmetic touches to an absolute monarchy. “We want to liberate the country from the state’s monopoly on politics and economy,” said Mohammed Lekrari, a leader of the Democratic Confederation of Labour, a union representing around 800,000 public sector workers. “We would like to leave the Middle Ages.” There is a whiff of medieval in the frenzied hype around the need for a yes vote, says his colleague Othmane Baqa, because a vote for a constitution is being seen as a vote for the king – like the oath of allegiance, the “baya,” given to Muslim kings for hundreds of years and still practiced annually in Morocco. “They want this baya through the referendum, so all Morocco must swear allegiance,” he said. “It becomes a vote for unity and the king.” Morocco Arab and Middle East unrest Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …New constitution the monarch’s response to demands for greater freedoms resulting from the Middle East unrest Moroccans voted on Friday on whether to adopt a new constitution that the king has championed as an answer to demands for greater freedoms – but that protesters say will still leave the monarch firmly in control. The referendum on the constitution is near certain to result in a resounding yes vote, like all past referendums in this North African country and generally throughout the Arab world. It is buoyed by a huge media and government campaign, and is seen by some as a way to tentatively open up Moroccan politics, while heading off the kind of tumultuous regime change seen elsewhere in the region. Some voters at the country’s nearly 40,000 polling stations described the ballot as a vote of confidence in King Mohammed VI, a 47-year-old who assumed the throne in 1999 and is seen as a relatively modern monarch. Preliminary results are expected after polls close Friday night. A popular tourist destination, the generally stable, Muslim kingdom is a staunch US ally in a strategic swath of northern Africa that has suffered terrorist attacks – and in recent months, popular uprisings against autocratic regimes. Morocco, like the rest of the Middle East, was swept by pro-democracy demonstrations at the beginning of the year, protesting a lack of freedoms, weak economy and political corruption. The king, however, seems to have managed the popular disaffection by presenting a new constitution that guarantees the rights of women and minorities, and increases the powers of the parliament and judiciary, ostensibly at the expense of his own. Protests have continued nevertheless, and the 20 February pro-democracy movement has called for a boycott. It insists that the new constitution leaves the king firmly in power and will be little different from its predecessor. Their voices have been drowned out as nearly every political party, newspaper and television station has for the past several weeks pressed for Moroccans to vote in favour of the constitution. The monarch was among those voting, casting his ballot in a chic Rabat neighbourhood and, like every other voter, his voting card and ID were checked against the list. He voted with his brother, Prince Moulay Rachid. Crowds were small but steady at voting stations in a working class neighbourhood of Sale, outside the capital, Rabat. Voters were given two pieces of paper – one for a yes vote and one for a no vote – and placed one in an envelope which they put into the urn. The yes ballot was white, and the no ballot light blue, so that illiterate voters could participate. In the Moroccan countryside, voter turnout was stronger in the morning, before a searing heat descended. Officials at different voting stations said turnout was around 25% to 35% by late morning. Cafile Roqiya, a 54-year-old in glasses and a headscarf in the town of Benslimane, said she was voting yes “because there has been much progress”. “It is much better than before. The king keeps us stable and at peace amidst much upheaval,” she said. On the eve of the referendum, a pro-democracy demonstration of a few hundred people was swamped by thousands of government supporters who had been bussed in for the occasion wearing matching T-shirts supporting the constitution. The activists had to take refuge in a gas station under the protection of police while they were hounded by raucous pro-government demonstrators who threw eggs at them and called them “traitors” and “agents”. During the weekly prayers on 24 June, imams in the mosque read out sermons issued by the government urging Moroccans to vote yes as an act of faith. In cities around the country, banners paid for by local merchants exhort people to come out and vote, a practice seen throughout the Arab world when governments call a referendum and local businessmen want to stay in the good graces of officialdom. Most observers agree that the real signs of change for Morocco will come with how the new constitution is implemented. “We say yes to the constitution, but how it turns out in practice, well that’s another struggle,” said Saadeddin al-Othmani, a top official in the Islamist Development and Justice party, which like most political parties supports the new constitution. Al-Othmani sees it as a beginning of reform and Morocco’s own way of responding to the Arab Spring – not by toppling their leader or repressing the people, but through gradual measures. The February 20 movement, and the groups that support it, including smaller labour unions, leftist parties and the country’s banned Justice and Charity Islamist movement, lack al-Othmani’s faith in the process. They see the king’s 9 March speech and three-month consultation period before the new constitution was presented 17 June as the latest in a long line of cosmetic touches to an absolute monarchy. “We want to liberate the country from the state’s monopoly on politics and economy,” said Mohammed Lekrari, a leader of the Democratic Confederation of Labour, a union representing around 800,000 public sector workers. “We would like to leave the Middle Ages.” There is a whiff of medieval in the frenzied hype around the need for a yes vote, says his colleague Othmane Baqa, because a vote for a constitution is being seen as a vote for the king – like the oath of allegiance, the “baya,” given to Muslim kings for hundreds of years and still practiced annually in Morocco. “They want this baya through the referendum, so all Morocco must swear allegiance,” he said. “It becomes a vote for unity and the king.” Morocco Arab and Middle East unrest Africa guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Legal expert says store could be sued under Equality Act after Melanie Stark was told she had wear full make-up at all times A sales assistant at Harrods claims she has been “driven out” of her job over her refusal to wear makeup. Melanie Stark, 24, said her battle with the Knightsbridge store left her “exhausted, stressed and upset”. On two occasions she was sent home; on another she was sent to work in the stockroom. Stark, based in the HMV department in Harrods, said she had been described by one manager as among the best of their employees and worked without makeup for four years, before being asked to comply with the store’s strict dress code. The two-page “ladies” dress code stipulates: “Full makeup at all time: base, blusher, full eyes (not too heavy), lipstick, lip liner and gloss are worn at all time and maintained discreetly (please take into account the store display lighting which has a ‘washing out’ effect).” When she refused she was offered a makeup workshop and told, ‘You can see what you look like with makeup’, she said. “I was appalled. It was insulting. Basically, it was implying it would be an improvement. I don’t understand how they think it is OK to say that.”, she said. I know what I look like with makeup. I have used it, though never at work. But I just could not see how, in this day and age, Harrods could take away my right to choose whether to wear it or not.” Stark had complied with all other aspects of the dress code. “But it’s not like wearing black trousers, or a black shirt. This is my face. “Make up can change your features completely, especially if I was to wear all of what they were asking. I would look like a different person to me. And I never chose to look like that.” Last week she resigned rather than comply with the code after working at the store for five years, three of them part-time while a philosophy, religion and ethics student at King’s College London, and the last two years full-time after completing her masters. “I was happy there, but I’ve been driven out.” One legal expert said Stark could have grounds to sue Harrods. Lawrence Davies, director of Equal Justice solicitors, said she might have a claim under the Equality Act 2010. “On the facts, she performed her role well for five years without makeup, so it is clearly not a valid prerequisite for her role.” Of the dress code, he said “custom and practice would suggest that her contract has changed over the years to allow her to not wear makeup”. Stark said she had been given a copy of the dress code when she joined HMV at Harrods aged 19, and had been given store approval after an interview during which she did not wear any makeup. Harrods had not sought to enforce the code until last August when, after a “floor walk” by senior managers, she was sent home for refusing to wear it. In a letter to Harrods at the time she said: “To be told that one’s face is inadequate is extremely degrading.” She had a commendation for customer services, had been awarded 94% in a “mystery shop”, on which unsuspecting staff were monitored, and met every other requirement in HMV’s music section. The next day, she was put to work in the stockroom, away from view. She had received good support from HMV throughout, she said. The conflict was with Harrods. Stark was summoned to a meeting with her Harrods floor manager During this, she said, she was told: “You’ve got two options. You wear make up or you leave”. She said she was told: “We’re not making you look like the girls on the beauty counter” and it was suggested she could “just wear eyeliner and lipstick”. She said: “But if that was my choice, surely I had the choice to wear none.” On that occasion, Harrods appear to have backed down. She returned to work and continued without wearing makeup until three weeks ago, when, during a Powerpoint presentation a new floor manager told staff: “Girls. I want you to be made up.” “Alarm bells started ringing,” she said. “Off I go again, another meeting.” She was briefly transferred to HMV’s Bayswater store while a resolution was sought – but had already decided to resign. “I just could not go through with it all again. I wasn’t going to compromise, but neither were they,” she said. “And I felt it was time to move on.” A Harrods spokeswoman said: “All our staff are subject to a dress code which they sign up to on joining the company, which relates to an overall polished appearance. Our records show that discussions with Melanie Stark concerned a general lack of adherence to the dress code. However, no action was taken and she subsequently decided to leave the business of her own accord with no reference made to dress code.” Savile Row claim Company dress codes and “look” policies are common but their legality has been challenged, with mixed results. The US clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch was accused of “hiding” a sales assistant in a stockroom at its flagship London outlet in Savile Row because her prosthetic arm did not fit with its “look policy”. Riam Dean, a 22-year-old law student from Greenford, west London, claimed she was removed from the shopfloor when management became aware of her disability. Dean, who was born without her left forearm and has worn a prosthetic limb since she was three months old, sued for disability discrimination after she was left “personally diminished and humiliated” when she refused to remove her cardigan at work last summer. In 2009 a tribunal awarded her £8,000 for unlawful harassment. Clare Murray, of the specialist employment law experts CM Murray, said case law supported the right of employers to impose dress codes with different requirements for women and men provided there were “equivalent” requirements. “But employers must be able to show a good business reason,” she said. Employers also needed to consider religious and cultural implications. Caroline Davies Harrods dress code Women Hair Trimmed regularly and styled to flatter features. May have subtle highlights or colour but must be natural looking and complementary to skin tone. No regrowth. Jewellery One earring per ear. Pearls or diamond studs preferred. One ring per hand with exception of wedding & engagement rings. No visible tattoos, sovereigns, mismatched jewellery, scrunchies, large clips or hoop earrings. Footwear Smart black leather shoes such as court shoes with stiletto or kitten heel. Men Hair Clean, well groomed, complementary to skin tone. Beards Clean shaven or full beards. NO goatees or moustaches of contemporary style. Sideburns Must be no longer than mid-ear length or wider than one inch. Nails Well-manicured polished nails. Employment law Retail industry Discrimination at work Work & careers Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …I wonder when our unions will stop coloring within the lines and seize the day with a massive general (yes, I know they’re illegal) strike like this one: Hundreds of thousands of British public sector workers went on strike Thursday to defend their pensions, causing widespread disruption to schools and state-run services. A third of English schools were closed and another third were affected , officials said, as up to 350,000 teachers, lecturers and education staff took action against plans to make them work longer and pay more into their pensions. Tax offices, museums and job centres were also brought to a standstill as a further 100,000 civil servants walked out on the first nationwide day of strike action since the coalition government took office last year. However, airport operator BAA said feared delays at London Heathrow because of a walkout by immigration and customs staff failed to materialise, and ministers said only half the civil servants who could have downed tools actually did so. Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted the labour changes are fair and inevitable, warning this week that the pension system is “in danger of going broke” faced with an ageing population. Francis Maude, the minister who oversees the civil service, told BBC radio on Thursday: “You cannot continue to have more and more people in retirement being supported by fewer and fewer people in work. Long-term reform is needed.” But the unions say they have already accepted pension reforms over the past decade and accuse ministers of pushing through new changes without negotiation. Let’s remember: These austerity programs are because of the bankers debt, not from anything caused by workers. Why should they give up the security of a good pension because bankers don’t want to cover their own losses?
Continue reading …
Latest volume of former spin doctor’s diary reveals Blair accused Prince Charles of ‘screwing’ the government Tony Blair believed that the Prince of Wales publicly interfered in sensitive areas of government policy in a manner that sometimes stepped over the constitutional boundaries historically respected by the royal family, according to Alastair Campbell. In extracts from the latest volume of his diaries, published in the Guardian today and on Monday, the former No 10 communications director writes that Blair became so exasperated he once privately accused the prince of “screwing us”. Campbell, a teetotaller, also discloses in today’s extracts that the pressure of working in Downing Street became so great that he started drinking again around the turn of the millennium. He never told Blair. The main focus of today’s extracts confirms what ministers across the spectrum have long complained of in private: the Prince of Wales regularly attempts to influence government policy, usually in long handwritten letters. In the most detailed account of the prince’s interventions, Campbell suggests that the heir to the throne even displayed signs of disapproving of the government. Campbell indicates that at one point Blair raised his concerns with the Queen. “While publicly we stayed supportive, TB said Charles had to understand there were limits to the extent to which they could play politics with him,” Campbell wrote on 31 October 1999 of a meeting between Blair and the prince after he took Prince William on a provocative day’s foxhunting. “He said it was 90 minutes of pretty hard talk, not just about hunting.” Campbell writes that Blair became angry when the prince: • Made “deeply unhelpful” interventions during the foot and mouth crisis in 2001. Campbell wrote on 16 March 2001: “TB said he knew exactly what he was doing. He also asked whether Charles had ever considered help when 6,000 jobs were lost at Corus [the steel manufacturer]. He said this was all about screwing us and trying to get up the message that we weren’t generous enough to the farmers.” • Boycotted a banquet in 1999 for Jiang Zemin, then president of China, a decision criticised by Blair as “silly”. In a long paper to Blair the prince wrote: “I feel very strongly about it.” • Challenged Blair on plans to outlaw foxhunting. In what Campbell described as a “long note on hunting” in late 1999, the prince said it was good for the environment. • Declared in the same note that hereditary peers, the majority of whom were abolished by Labour in 1999, had much to offer. Campbell wrote that the prince had said “menacingly”: “We don’t really want to be like the continentals, now do we?” • Insisted that he had to speak out about GM foods after Downing Street had made clear its unhappiness with what Campbell describes as a “dreadful” Mail on Sunday article. In the same note to Blair the prince wrote: “I cannot stay silent.” Campbell said Blair was furious with the prince’s Mail on Sunday article in May 1999. “He was pretty wound up about it, said it was a straightforward anti-science position, the same argument that says if God intended us to fly he would have given us wings. It certainly had a feel of grandstanding.” Campbell writes that Blair thought the prince had a political agenda because he was upset by the former prime minister’s speech to the Labour conference in October 1999 in which he attacked the “forces of conservatism”. He wrote on 1 November 1999: “TB said he bought the line that because we were modernising, that meant we were determined to do away with all traditions but he had to understand that some traditions that did not change and evolve would die. It all had the feel of a deliberate strategy, to win and strengthen media support by putting himself at arm’s length from TB and a lot of the changes we were making.” Campbell added: “TB felt he had been really stung by the forces of conservatism speech. He said they felt much more vulnerable than in reality they are. We know they still have the power to ‘keep us in our place’ but they don’t always see it like that.” Blair even appeared to have raised his concerns with the Queen. On 1 June 1999, shortly after publication of the prince’s article, Campbell wrote: “TB saw the Queen and seemingly didn’t push too hard re Charles but he was very pissed off.” Campbell said last night that the anger in the Blair team was mainly caused by the prince’s media operation under Mark Bolland, his deputy private secretary between 1997 and 2002. Matters improved when Paddy Harverson, the prince’s head of communications, joined his team in 2004. Campbell told the Guardian: “Tony Blair valued their regular private conversations and respects Prince Charles’s right to speak up on important issues. But this was a period when it seemed Charles’s media team was proactively and publicly setting them at odds on some of the government’s most difficult issues – not just hunting, where the differences were well known, but GM food, China, and agriculture. “When Paddy Harverson [Bolland's successor] came in, things improved greatly. It might seem ironic me complaining about the media operation but just as I felt Charlie Whelan gave Gordon Brown problems so I thought the same of Mark Bolland at times for the Prince of Wales.” Clarence House declined to comment. Power and Responsibility: The Alastair Campbell Diaries, Volume Three, cover the years 1999-2001. Tony Blair Prince Charles Labour Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Pat Buchanan Defends Tax Cuts for Private Jets and Pretends Poor People Don’t Pay Any Taxes
July 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media MSNBC finally took Mark Halperin off the air for all the wrong reasons this week after he said President Obama acted like a “dick” because he dared to call out the Republicans for acting like spoiled children during these debt ceiling talks. I wonder what it would take to get this racist relic Pat Buchanan to finally leave their airways as well? The mild mannered Martin Bashir, who actually did a good job of calling out Mitch McConnell the previous day with his revisionist history on who’s to blame for our deficit skyrocketing, found himself outgunned by the volatile and aggressive Pat Buchanan during this segment where Buchanan was brought on to discuss the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, and where Buchanan insisted that Republicans should stick to their guns no matter what and force Democrats and President Obama to accept massive budget cuts with absolutely no increases in taxes, even if those taxes are on a privileged few, like private jet owners. Here’s how that interview went down. BASHIR: Well, let’s focus for a moment on those tax hikes. The president said he wants to get rid of tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires, corporate jets, only, okay? Republicans say they’re not the only ones with so-called sacred cows that are being protected and we know that. Meanwhile it’s the everyday American that’s suffering while both sides are as it were pointing fingers at each other. So how does this situation resolve itself? Tell me. BUCHANAN: First you’re… Obama is engaged and the president I should say is engaged in class warfare in some little form of demagoguery. Now I know corporate jets are fine to make fun of. I don’t ride around on one. I’m a successful individual. If Pat Buchanan thinks getting rid of tax cuts for jet owners is class warfare, maybe someone should ask him to go read this post at Think Progress where it shows just who is actually winning that war — Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages . BASHIR: We’re talking about two billion dollars, or actually around between two and three billion dollars. BUCHANAN: Let me tell you what Martin. I went down, you know when we had the famous luxury tax, I went to a boat factory in Georgia where they had working class guys who built luxury sort of big yachts, big boats for rich people. They used to build eight a year, twelve a year, they were building one. Because the luxury tax meant they moved the building to Mexico. These taxes have an impact. But let me ask you this. Is it fair? Is it just that fifty one percent of all American wage earners don’t pay a nickel, in federal income taxes. And half the nation of free loaders pays not a nickel in federal income tax. And twenty three million of them get checks, earned income tax credits they call them, from the government. You can’t carry half the nation, the one percent, you know, Morton Zuckermann can’t carry the nation on his back. If Pat Buchanan has ever spent one minute actually talking to anyone that has worked in a factory, I’d like to hear from those people he supposedly talked to. It’s really disgusting to hear him defending tax cuts for the richest among us while claiming that there are poor lazy slackers out there that don’t pay any taxes just because they don’t pay federal income tax. I already addressed this issue when Republican Jim DeMint told that same lie on Hannity’s show here — Jim DeMint Repeats the ‘Half of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax’ Big Lie About Taxes . As I noted there, Joshua Holland wrote a great post on just how much most Americans pay in taxes and how we’ve basically got a flat tax in America right now when you look at all of the taxes Americans pay. Pat Buchanan would like to pretend that the least among us are lazy, no good, slackers that don’t want to do their share to contribute to our tax base. Shame on him and shame on MSNBC for keeping this racist liar on the air. He’s as harmful to our democracy and to what should be a press that tells us the truth instead of lying and demagoguing as anyone on our airways and if MSNBC thinks Mark Halperin should be pulled off the air for giving what might be an honest opinion of President Obama and heaven forbid using the word “dick”, it would be nice if they took another look at their pundits who regularly do a greater disservice to the American public, and that is lying to them on a daily basis. Whether it’s the likes of Buchanan and his ilk still being allowed to come on the air and lie daily or a great deal of the rest of them either playing the all sides are equal game with pundits who have little use for the truth, but political spin instead, or lies of omission where they ignore stories daily that are of national importance to viewers and fill it up with bullshit like some murder trial no one gives a damn about, MSNBC and CNN and Fox do the public a great disservice on a daily basis by calling the majority of their coverage “news.” Maybe if we somehow manage to break these companies up that are monopolizing our airways with garbage about 80 or 90% of the time plus, we’ll break that cycle, but I’ve pretty much lost hope of that happening any time soon. In the mean time, we get treated to the likes of Pat Buchanan being considered anyone the public should take seriously or listen to when this relic of a racist should have been booted off the air a long time ago and their “polite” pundit Bashir giving him a chance to repeat a whole lot of conservative talking points that go unchallenged. Shameful, just shameful. When Pat Buchanan is allowed to pretend like Mort Zuckermann of all people is carrying the weight of our tax burden on his back and he’s not immediately called out for that nonsense, you’re not watching news. You’re watching right wing propaganda. Heaven forbid the rich S.O.B. should be asked to be paying a few more dollars in taxes instead of taking it out of the hides of seniors, or in Pat’s mind, those lazy, listless tax avoiding poor who haven’t quite given enough yet so Mort Zuckermann can get his tax break to make it to The McLaughlin Group to pretend like he’s a liberal on one of their panels where Eleanore Clift gets gets beaten up on four to one by Buchanan and his friends.
Continue reading …Pat Buchanan Defends Tax Cuts for Private Jets and Pretends Poor People Don’t Pay Any Taxes
July 1, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media MSNBC finally took Mark Halperin off the air for all the wrong reasons this week after he said President Obama acted like a “dick” because he dared to call out the Republicans for acting like spoiled children during these debt ceiling talks. I wonder what it would take to get this racist relic Pat Buchanan to finally leave their airways as well? The mild mannered Martin Bashir, who actually did a good job of calling out Mitch McConnell the previous day with his revisionist history on who’s to blame for our deficit skyrocketing, found himself outgunned by the volatile and aggressive Pat Buchanan during this segment where Buchanan was brought on to discuss the negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, and where Buchanan insisted that Republicans should stick to their guns no matter what and force Democrats and President Obama to accept massive budget cuts with absolutely no increases in taxes, even if those taxes are on a privileged few, like private jet owners. Here’s how that interview went down. BASHIR: Well, let’s focus for a moment on those tax hikes. The president said he wants to get rid of tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires, corporate jets, only, okay? Republicans say they’re not the only ones with so-called sacred cows that are being protected and we know that. Meanwhile it’s the everyday American that’s suffering while both sides are as it were pointing fingers at each other. So how does this situation resolve itself? Tell me. BUCHANAN: First you’re… Obama is engaged and the president I should say is engaged in class warfare in some little form of demagoguery. Now I know corporate jets are fine to make fun of. I don’t ride around on one. I’m a successful individual. If Pat Buchanan thinks getting rid of tax cuts for jet owners is class warfare, maybe someone should ask him to go read this post at Think Progress where it shows just who is actually winning that war — Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages . BASHIR: We’re talking about two billion dollars, or actually around between two and three billion dollars. BUCHANAN: Let me tell you what Martin. I went down, you know when we had the famous luxury tax, I went to a boat factory in Georgia where they had working class guys who built luxury sort of big yachts, big boats for rich people. They used to build eight a year, twelve a year, they were building one. Because the luxury tax meant they moved the building to Mexico. These taxes have an impact. But let me ask you this. Is it fair? Is it just that fifty one percent of all American wage earners don’t pay a nickel, in federal income taxes. And half the nation of free loaders pays not a nickel in federal income tax. And twenty three million of them get checks, earned income tax credits they call them, from the government. You can’t carry half the nation, the one percent, you know, Morton Zuckermann can’t carry the nation on his back. If Pat Buchanan has ever spent one minute actually talking to anyone that has worked in a factory, I’d like to hear from those people he supposedly talked to. It’s really disgusting to hear him defending tax cuts for the richest among us while claiming that there are poor lazy slackers out there that don’t pay any taxes just because they don’t pay federal income tax. I already addressed this issue when Republican Jim DeMint told that same lie on Hannity’s show here — Jim DeMint Repeats the ‘Half of Americans Pay No Federal Income Tax’ Big Lie About Taxes . As I noted there, Joshua Holland wrote a great post on just how much most Americans pay in taxes and how we’ve basically got a flat tax in America right now when you look at all of the taxes Americans pay. Pat Buchanan would like to pretend that the least among us are lazy, no good, slackers that don’t want to do their share to contribute to our tax base. Shame on him and shame on MSNBC for keeping this racist liar on the air. He’s as harmful to our democracy and to what should be a press that tells us the truth instead of lying and demagoguing as anyone on our airways and if MSNBC thinks Mark Halperin should be pulled off the air for giving what might be an honest opinion of President Obama and heaven forbid using the word “dick”, it would be nice if they took another look at their pundits who regularly do a greater disservice to the American public, and that is lying to them on a daily basis. Whether it’s the likes of Buchanan and his ilk still being allowed to come on the air and lie daily or a great deal of the rest of them either playing the all sides are equal game with pundits who have little use for the truth, but political spin instead, or lies of omission where they ignore stories daily that are of national importance to viewers and fill it up with bullshit like some murder trial no one gives a damn about, MSNBC and CNN and Fox do the public a great disservice on a daily basis by calling the majority of their coverage “news.” Maybe if we somehow manage to break these companies up that are monopolizing our airways with garbage about 80 or 90% of the time plus, we’ll break that cycle, but I’ve pretty much lost hope of that happening any time soon. In the mean time, we get treated to the likes of Pat Buchanan being considered anyone the public should take seriously or listen to when this relic of a racist should have been booted off the air a long time ago and their “polite” pundit Bashir giving him a chance to repeat a whole lot of conservative talking points that go unchallenged. Shameful, just shameful. When Pat Buchanan is allowed to pretend like Mort Zuckermann of all people is carrying the weight of our tax burden on his back and he’s not immediately called out for that nonsense, you’re not watching news. You’re watching right wing propaganda. Heaven forbid the rich S.O.B. should be asked to be paying a few more dollars in taxes instead of taking it out of the hides of seniors, or in Pat’s mind, those lazy, listless tax avoiding poor who haven’t quite given enough yet so Mort Zuckermann can get his tax break to make it to The McLaughlin Group to pretend like he’s a liberal on one of their panels where Eleanore Clift gets gets beaten up on four to one by Buchanan and his friends.
Continue reading …