New EU president Donald Tusk makes passionate defence of EU while warning against new Eurosceptic mood Poland’s prime minister has accused western Europe’s most powerful leaders of hypocrisy and myopia in the midst of what is being called the EU’s worst crisis. Assuming the rotating presidency of the EU for the first time, Donald Tusk rounded on the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, and Britain over their handling of the sovereign debt crisis in Greece, immigration, EU spending and the budget. He charged them with posing as European champions while pandering to a new form of Euroscepticism for personal political gain, and of using fears about immigration to curb freedom of travel in Europe. The passionate and optimistic defence of the EU from the Polish leader was completely at odds with the mood in Brussels and other EU capitals, where commitment to the union is being eroded by the rise of populist Brussels-bashing, squabbling leaders, and soaring mistrust between member states. In defiance of the gloomy European zeitgeist, Tusk said: “The European Union is great. It is the best place on Earth to be born and to live your life.” He said he would use his six-month presidency to try to restore some sense of common purpose and confidence to a union in dire straits. Tusk is riding high in Poland, heading for victory in an October election that would make him the first Polish prime minister to win a second term in 22 years of democracy. He leads the only country in Europe not thrust into recession by the financial crisis, the fastest-growing economy in the EU, and where the EU enjoys high popularity ratings of more than 80%, not least because of the €10bn (£9bn) pouring in every year from Brussels, making Poland the biggest beneficiary of EU largesse. He dismissed talk of the EU encroaching on the sovereignty of the nation states of Europe, referring to his own experience as a Solidarity activist in communist Poland under martial law and Moscow’s control. “Until quite recently we saw a real restriction on our sovereignty,” he said. “We were truly occupied by the Soviets. It was truly an occupation. That’s why for us EU integration is not a threat to the sovereignty of the member states.” Tusk’s buoyant message from a booming country sounded like a plea to Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris and other EU leaders to shift course and try to reverse the sense of decline and defeatism seizing Europe. “I just want to resist the phenomenon of the new Euroscepticism that is everywhere,” he said. He was not referring to the intellectual hostility to the EU that is the traditional British position, Tusk said, but a more insidious and hypocritical trend in countries long committed to Europe. “The different phenomenon I am talking about is the birth of a type of Euroscepticism which does not declare itself. But it’s the behaviour, the words, the actions by politicians who say they are for the EU, support further integration, but at the same time suggest actions and decisions that weaken the community.” He singled out the French and Italian campaigns, supported by many others, to use the north African upheavals to reintroduce national border controls and curb the travel liberties enjoyed under the EU’s Schengen system. “I sometimes feel that some forget, maybe because they’ve been using freedom of movement much longer than myself, a Pole, what great value it is to have freedom of movement in the EU.” In a dig at David Cameron, Tusk also lamented the months of trench warfare looming over how to divvy up the next medium-term EU budget, describing the contest as one between those who want the budget to be “one of the main tools for European integration” and those who want “to give as little as possible to Europe”. Despite Tusk’s plea to revive a Europe beset by weariness, frictions, and attempts to re-nationalise policymaking, the divisions were again evident when finance ministers of the 17 countries using the euro cancelled an emergency meeting on Greece scheduled for Sunday. The meeting had been billed as crucial to frame a new bailout of Greece after the country’s prime minister, George Papandreou, in Athens delivered on the EU’s terms last week by securing parliamentary backing for a savage austerity package ordered by Brussels and Berlin. Tusk was scathing of the EU’s halting response to the 18-month Greek crisis. His criticism was echoed in an unusual intervention by the German president, Christian Wulff, who challenged the dithering by Merkel and Europe. “Europe is about giving and taking and you have to communicate that,” Wulff told the Hamburg weekly Die Zeit. “Europe and the euro are worth German’s special efforts because both are exactly in Germany’s interests. Without a persuasive and viable concept involving everyone, people’s doubts all over Europe will increase … There are calls in many places for renationalisation, for border controls, for defences against the foreigner and the foreign while populists propagate a supposedly once better world. European Union Poland European debt crisis Greece Europe Ian Traynor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As usual, Paul Krugman calls it like it is. This is actually a fairly familiar thing from my years as a pundit: the surest way to get branded as not Serious is to figure things out too soon. To be considered credible on politics you have to have considered Bush a great leader, and not realized until Katrina that he was a disaster; to be considered credible on national security you have to have supported the Iraq War, and not realized until 2005 that it was a terrible mistake; to be credible on economics you have to have regarded Greenspan as a great mind, and not become disillusioned until 2007 or maybe 2008. That’s why we have the need of the Freidman Units and that’s why we see the Michael O’Hanlons on TV no matter how many times they are wrong.
Continue reading …As usual, Paul Krugman calls it like it is. This is actually a fairly familiar thing from my years as a pundit: the surest way to get branded as not Serious is to figure things out too soon. To be considered credible on politics you have to have considered Bush a great leader, and not realized until Katrina that he was a disaster; to be considered credible on national security you have to have supported the Iraq War, and not realized until 2005 that it was a terrible mistake; to be credible on economics you have to have regarded Greenspan as a great mind, and not become disillusioned until 2007 or maybe 2008. That’s why we have the need of the Freidman Units and that’s why we see the Michael O’Hanlons on TV no matter how many times they are wrong.
Continue reading …As of midnight today, Minnesota’s government is shut down and 20,000 government workers are on hiatus. Why? Because the Republican legislature would not agree to any revenue increases to balance the budget. If Minnesota is any indication, there is absolutely no reason to think the United States Congress will step up and be reasonable. Via Duluth News-Tribune : With little more than three hours left before a shutdown, most House and Senate Republicans walked into their chambers and took the seats they use during a session. Leaders said they did it to show they were ready to pass a temporary budget to keep government operating. Rep. Dan Fabian, R-Roseau, said that going to the legislative chambers and inviting the media in was not a stunt. Instead, he said, “we’re hoping the governor will call us to work.” “We are here, we want to reach an agreement,” Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, said. Rep. Rod Hamilton, R-Mountain Lake, said Dayton should call a special session. “We found agreement on a majority of the bills,” he said. But Dayton said Republicans refused to agree to more revenue, proposing instead to delay school payments and borrow money from a tobacco lawsuit settlement. What will it take to overcome this crazy hostage-taking? Dayton said that on Thursday he lowered his proposed tax increase and limited to only a fraction of the richest Minnesotans. But Republicans constantly rejected any tax increase and even gave up a much-desired tax cut during budget talks.
Continue reading …In the warped mind of MSNBC's Chris Matthews, efforts to regulate the practice of abortion are morally equivalent to literacy tests in the South that were aimed at preventing African-Americans from voting. The “Hardball” host made that puzzling and arguably insulting comparison on the June 30 program in a segment titled “What's the Matter with Kansas?” [video will be added shortly] “Kansas may be on track to become the first state in the country to put an end to abortion,” Matthews told his audience yesterday, explaining that: A new law requires the state's abortion providers to comply with strict new regulations that set equipment, temperature and space requirements, and the Associated Press reports that as of today, only one of the state's three clinics met those requirements. Two others were denied permission to operate, effectively shutting them down [when the law takes effect] tomorrow. Before the commercial break, Matthews had promised “both sides” of the debate, but in truth supplied only one side, interviewing a left-leaning reporter and then an abortion rights activist. Matthews began his interview of D.C.-based Huffington Post reporter Laura Bassett by asking (emphasis mine): Laura, give us a sense, is that true, is this basically setting a whole bunch of conditions like they used to do with literacy tests in the South to keep blacks from voting. Is this a bunch of regulations that basically kill any chance of having an abortion legally in Kansas? An objective reporter might have been taken aback by Matthews incredibly asinine comparison with the Jim Crow south, but Bassett had no problem with Matthews' comparison: That's what they seem to be and that's what they've done. Actually, I just heard word that the third clinic has been denied a license as well, which means that a woman can no longer get an abortion in Kansas because of these impossible regulations that they were given two weeks to comply with. For a set of impossible regulations, however, one Planned Parenthood clinic WAS able yesterday, during the 5 p.m. Eastern “Hardball” broadcast to secure a license to continue abortions. Reports the Kansas City Star this morning: Shortly after 4 p.m. Thursday, state health officials notified Planned Parenthood that it would be the only abortion clinic to get a license under controversial new rules that take effect today.
Continue reading …Abhisit Vejjajiva attempting to rally nationalist sympathy with Preah Vihear temple dispute before Sunday’s polls, say analysts The corrugated roof gleams, the paintwork is bright and pink-flowered curtains float at the windows. Somrith Sanbradap’s house was completed just two days ago, but she shows no sign of pleasure in the achievement. The Thai farmer’s last home went up in flames in February, destroyed by Cambodian shelling as a long dispute over Preah Vihear – the 11th-century temple a few kilometres away – flared up again . At least seven people died and thousands fled homes on both sides of the border. Now residents fear another clash is imminent. “I lost everything … I don’t want this to happen again and the way things are going now, watching the news brings back very bad memories,” Somrith said tearfully. This week, the Thai military said Cambodia was moving in reinforcements – a claim denied by Phnom Penh – after Bangkok announced it was leaving the World Heritage Convention over the dispute. But analysts believe the row is driven by Sunday’s general election in Thailand. “In this very critical week for Thai politics, [the temple dispute] has appeared again as a political weapon,” said Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun of the Institute of South-East Asian Studies in Singapore. He said that while the government’s stance would not win over opponents, it had rallied nationalist sympathisers who had drifted away. The incumbent Democrats are trailing Puea Thai in the polls. The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, said the decision to leave the convention was solely about defending Thai land, the Nation newspaper reported. He added: “I want the voters to choose the Democrats as we protect the territory, although it is against the wishes of a leader in a neighbouring country.” Abhisit said the Cambodian leader, Hun Sen, wanted a new Thai government because of his ties to exiled former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. The opposition Puea Thai party is headed by Thaksin’s sister and regarded as his proxy. The temple, known as Phra Viharn to Thais, stands high on an escarpment in the Dangrek mountains. Originally a Hindu place of worship it was later used by Buddhists. Bangkok does not dispute a 1962 international court of justice ruling that it belongs to Cambodia, but still claims a 4.6sq km area of land around the site. In 2008 rightwing Thai nationalists reacted angrily when Unesco granted the site world heritage status, although Bangkok had not opposed Cambodia’s application. The Democrats – then in opposition – took an increasingly hawkish line. While no one expects large scale military action, clashes in the last three years have affected bilateral relations, caused deaths and evacuations and damaged Preah Vihear itself. Prof Charnvit Kasetsiri, a historian and former rector of Bangkok’s Thammasat University, warned that the row and the decision to quit the World Heritage Convention were affecting Thailand’s standing. “It has damaged our reputation internationally – we look like the bad guys to the world,” he said. The Thai military says it will not instigate hostilities – each side blamed the other for February’s skirmish – and now seems to be playing down its comments about Cambodian reinforcements on the other side of the border. “I’m not scared, because we’re well prepared,” said a soldier guarding a sandbagged checkpoint at what used to be the ticket booth for the Thai national park leading to the temple. That is as far as one can go – a source of regret to Warunrat Chitruchiphong, a regular visitor since her teenage years. “It’s magnificent. I want to go back,” she said. The 34-year-old teacher’s bigger concern is the safety of her pupils. The Phumsaron Wittaya high school was in the middle of a sports day when fighting broke out in February; shells hit the buildings as the frightened staff and pupils crouched in concrete bunkers built the previous year. “I’m constantly worried that if something happens we won’t get them into their bunkers in time,” said Warunrat. “I’m very nervous, but what can we do?”Pavin said he did not expect to see violence this week or next. But in the longer term, he warned, it depended on the election’s outcome.”If Puea Thai come back, the issue could be used once again to discredit the red shirts. There’s a possibility of the military and Democratic opposition pressing the situation,” he said. Thailand Cambodia Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Email your thoughts to scott.murray@guardian.co.uk • Press F5 to refresh this page or use our auto-refresher First set: Murray* 5-4 Nadal. Now it’s Murray’s turn to hold to love. He’s serving big, and standing up to Nadal during the rallies. First set: Murray 4-4 Nadal*. Nothing for Nadal to worry about here, as he wins his service game to love. “Sorry, but wasn’t Harold Mahony, although born in Edinburgh, really an Irishman from Kerry?” asks Dermot Meagher. Hmm. And for goodness sake, please don’t google Vere St Leger Goold, you’ll reveal this report to be a tissue of lies. First set: Murray* 4-3 Nadal. A majestic rally for the first point, Nadal nearly passing Murray at the net but the Scot anticipating well to volley a point-blank winner. Then another mini-classic for the second, Nadal whipping a cross-court backhand through both advantage courts. Murray sees the game out with some more powerful serving. This match isn’t exactly exciting as of yet, but the tennis is of very high quality. “That roll call of men’s finalists contains some of the finest names I have ever read,” opines Daniel Boynton. “It’s a close call, but Vere St Leger Goold must be the best. ‘Andrew Murray’ doesn’t really stack up by comparison does it?” I hope I copied that out correctly. First set: Murray 3-3 Nadal*. Nadal goes 30-0 up. Murray sends a screamer down the right-hand sideline, then Nadal dumps a woeful backhand out of play down his deuce court. Nadal bounces back by forcing a Murray error at the end of a 19-shot baseline rally, and before you know it the game is won. This is a proper face off at the moment. “McIntyre and Corden are together?” shudders Louise Wright. “You realise that means that the other two horsemen of the apocalypse are almost certainly on their way? I’d return top your loved ones and wait for the Rapture if I were you. Or just go down the pub.” Russell Howard and Joe Pasquale are coming too? Lord help us, there’s no need for this. First set: Murray* 3-2 Nadal. An easy service game to love for Murray. Everything’s going well. Apart from that dodgy hip, the poor old soul. But there’s some good news there too: the pusher comes on, offering powerful drugs, but Murray waves him away. It’s the only way to deal with these people. Listen to what Bo Diddley tells you , kids. First set: Murray 2-2 Nadal*. Both players take turns to dump easy strokes into the net, Nadal a forehand, Murray a sliced backhand. Murray looks particularly annoyed, as he had an easy chance to put Nadal away while approaching the net and move 0-30 up. Nadal mops the remaining points up without fuss. First set: Murray* 2-1 Nadal. At 30-15, Nadal moves Murray around hither and yon, before passing his opponent with a blistering cross-court shot from his own deuce court to Murray’s. It’s in, but the ball’s called out, and Nadal doesn’t challenge. Nadal wins the next point, so he’s effectively been robbed of the first break point of the match. Murray serves out to hold. All good news, except he’s called for the trainer. That hip is playing up again. He’s been given the option to get a jab if it doesn’t simmer down during the next couple of games, but he’ll have to go off court for that. First set: Murray 1-1 Nadal*. A fairly painless game for Nadal. Murray gets his racquet on all but one of the serves, forcing three rallies, but Nadal wins all the points, then finishes off with a booming ace of his own. A fairly painless game, I say, other than some clown shouting “We love you Andy”, then a gaggle of other goons laughing at the bon mot. Maybe it was McIntyre testing out some new material. If so, he’s getting edgier. First set: Murray* 1-0 Nadal. Nope. Rafa wins his first point, but Murray responds by whistling down another huge ace. His first-serve averages haven’t been the best this tournament; he’ll be hoping for more of this, because that’s a very impressive opening. 4.45pm: And we’re off! Murray belts down an ace to start, then serves and volleys a second point to go 30-0 up. And then another ace! Can he win his first service game to love writes hack who needs to break this game into two entries in order to segue into the proper format ? 4.40pm: Is the BBC trying to throw everyone into a thundering depression before Murray even has a chance to crash out in three sets? The first celebrity cutaway of the match is of landfill comedians Michael McIntyre and James Corden, chatting away to each other. Maybe they’re swapping notes on how they’ve got away with it. 4.35pm: Murray has won the toss. He elects to serve in the first game. The players are knocking up. Nadal is wearing a determined look today – when doesn’t he? – but much good that gameface will do him: win or lose Wimbledon, he’ll not be world number one any more come Monday morning. 4.30pm: The idle chatter on Centre Court turns into a smattering of polite applause as the players walk out. It’s almost as though half the crowd have gone off to purchase Pimm’s, and the ones remaining are paggered on Pimm’s. Either way, it’s a low-key start to the big event. Murray almost immediately leaves the court – he’s got his bag of rackets, and is wearing both of his shoes, so perhaps he’s forgot his wristband – then makes his entrance again. Still no big cheer. 4.20pm: Murray and Nadal should be out on centre court in a few minutes, as Novak Djokovic has just beaten Jo Wilfred Tsonga 7-6, 6-2, 6-7, 6-3 , making it to his first Wimbledon final. He’s not having too bad a year, is he? He’ll be the new world number one after this tournament, whatever happens on Sunday. The crowd: Unfunny. The weather: Sunny. Still, here’s hoping, and the head-to-head in slams isn’t the disaster zone it could be:. Nadal leads 4-2, having beaten Murray in the last 16 at the 2007 Australian Open, in the quarters at Wimbledon in 2008, in the semis here last year, and in the semis of the French Open in May. Murray has triumphed over Nadal in the semi-final of the 2008 US Open, and the quarters of the 2010 Australian Open. Murray’s due one. Like that means anything. Let’s face it, the odds aren’t in his favour (and I’m talking him down with a view to managing expectations and tempting fate). Murray is spectacularly good – and the most entertaining tennis player on the circuit at the moment by a long chalk – but Rafael Nadal is just that little bit better. Duller, but better. Relentless and better. Spencer Gore. William Marshall. Frank Hadow. John Hartley. Vere St Leger Goold. Herbert Lawford. William Renshaw. Ernest Renshaw. Willoughby Hamilton. Wilfred Baddeley. Joshua Pim. Wilberforce Eaves. Harold Mahony. Reginald Doherty. Lawrence Doherty. Arthur Gore. Sydney Smith. Frank Riseley. Herbert Barrett. Josiah Ritchie. Randolph Lycett. Bunny Austin. Fred Perry. So can Andy Murray join this roll call of British gentlemen’s Wimbledon finalists, a roll call I’m sure we can all rattle off, the tennis loving nation that we are? Wimbledon 2011 Wimbledon Andy Murray Rafael Nadal Tennis Scott Murray guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …enlarge Click here to view this media I had a chance yesterday to catch up with Van Jones, who is out on the stump these days working on the effort to build the “American Dream movement” — the kickoff for which we witnessed the week before in Van’s rousing speech at Netroots Nation . We talked for a good twenty minutes. Since so much of what we do here at C&L is focused on dealing with the the Right’s inevitable attacks on progressive initiatives — and particularly the lies and smears that are part and parcel of those attacks — and Van is one of the foremost victims of their lie-and-smear campaigns, I wondered if he had some thoughts on how we confront them. Van was talking about how a wealthy fringe is financing the effort to destroy the American Dream for the nation’s working-class people: C&L: They’re spending a lot of money to promote that, too. They have their media machine, and they’re able to propagandize largely at will. And we know that, you know, a lot of what they do, they’re gonna do this time around just as they’ve done it in the past, is they’re gonna lie and they’re gonna smear us. Any ideas? I mean, you’ve had to deal with that pretty up close and personal. Any ideas how we deal with that? JONES: Well, I think we have to have some courage. I mean, one of the things — I mean, I went through it, and you would like to be — I think one of the reasons liberals and progressives are so vulnerable psychologically and emotionally to these smear campaigns is because we have some unacknowledged desire to be liked and seen as good people. And so that becomes a soft underbelly when you’re dealing with people who don’t care about the facts, and who are willing to say anything. And so there’s a crucible that every movement has to go through where it comes under heavy, unfair attacks and criticism. And you have to be willing and able to push back as best you can, but also not to get absorbed into the food fight. In other words, I think there are three mistakes you can make. One is to say that it’s just too tough out there, it’s a contact sport, I don’t like it, I’m not gonna do anything. Let the bad guys win without a fight. In other words, they so discourage and demoralize people that people will just defeat themselves and they won’t even try to make the country better. That’s the main mistake that people make, and I think you break through that just by having examples of people picking up and fighting on. The second mistake that people do is they get so kind of above the fray that they just don’t respond to nonsense and to foolishness. I’ve been accused of having made that mistake, of kind of ignoring these people too long, and people have accused John Kerry of making that mistake. So that’s another mistake that you can make, of just ignoring these people too long and not be forceful about setting the record straight and demanding some fairness. C&L: You were were trying to turn the other cheek in a lot of ways, though, right? JONES: Yeah. Exactly, and eventually, you know, I figured out that the human body only has four cheeks on it and I think all four ran out. So at some point you’ve had enough. But the other mistake you can make — and you know, Shirley Sherrod, to her credit, she just went and sued right away. But you know, different people take different approaches. The other mistake, the third mistake that people can make, I think, is to get so consumed with the lies and the nonsense from the other side that all they want to do is to fight back. Well, that’s also a trap, because, you know, we’re trying to run a race here — we’re trying to get the country from A to B, and people from the sideline, they’ll start trying to throw banana peels, you know, bricks and marbles on the pavement. And if all we do is stop and get into a fistfight with them, we still don’t win our race. C&L: We don’t inspire anybody with our vision. JONES: We don’t inspire anybody, but we also don’t achieve our own goals. Our goal is not just to be a fight-back movement against the right wing, or against the worst of the right wing, our goal is to actually get people jobs and housing and clear air and clean water and good education. That’s our job. And so then the fact that the other side will do anything to keep us from succeeding means we have to have a response. But you can also get consumed by that response, and that’s all to your point about not inspiring, but it’s also a good way to fail as a movement. These people will be happy to trade punches with you until the last dog barks, because as long as you’re more concerned about who you’re fighting against, you can sometimes forget about who you’re fighting for. And that is a big problem. A little more context for the uninitiated: We covered the lies and smears against Jones in some detail in our book Over the Cliff: How Obama’s Election Drove the American Right Insane , and they were extensive (it occupied about five pages’ worth of detail, and we only scratched the surface). Suffice to say that any other private citizen would have a pretty clear case of libel to pursue here — especially given that it took five months for Glenn Beck to stop claiming that Jones was a convicted felon and to issue a hastily mumbled correction — not to mention the outrageous McCarthyite dynamic at work as well. This past month, after Glenn Beck kept resurrecting these smears, Jones’ attorneys fired off a letter of warning to Beck and Fox News, warning that Beck’s running description of Jones as a “dedicated Marxist and Communist” is demonstrably and unequivocally false,” adding: “Mr. Jones is not a member of any Communist Party or Marxist organization whatsoever, and has not expressed any support for any form of Communist or Marxist ideology for many years. In the same 2005 article in which he Mr. Jones discussed having had such notions as a young man, he also talked about his growth away from those views. … Clearly these statements were calculated to, and do, injure Mr. Jones in his professional and community standing and lower him in the estimation of the American public. They are actionable as a matter of law.” [Via Terry Krepel at Media Matters .] While his attorneys do the necessary work, Jones himself is focusing his energies on going full-bore with the progressive movement’s answer to the Tea Party: Reclaiming our role as the defenders of the American Dream. Everyone knows the middle class in America is under attack — the massive presence of working-class people at this year’s Netroots was ample testimony to how widespread the recognition is becoming. Jones is intent on focusing that energy in a progressive direction, and he has the organizational pull to make it happen. Not to mention the charisma: Be sure to check out the website for the campaign: Rebuild The Dream Here’s video of the campaign’s official launch . The Root has more: The Huffington Post’s Lucas Kavner reports that Jones stood before a packed house at New York City’s performance venue Town Hall, delivering an hourlong speech complete with charts, diagrams, videos and graphics. The American people have been “robbed,” he said, and we must restore the American dream to this country. “We are being lied to,” Jones repeated throughout the evening. “We are not broke. We’re the richest country in the history of the world.” If the country were actually broke, he said, how come only some of us are truly suffering? Jones delivered the fact that 83 percent of U.S. stocks belong to the top 1 percent of Americans, while 21 percent of American children are living below the poverty line. “There used to be an iron link between pay and productivity,” he said, adding a challenge to the rich: “If you do well in America, you should do well by America.” We’ll be following the movement’s progress closely.
Continue reading …House of Bishops to review its policy on civil partnerships and same-sex relationships The Church of England has said it is reviewing its approach to same-sex relationships and whether gay priests in civil partnerships should become bishops, its most significant work on the subject for years. According to a statement from the House of Bishops, there is a “theological task to be done to clarify further understanding of the nature and status of these partnerships”. The bishop of Norwich, Graham James, said the “last substantive engagement” with the issue of homosexuality was in 2005. “Contrary to popular perception the House of Bishops has spent very little time in recent years discussing homosexuality. The House has now agreed the time has come to commission two new pieces of work.” There will be a moratoria on nominating gay clergy for the episcopate to avoid “pre-empting the outcome of the review” said the statement. The review will glean information from an initiative launched in 1998 designed to listen to the experiences of gay and lesbian Anglicans around the world. Recent months have seen fresh debate within the Church of England about the issue of homosexuality, which has riven the Anglican Communion. The Guardian revealed in May how the House of Bishops were unable to agree if a gay priest would ever be eligible for nomination to the episcopate. Last month, in a legal response to the government’s consultation on civil partnerships in places of worship, the church said it would only allow such ceremonies if and when its General Synod agreed. Both instances, predictably, inflamed tensions between liberals and conservatives. The latest announcement comes days after the launch of a traditionalist group, Anglican Mission in England, “dedicated” to setting up new churches. Its aim, it said, is to support “those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family” and offer alternative leadership where Anglicans are “in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop”. The group has announced it has three clergy, ordained in Kenya, who are ready to minister to disaffected conservative evangelicals. Anglicanism Religion Christianity Gay rights Riazat Butt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former Tory peer’s mental health noted by judge in sentencing him for falsely claiming £13,379 in parliamentary expenses Former Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield has been jailed for nine months for fiddling his parliamentary expenses as a judge said his mental health had suffered as a result of his trial. Hanningfield, 70, an ex-Lords opposition frontbencher and leader of Essex county council, falsely claimed £13,379 for overnight stays in London when he was not in the capital. The peer, a former pig farmer from West Hanningfield, near Chelmsford, Essex, was found guilty of six counts of false accounting following an eight day trial at Chelmsford crown court in May. The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, said that when it came to sentencing the main consideration that distinguished his case from others convicted over their expenses, was his poor health. The anxiety and depression suffered by Hanningfield over the case “goes well beyond the level of depression suffered by many people of good character who find themselves for the first time before the courts,” said Saunders, sitting at Maidstone crown court. “He has been diagnosed as suffering from clinical depression and he is being treated for that condition. The bringing of these charges brought about the end of his work which was very important to him. “He is 70 and his physical health is not good. Imprisonment will be harder for him than for others who are mentally and physically fitter. Also, while others convicted in this series of prosecution will have some chance to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the public, Lord Hanningfield is less likely to be able to do that because of his age, but it is not impossible that he will.” Hanningfield has lodged an appeal against his conviction. During his trial the jury heard he regularly claimed for staying overnight in London, including on one occasion in February 2008 when he was actually on board a flight to India. He also fraudulently claimed £382 in train fares, and £147 in mileage by doubling the seven-mile distance from his house to the train station. He told the jury that he treated the Lords expenses as an allowance for living outside the capital and spent just “a minute a month” completing his claim forms. He alleged that most other peers treated the House of Lords as a “club”, turning up there for only 10 minutes to claim their daily allowance. Hanningfield insisted that his parliamentary duties left him thousands of pounds out of pocket and said he “averaged out” his claims to recoup some of the money he spent. When he was questioned by detectives, he told them to look at the records of other peers and claimed he was not the only one claiming expenses in this way. But Saunders said: “It may well be true that he was out of pocket, although I do not accept that he was out of pocket to the extent that he claimed. He received the privilege of a peerage. He knew, when he accepted a peerage that the job of a working peer was unpaid and he did not have to accept the honour.” The judge added: “Great trust was placed in peers to be honest in their claims for expenses. The public expects no less of them. Lord Hanningfield and others have broken that trust. “His work was his life; and now at the age of 70, he should have been enjoying a retirement in which he could have expected his achievements to be honoured. Instead he has been convicted of fraud by a jury drawn from the county that he served so long, and it is as an expenses cheat that he will be partly remembered.” Four former Labour MPs – David Chaytor, Eric Illsley, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley – have already received prison terms for fiddling their parliamentary expenses. Illsley has already been released from jail, and Chaytor was freed from Spring Hill open prison, near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, on the day Hanningfield was convicted, after serving just a quarter of his 18-month sentence. Another Conservative peer, Lord Taylor of Warwick, was jailed for 12 months and faces being suspended from the House of Lords. MPs’ expenses House of Commons Eric Illsley Crime House of Lords Conservatives Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …