• Hit F5 to refresh or turn on the automatic widget below • Email your thoughts and chat to evanfanning@gmail.com • Follow our daily live blog from SW19 • Follow Evan on Twitter, if that’s your thing Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-3 Sharapova And Sharapova breaks straight back. Oh dear. All that hope gone in a few shoddy serves. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-2 Sharapova* Cibulkova has broken Sharapova. There has been a definite improvement from the Slovakian in the last couple of game and that will give her some belief that she might be able to force her way back into this game. She can’t, of course, but it’s no harm if she thinks she can for a little bit at least. “Marvellous to see that Sharipova has mastered the art of playing tennis while juggling the moon in one hand (see pic),” writes Mihai Cucos. “Has she become a Hindu goddess?” Well if she has she needs to get back focusing on her game. there’s a time and a place for Hindu goddesses but Centre Court on a rainy Tuesday is not it. Although it would be a lot better than Cliff Richard I suppose. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 0-2 Sharapova It’s a good game from Cibulkova – the best she’s played in this match – but it’s still not enough. In a game that lasted eight minutes Sharapova seemed to be able to reach all areas of the court and return in devastating fashion. Four times Sharapova has break point and it’s an escape act too many fir Cibulkova who has not one a game since the opening game of the match. “Come on,” Sharapova shouts after the winning point. She may have been directing it at Cibulkova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 0-1 Sharapova* Sharapova holds service with ease. On BBC they reckon Cibulkova needs to find a Plan B. I reckon she’s searching for Plan X or Y at this stage. They’re about the start the first of the other quarter-finals on Court One. At least they think they are but we know that a great big rain cloud is heading straight for them. Maria Sharapova wins the first set 6-1. The Slovakian gets appears to get a foothold in the game taking a 40-love lead on her service before Sharapova comes storming back to take the game and the set. The final point was loose and wild from Cibulkova who needs to sort herself out in the next couple of minutes otherwise this is going to be over very, very shortly indeed. This is brilliant from Sharapova. First set: Cibulkova 1-5 Sharapova* Cibulkova moves into a position where she has two break points – they’re almost handed to her by Sharapova who seems so determined to diominate that she is looking to blast her opponent into submission when at times, some subtelty might be the best approach. Needless to say Sharapova wins the next four points and takes the game. After watching Sharapova beat laura Robson I made her my choice to win Wimbledon. Then, for some unknown reason, I went and put money on Caroline Wozniacki. I’m regretting my actions now. Not just in terms of the bet – pretty much all my life-choices have been dubious. First set: Cibulkova* 1-4 Sharapova The problem with Cibulkova’s strategy is that Sharapova is looking stronger than her in a rally as well as the serve. Cibulkova takes a 30-love lead by Sharapova won’t led it slide and storms back – with one point-winning backhand particularly devastating – and Cibulkova flounders and loses the game with a double-fault. First set: Cibulkova 1-3 Sharapova* Sharapova wins to love and it may not be jumping the gun to say that Cibulkova is in a bit of trouble. There’s a clear gulf between the two at the moment. If you are a fan of groaning in tennis then this is the match for you. The roof is closed so the acoustics are making every grunt echo through the arena. It wouldn’t sound any better in the Royal Opera House. Trickier to play tennis there though. First set: Cibulkova* 1-2 Sharapova First break of the match and it’s fairly comfortable for Sharapova. A real pattern for the game is already emerging. Cibulkova lacks the serve to cause Sharapova too many problems and is aiming to do her damage with powerful ground strokes. They’re not powerful enough at the moment and the No5 seed is returning with interest. First set: Cibulkova 1-1 Sharapova* Sharapova has a clear height advantage – she’s 6ft 2in facing Cibulkova who is just 5ft 3in – and that tells in her first service game which she wins easily losing just one point courtesy of an unforced error. First set: Cibulkova* 1-0 Sharapova If the first point of this game is anything to go by we could be here for a while. There are gasps as Cibulkova takes a tumble which allows Sharapova to take the point after a 22-stroke rally. The Slovakian clambers to her feet and recovers to hold serve. “Does anyone know if women tennis players do beep tests?” wonders gary Naylor. “I was very impressed by La Lisicki last Thursday who looked very strong indeed in defeating Li Na 8-6 in the third and she lasted much better than Ms Bartoli today. Of course shotmaking matters, but I’m surprised that so many female players seem to fade after 90 minutes or so of a match. Women don’t when running the marathon.” Answers to the usual address. Another insight into the world of super-rich sports people … Rory McIlroy has just turned the tennis court in his house into a five-a-side football pitch. Decisions, decisions. Celebrity watch … No Wills and Kate today but Rory McIlroy is here. Ever wondered what famous sportspeople talk about when they meet? Here’s a snapshot of the conversation between McIlroy and Andy Murray when they met at the practice grounds earlier on. Murray to McIlroy, who is wearing a sharp suit: “You look good.” McIlroy: “Yeah, well, you know.” It’s like something from an Evelyn Waugh novel out there. Preamble Fear not, just like at Centre Court there is now a roof on Guardian Towers so I will be able to bring you full game-by-game coverage of this enticing match despite the Day After Tomorrow-style downpour that has engulfed London this afternoon. It’s a tough slog on the women’s tennis circuit. While their male counterparts get a day off, sitting at home or in their hotel quaffing copious amounts of energy drinks in the belief that they actually do any good. Meanwhile, the women barely have time for a cup of tea as they are back in action today in the quarter-finals just 24 houurs after their fourth-round matches. One of the most intriguing of the day’s matches is between fifth-seed Maria Sharapova and 24th-seed Dominika Cibulkova, who beat world No1 Caroline Wozniacki on Monday. Given that Serena and venus Williams are on the plance home Sharapova is now firm favourite to win a title she last won in 2004. Incidentally if Sharapova can go all the way she will join an illustrious group to have won the title more than once. That seven-year gap between titles would put Sharapova behind only Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971 and 1980) as an Open era player with the longest gap between Wimbledon titles. But first she has to defeat Cibulkova. And then the winner or Marion Bartoli and Sabine Lisicki. And then whoever she may meet in Saturday’s final. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. These two have met four time previosuly, with the record at two wins apiece. The last time they played was in Madrid earlier this year where Cibulkova won 7-5, 6-4. Wimbledon 2011 Maria Sharapova Wimbledon Tennis Evan Fanning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
It took Maria Sharapova exactly one hour to beat Dominika Cibulkova 6-1, 6-1 to set up a semi-final aginst Sabine Lisicki Preamble Fear not, just like at Centre Court there is now a roof on Guardian Towers so I will be able to bring you full game-by-game coverage of this enticing match despite the Day After Tomorrow-style downpour that has engulfed London this afternoon. It’s a tough slog on the women’s tennis circuit. While their male counterparts get a day off, sitting at home or in their hotel quaffing copious amounts of energy drinks in the belief that they actually do any good. Meanwhile, the women barely have time for a cup of tea as they are back in action today in the quarter-finals just 24 houurs after their fourth-round matches. One of the most intriguing of the day’s matches is between fifth-seed Maria Sharapova and 24th-seed Dominika Cibulkova, who beat world No1 Caroline Wozniacki on Monday. Given that Serena and venus Williams are on the plance home Sharapova is now firm favourite to win a title she last won in 2004. Incidentally if Sharapova can go all the way she will join an illustrious group to have won the title more than once. That seven-year gap between titles would put Sharapova behind only Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971 and 1980) as an Open era player with the longest gap between Wimbledon titles. But first she has to defeat Cibulkova. And then the winner or Marion Bartoli and Sabine Lisicki. And then whoever she may meet in Saturday’s final. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. These two have met four time previosuly, with the record at two wins apiece. The last time they played was in Madrid earlier this year where Cibulkova won 7-5, 6-4. Celebrity watch … No Wills and Kate today but Rory McIlroy is here. Ever wondered what famous sportspeople talk about when they meet? Here’s a snapshot of the conversation between McIlroy and Andy Murray when they met at the practice grounds earlier on. Murray to McIlroy, who is wearing a sharp suit: “You look good.” McIlroy: “Yeah, well, you know.” It’s like something from an Evelyn Waugh novel out there. Another insight into the world of super-rich sports people … Rory McIlroy has just turned the tennis court in his house into a five-a-side football pitch. Decisions, decisions. First set: Cibulkova* 1-0 Sharapova If the first point of this game is anything to go by we could be here for a while. There are gasps as Cibulkova takes a tumble which allows Sharapova to take the point after a 22-stroke rally. The Slovakian clambers to her feet and recovers to hold serve. “Does anyone know if women tennis players do beep tests?” wonders gary Naylor. “I was very impressed by La Lisicki last Thursday who looked very strong indeed in defeating Li Na 8-6 in the third and she lasted much better than Ms Bartoli today. Of course shotmaking matters, but I’m surprised that so many female players seem to fade after 90 minutes or so of a match. Women don’t when running the marathon.” Answers to the usual address. First set: Cibulkova 1-1 Sharapova* Sharapova has a clear height advantage – she’s 6ft 2in facing Cibulkova who is just 5ft 3in – and that tells in her first service game which she wins easily losing just one point courtesy of an unforced error. First set: Cibulkova* 1-2 Sharapova First break of the match and it’s fairly comfortable for Sharapova. A real pattern for the game is already emerging. Cibulkova lacks the serve to cause Sharapova too many problems and is aiming to do her damage with powerful ground strokes. They’re not powerful enough at the moment and the No5 seed is returning with interest. First set: Cibulkova 1-3 Sharapova* Sharapova wins to love and it may not be jumping the gun to say that Cibulkova is in a bit of trouble. There’s a clear gulf between the two at the moment. If you are a fan of groaning in tennis then this is the match for you. The roof is closed so the acoustics are making every grunt echo through the arena. It wouldn’t sound any better in the Royal Opera House. Trickier to play tennis there though. First set: Cibulkova* 1-4 Sharapova The problem with Cibulkova’s strategy is that Sharapova is looking stronger than her in a rally as well as the serve. Cibulkova takes a 30-love lead by Sharapova won’t led it slide and storms back – with one point-winning backhand particularly devastating – and Cibulkova flounders and loses the game with a double-fault. First set: Cibulkova 1-5 Sharapova* Cibulkova moves into a position where she has two break points – they’re almost handed to her by Sharapova who seems so determined to diominate that she is looking to blast her opponent into submission when at times, some subtelty might be the best approach. Needless to say Sharapova wins the next four points and takes the game. After watching Sharapova beat laura Robson I made her my choice to win Wimbledon. Then, for some unknown reason, I went and put money on Caroline Wozniacki. I’m regretting my actions now. Not just in terms of the bet – pretty much all my life-choices have been dubious. Maria Sharapova wins the first set 6-1. The Slovakian gets appears to get a foothold in the game taking a 40-love lead on her service before Sharapova comes storming back to take the game and the set. The final point was loose and wild from Cibulkova who needs to sort herself out in the next couple of minutes otherwise this is going to be over very, very shortly indeed. This is brilliant from Sharapova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 0-1 Sharapova* Sharapova holds service with ease. On BBC they reckon Cibulkova needs to find a Plan B. I reckon she’s searching for Plan X or Y at this stage. They’re about the start the first of the other quarter-finals on Court One. At least they think they are but we know that a great big rain cloud is heading straight for them. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 0-2 Sharapova It’s a good game from Cibulkova – the best she’s played in this match – but it’s still not enough. In a game that lasted eight minutes Sharapova seemed to be able to reach all areas of the court and return in devastating fashion. Four times Sharapova has break point and it’s an escape act too many fir Cibulkova who has not one a game since the opening game of the match. “Come on,” Sharapova shouts after the winning point. She may have been directing it at Cibulkova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-2 Sharapova* Cibulkova has broken Sharapova. There has been a definite improvement from the Slovakian in the last couple of game and that will give her some belief that she might be able to force her way back into this game. She can’t, of course, but it’s no harm if she thinks she can for a little bit at least. “Marvellous to see that Sharipova has mastered the art of playing tennis while juggling the moon in one hand (see pic),” writes Mihai Cucos. “Has she become a Hindu goddess?” Well if she has she needs to get back focusing on her game. there’s a time and a place for Hindu goddesses but Centre Court on a rainy Tuesday is not it. Although it would be a lot better than Cliff Richard I suppose. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-3 Sharapova And Sharapova breaks straight back. Oh dear. All that hope gone in a few shoddy serves. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-4 Sharapova* Sharapova serves – Cubulkova attempts to pound it back but either overhits it or Sharapova smashes it back into an unreachable area of the court. Sharapova serves – ace. That’s the stopry of that game and of the match. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-5 Sharapova Maria Sharapova will serve for the match and a place in the semi-final after breaking Cibulkova without conceding a point. This is devastating. Oh dear! I said that already, didn’t I? Maria Sharapova beats Dominika Cibulkova 6-1, 6-1 Sharapova opens the game with a double-fault. Take that complete and utter dominance! She then makes an unforced error at 15-15. She’s havin’ a laugh. Not really. Sharapova produces the shot of the match to make it 30-30, Cibulkova shows her best to reach break-point but then it’s ace-unplayable serve-forehand whack and out and Maria Sharaopova is in the semi-final in the most impressive manner. This title is hers to lose. There is no question of that. Final thoughts One hour is all it took for Maria Sharapova to set up a semi-final aginst the German wildcard Sabine Lisicki. “This is a great chance for me to take it a step further,” says Sharapova. You can say that again. Dominika Cibulkova may have thought she was in with a chance after beating world No1 Caroline Wozniacki. She may have just been destroyed by this year’s Wimbledon champion. That’s it for me. Thanks for your emails. The weather has cleared up and Paolo Bandini can keep you abreast of all the rest of the day’s action as it happens in our live blog . Bye. Wimbledon 2011 Maria Sharapova Wimbledon Tennis Evan Fanning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Pair taken into custody on drugs and arms trafficking charges amid two-week standoff at notorious jail Two weeks after deadly rioting sparked an ongoing siege in Venezuela’s notorious El Rodeo jail, authorities say they have arrested two of the prison’s directors on drug and arms trafficking charges. Luisa Ortega Díaz, head of Venezuela’s public prosecutor, said Luis Rafael Aranguren, the director of the El Rodeo 2 unit, and Rubén José González Heredia, the vice-director of the El Rodeo 1 unit, had been taken into custody. Heredia is accused of “facilitating” the entry of guns, explosives and drugs into the prison, while Aranguren faces corruption and gun-running charges. Violence at the El Rodeo complex, just outside of Caracas, began on 12 June, with clashes between rival gangs leaving at least 22 dead. After a lull in fighting, confrontations broke out again on 17 June, when thousands of security forces swept into the prison, triggering gun battles between troops and prisoners . El Rodeo’s rebelling inmates are said to control an arsenal that includes AK-47 and R-15 assault rifles and even a 50-calibre anti-aircraft machine gun. Government troops managed to regain control of El Rodeo 1, but up to 1,200 prisoners remain under siege in El Rodeo 2. Authorities have blamed the stalemate on Yorvis Valentín López Cortez, a 26-year-old prison leader or “pran” better known as “El Oriente”. Reportedly a convicted murderer who took over de facto control of El Rodeo 2 in 2009, he is said to run the jail with support from a 20-year-old known as “El Yoifre”. During telephone interviews with local journalists – part of a propaganda battle between gang leaders and the government – El Oriente has accused security forces of committing human rights abuses and issued threats. “If the guards come into the prison many people will die, many guards and many prisoners,” he told El Universal on Monday. A series of videos have also been posted on YouTube , purporting to be statements from prisoners inside El Rodeo 2. “They are massacring the prison population,” says one masked prisoner leader in a six-minute recording, which he described as a plea for “international help”. “They have massacred more than 160 [of our] colleagues in El Rodeo 1,” the leader claimed, flanked by inmates wearing hoods and masks. Venezuela’s deputy justice minister, Néstor Reverol, told the Unión Radio station a small group of “delinquents” had in effect kidnapped hundreds of other prisoners inside the cellblock. “We will continue to ask these delinquents … to give up. We will not withdraw our troops,” he added. Venezuela Tom Phillips guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Pair taken into custody on drugs and arms trafficking charges amid two-week standoff at notorious jail Two weeks after deadly rioting sparked an ongoing siege in Venezuela’s notorious El Rodeo jail, authorities say they have arrested two of the prison’s directors on drug and arms trafficking charges. Luisa Ortega Díaz, head of Venezuela’s public prosecutor, said Luis Rafael Aranguren, the director of the El Rodeo 2 unit, and Rubén José González Heredia, the vice-director of the El Rodeo 1 unit, had been taken into custody. Heredia is accused of “facilitating” the entry of guns, explosives and drugs into the prison, while Aranguren faces corruption and gun-running charges. Violence at the El Rodeo complex, just outside of Caracas, began on 12 June, with clashes between rival gangs leaving at least 22 dead. After a lull in fighting, confrontations broke out again on 17 June, when thousands of security forces swept into the prison, triggering gun battles between troops and prisoners . El Rodeo’s rebelling inmates are said to control an arsenal that includes AK-47 and R-15 assault rifles and even a 50-calibre anti-aircraft machine gun. Government troops managed to regain control of El Rodeo 1, but up to 1,200 prisoners remain under siege in El Rodeo 2. Authorities have blamed the stalemate on Yorvis Valentín López Cortez, a 26-year-old prison leader or “pran” better known as “El Oriente”. Reportedly a convicted murderer who took over de facto control of El Rodeo 2 in 2009, he is said to run the jail with support from a 20-year-old known as “El Yoifre”. During telephone interviews with local journalists – part of a propaganda battle between gang leaders and the government – El Oriente has accused security forces of committing human rights abuses and issued threats. “If the guards come into the prison many people will die, many guards and many prisoners,” he told El Universal on Monday. A series of videos have also been posted on YouTube , purporting to be statements from prisoners inside El Rodeo 2. “They are massacring the prison population,” says one masked prisoner leader in a six-minute recording, which he described as a plea for “international help”. “They have massacred more than 160 [of our] colleagues in El Rodeo 1,” the leader claimed, flanked by inmates wearing hoods and masks. Venezuela’s deputy justice minister, Néstor Reverol, told the Unión Radio station a small group of “delinquents” had in effect kidnapped hundreds of other prisoners inside the cellblock. “We will continue to ask these delinquents … to give up. We will not withdraw our troops,” he added. Venezuela Tom Phillips guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …More lunacy from Michele Bachmann as she believes John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father
June 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media The biggest hurdle for Michele Bachmann to overcome in running for the Republican nomination is her penchant for making over-the-top statements for political effect which turn out not only to be untrue but ill-advised as well. She could get away with this as a backbencher in congress but now message discipline is paramount, as is focus. Her appearance on Fox this weekend was focused, and she benefitted a lot from being able to play the victim from Chris Wallace’s clumsiness of calling her “a flake”. Another appearance on CBS’s Face The Nation was less assured, and at times cringe-worthy. This one with George Stephanopoulos today on Good Morning America casts real doubts whether she can handle the scrutiny from being seen as a legitimate presidential candidate, as ridiculous as it is to even write those words in connection with Michele Bachmann. Her defensiveness and unwillingness to ever, ever admit wrong is Palin-esque. It’s not a trait or a habit Americans will find endearing. Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery. Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery…. Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery? Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved. She said that with a straight face. On abolishing the minimum wage: Stephanopoulos: Let me try one more time, so you are saying that the minimum wage is one of those regulations you’d take a look at, you’d try to eliminate it? Bachmann: Well what I’m saying is that I think we need to look at all regulations, whatever–whatever ones are inhibiting job growth that’s what we need to — Stephanopoulos: And the minimum wage is one of them? [Long pregnant pause here.] Bachmann: All regulations George. I think every department. We have just too much expansion of government and so what we need to do is tamp that down so that the American people can keep more of what they make. Such performances cast real doubts whether she can last through to the primary season. That would be a real shame because she, like few others, illuminate what the modern-day Republican party has become.
Continue reading …More lunacy from Michele Bachmann as she believes John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father
June 28, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media The biggest hurdle for Michele Bachmann to overcome in running for the Republican nomination is her penchant for making over-the-top statements for political effect which turn out not only to be untrue but ill-advised as well. She could get away with this as a backbencher in congress but now message discipline is paramount, as is focus. Her appearance on Fox this weekend was focused, and she benefitted a lot from being able to play the victim from Chris Wallace’s clumsiness of calling her “a flake”. Another appearance on CBS’s Face The Nation was less assured, and at times cringe-worthy. This one with George Stephanopoulos today on Good Morning America casts real doubts whether she can handle the scrutiny from being seen as a legitimate presidential candidate, as ridiculous as it is to even write those words in connection with Michele Bachmann. Her defensiveness and unwillingness to ever, ever admit wrong is Palin-esque. It’s not a trait or a habit Americans will find endearing. Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery. Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery…. Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery? Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved. She said that with a straight face. On abolishing the minimum wage: Stephanopoulos: Let me try one more time, so you are saying that the minimum wage is one of those regulations you’d take a look at, you’d try to eliminate it? Bachmann: Well what I’m saying is that I think we need to look at all regulations, whatever–whatever ones are inhibiting job growth that’s what we need to — Stephanopoulos: And the minimum wage is one of them? [Long pregnant pause here.] Bachmann: All regulations George. I think every department. We have just too much expansion of government and so what we need to do is tamp that down so that the American people can keep more of what they make. Such performances cast real doubts whether she can last through to the primary season. That would be a real shame because she, like few others, illuminate what the modern-day Republican party has become.
Continue reading …
My first reaction to this was, “Well, if this became a common practice, at least we'd hear the word 'unexpectedly' a lot less often.” Over at Mediaite on Friday (some R-rated content is at link;
Continue reading …
Higher education white paper paves way for 85,000 university places to be opened up to competition Universities will compete against each other for a quarter of the students they recruit next year under government reforms unveiled on Tuesday, putting pressure on institutions to bring down fees. English universities will be granted the power to recruit unlimited numbers of the best-performing students. At present, universities have a fixed number of government-funded places for home undergraduates each autumn and are fined if they over-recruit. This limits competition between universities and denies some students their first choice. A competition based on strength of student demand and the pricing of courses will put pressure on institutions to bring down fees or focus sharply on improving quality. The higher education white paper allows institutions to expand to take on more students who achieve grades AAB or higher at A-level. The government estimates this will cover about 65,000 students next year. The shakeup also proposes creating a “flexible margin” of 20,000 places which can only be taken up by universities charging an average fee of £7,500 or less. Universities will compete for these places and the government says it will consult on the criteria for this competition. The combined effect of these changes will be to remove about 85,000 places – about one in four of the 350,000 new undergraduates – from universities’ central allocation and open them up to competition. This is likely to squeeze middle-ranking institutions that charge high fees as they will be unable to attract the best-performing applicants and also lose places overall. The universities minister, David Willetts, said the proportion would increase each year from 2012: “We tried in the first year to get the balance right between opening up the system without imposing too much turbulence. We want to go further every year.” Willetts said there would be “pressure for quality and value for money” on universities. The white paper allows employers or charities to sponsor extra places outside the government quota system. The government says these must have “fair access for all students applying, regardless of ability to pay” and rules out the possibility of individuals being able to sponsor extra places. The government is looking at extending the role of the Office for Fair Access (Offa), the watchdog which monitors university access for under-represented groups. Offa may get powers to instruct a university to spend more on access from its fee income and publish assessments universities that are failing to make sufficient progress against their access agreement. Ministers claim the package of reforms will give students more choice over where they study and strengthen their right as consumers to “get their money’s worth” from universities charging higher fees. Under the reforms, universities will be required to publish comparable information for prospective students on teaching hours and quality. Ministers are asking for the publication of detailed information about the employment and earning outcomes of specific degrees in order to name and shame courses that are not valued by employers. The government wants teenagers to have better information when choosing A-levels by asking universities to publish the qualifications of previously successful applicants. The Russell group, for example, favours traditional subjects: maths, English, geography, history, the three pure sciences and languages. Higher education University funding David Willetts Students Education policy Student finance Jeevan Vasagar Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
PM urges workers planning to strike on Thursday to stop and reconsider arguments about public sector pension reforms Public sector pensions cost every household £1,000 a year, David Cameron claimed as he made a detailed appeal to unions to accept the government’s proposals and back away from strike action. The prime minister said he believed there were “misconceptions” amongst those planning to strike on Thursday, urging them to stop and reconsider the arguments. He warned that the pensions system was “in danger of going broke” if reforms were not made. “Of course, in a democracy people can go out and protest,” Cameron told the Local Government Association conference in Birmingham. “But the people marching should know what they’re objecting to, and I believe there are some misconceptions flying around.” Concerns about the impact of Thursday’s strikes were raised when it emerged that the UK Border Agency has written to airlines suggesting they might encourage people to choose another day to fly amid concerns about the impact of immigration staff taking strike action at Heathrow and other major airports. The cabinet met and discussed contingency plans on Tuesday as the number of schools estimated to be closed on Thursday grew. In comments that unions said were an attempt to drive a wedge between private and public sector workers, Cameron said: “The taxpayer currently contributes over two-thirds of the costs of maintaining public sector pensions. That’s the equivalent of £1,000 a household. That figure is only expected to rise. “Is that a fair? I don’t believe it is, especially when people in the private sector are seeing the value of their own pensions falling, their own pension age rise and when, according to the Office for National Statistics, the average gross pay in the public sector is now higher than in the private sector. So we need to rebalance the system.” In a speech almost entirely focused on the pensions issue, but notable for its non-confrontational language, he argued: • That reforms are essential as people live longer and the bill for public sector pensions rises. “The reason we can’t go on as we are is because as the baby-boomers retire – and thankfully live longer – the pension system is in danger of going broke … in the 1970s, when a civil servant retired at 60, they could expect to claim a pension for around 20 years,” he said. “Today, when they retire at 60, they can expect to claim a pension for nearly 30 years – about a 50% increase on before.” • That the system of paying for public sector pensions needs to be rebalanced to make it fairer on the taxpayer. But he also argued that the reforms would be fair for public sector workers, protecting their defined benefits, albeit under a pension scheme with payouts based on career averages instead of final salaries. Accrued rights would also be protected, and the lowest paid protected from contributions increases. “Your pre-reform entitlements are being fully protected,” he said. “What you have earned you will keep. Fact. That’s why I can look you in the eye and say public service pensions will remain among the very best – much better, indeed, than for many private sector workers.” • He argued that the career-average scheme was fairer for low paid workers, who are no longer expected to subsidise the final salary schemes of those who jump to the highest salaries before retirement. “This is not about saving money. It’s about doing what’s right and fair by you,” he said. • Refusing to act now would store up a problem in the future that in five, 10 or 15 years would become unaffordable, he said. • He concluded with a direct appeal to those planning to strike on Thursday, saying: “To those considering strike action at a time when discussions are ongoing, I would say to you: these strikes are wrong – for you, for the people you serve, for the good of the country. It’s the changes we propose that are right. Right for the long term. Right by the taxpayer. And, most crucially of all, right by you.” David Cameron Local government Trade unions Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Public sector pay Public sector pensions Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …One of the luckiest and best things that ever happened to me and my family was when my folks decided to take a foster son into our family. I was 11 years old, and so was Kevin. I wasn’t sure about him coming, because with my oldest sister moving out, I would have finally have a bedroom to myself when my older brother moved into her newly empty room, but I got over it quickly enough. Kevin is developmentally and physically disabled because of brain damage he had suffered from child abuse. He can’t talk very clearly (although those of us in the family can understand him pretty well), read much, or do much math. He has always moved pretty slow, and now has cerebral palsy and is having more and more trouble moving at all. But before getting CP, as long as he was able, Kevin went to work every Monday through Friday in structured workplaces, making money to support himself and pay taxes. He is fun to be with, as engaging and good-natured as anyone I know. Although he’s not able to talk very clearly, Kevin tells great stories, is genuinely funny, and is always interested in hearing about what is going on in my life. He has a better memory on some things than I do, and despite not being able to read a map, he is better at finding his way around Lincoln, Neb. (our hometown) than I am. He calls our mom every single day (which is better than I do) with stories about his day. Most importantly of all, he cares for others wherever he is. Since he left our house after we all grew up, and Mom and Dad got older, Kevin has mostly been in group homes in Lincoln. We still see him on holidays and whenever we come to town, but since leaving my folks’ house, he has usually lived with others who have mental and/or physical disabilities. Even with his developmental challenges, his cerebral palsy, and the fact that he is losing some hearing and eyesight, Kevin has helped his housemates. For example, he has been a strong source of comfort, support and friendship for a young man he is living with now who is worse off than him in terms of his disabilities. My brother Kevin, with all his challenges, is in every way the kind of person we would want in our society: a wonderful son, a great brother, someone who looks out for and helps everyone around him. This is the kind of person Republicans would leave by the side of the road in order to, as my friend Bob Creamer put it, “ protect tax loopholes for CEOs who fly corporate jets .” They would devastate Medicaid and programs for the disabled, so that the wealthiest most powerful people in America would not have to pay a single extra dime in taxes. But Kevin is not the only son of the middle class who would be badly hurt by the Republican position on the budget and the debt ceiling. Conservatives are threatening everything that helps support a decent middle class, including help for our family members who have disabilities; including money for education and student loans; including middle-class consumer protection from financial predators; including Social Security and Medicare for elderly folks. And they are playing chicken with our entire economy, because as a vast majority of economists believe, a debt ceiling default would traumatize a very weak economy. We could have another major financial panic, millions more in job losses. And all so that people over making over $500,000 don’t have to pay one more penny in taxes. Now obviously, this is terrible policy, sociopathically insane. But it also goes to the core of who we are as a country, our deepest foundational values and vision of ourselves. Are we a nation built on Ayn Rand’s philosophy , which celebrates selfishness and wealth above all other things, and mocks people like my brother Kevin as defective parasites? Or do we follow the ideas of Martin Luther King, Jr. who had a dream, “ deeply rooted in the American Dream, ” that we would be an American family sitting down at the table of brotherhood where we were all judged on the content of our character? By that test, my brother Kevin would far outshine people like Paul Ryan. Our economy is at stake in this budget and debt ceiling debate, perched on the edge of a precipice. But so is the content of our character as a country. I hope it is not found wanting.
Continue reading …