Not a match to raise the roof but just what Andy Murray needed | Richard Williams
June 20, 2011 No Comment
With sterner tests to come, the British No1 will be grateful he was given a decent work-out by Daniel Gimeno-Traver Just what the boy Murray needed. A stiffish test for over an hour, followed by a cruise through to the second round. Full marks to Daniel Gimeno-Traver, a 25-year-old from Valencia who had previously won only two matches on grass, for providing the No4 seed with a useful opening-day work-out under the retractable roof and for giving the crowd 70 minutes of admirable tennis before his mind and limbs grew tired. The rain had come at one minute past five o’clock, with the women’s singles match between Francesca Schiavione and Jelena Dokic still in the balance on the Centre Court as the roof was given an early opportunity to do its £80m-worth of stuff. Two years ago Andy Murray and his fourth-round opponent Stanislas Wawrinka became the first players to contest a match in the new weather-proof SW19 showpiece. Murray, who was on his way to his first appearance in the Wimbledon semi-finals, took that match in five sets, with somewhat greater difficulty than he experienced on Monday. When the No4 seed and the Spaniard ranked No59 in the world made their appearance, once Schiavone and Dokic had completed their business, the lights were shining from beneath the translucent covering and the air was humid. Knights of the realm in the royal box included Jackie Stewart, Clive Woodward and Terry Wogan, along with Angela Mortimer, a British singles champion at Wimbledon in the long, long ago. In the only previous meeting between the two men, in 2009, Murray had won in straight sets on a hard court in Gimeno-Traver’s home town. Now the position was reversed, with the Spaniard venturing on to the Scot’s adopted turf and giving a good account of himself in the opening stages. This is Murray’s sixth visit to Wimbledon as a senior since his debut in 2005 – he missed the 2007 tournament with a wrist injury – and it will not have escaped his attention that his progress has taken the form of an unbroken upward curve: third round, fourth round, quarter-final, then consecutive semi-finals in the past two years, with his path to the final denied first by Andy Roddick and then by Rafael Nadal. Defeat in another semi-final, at the age of 24, would represent the consolidation of his known status, if not the satisfaction of moving up another level. Elimination at an earlier stage in his quarter of the draw would necessarily be at the hands of a player outside the top four, a Gaël Monfils or a Richard Gasquet, or maybe Roddick, the eighth seed, and would involve a significant disappointment. Murray dropped only two points in his first four service games, while Gimeno-Traver was holding his own serve with considerably more difficulty, fending off a break point in the fourth game. Serving at 4-4, however, the Scot suddenly lost control of his forehand, saving two break points before losing a third and finding himself unable to prevent the set slipping out of his hands at the first time of asking. “He deserved to be up at that point,” Murray said afterwards, and it was indeed a very enjoyable and competitive spectacle for the crowd. Gimeno-Traver, the son of a chemist and a nurse, is said in his official biography to have taken up the game at two years of age – his more celebrated opponent delayed his first efforts until after his third birthday – and he was matching Murray shot for shot, covering the court with springy athleticism and mixing up the pace and angles to considerable effect. When he took the first point of the seventh game in the second set against Murray’s serve, with a beautifully manufactured low forehead lob that hit the baseline and scurried away, the court rang with warm applause. The crowd were showing their appreciation of what was, at that stage, still a proper contest, but a couple of minutes later the evening took a decisive turn when Murray exploited a series of errors and made the most of a third break point before brusquely closing out the set with a service game that included three aces from the deuce court, each one scorching the centre line at around 125mph. Here was a hint of the consistent menace he will no doubt need in the later rounds. The best of Murray came as he broke Gimeno-Traver again in the opening game of the third set, again needing threebreak points to achieve his aim but also producing a running forehand down the line and a marvellously judged drop shot. At that point his opponent caved in and hardly won another point, never mind a game. At 4-0 in the third the Spaniard called for treatment to a thigh injury, probably the result of a fall in the sixth game of the second set, and the remainder of the match constituted little more than an exhibition. It ended with a gentle exchange of angled volleys and drop shots, Murray delivering the coup de grâce with a lethal delicacy that he may not have occasion to display in what will surely be the sterner contests to come. Andy Murray Wimbledon 2011 Wimbledon Tennis Richard Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Not a match to raise the roof but just what Andy Murray needed | Richard Williams
June 20, 2011 No CommentWith sterner tests to come, the British No1 will be grateful he was given a decent work-out by Daniel Gimeno-Traver Just what the boy Murray needed. A stiffish test for over an hour, followed by a cruise through to the second round. Full marks to Daniel Gimeno-Traver, a 25-year-old from Valencia who had previously won only two matches on grass, for providing the No4 seed with a useful opening-day work-out under the retractable roof and for giving the crowd 70 minutes of admirable tennis before his mind and limbs grew tired. The rain had come at one minute past five o’clock, with the women’s singles match between Francesca Schiavione and Jelena Dokic still in the balance on the Centre Court as the roof was given an early opportunity to do its £80m-worth of stuff. Two years ago Andy Murray and his fourth-round opponent Stanislas Wawrinka became the first players to contest a match in the new weather-proof SW19 showpiece. Murray, who was on his way to his first appearance in the Wimbledon semi-finals, took that match in five sets, with somewhat greater difficulty than he experienced on Monday. When the No4 seed and the Spaniard ranked No59 in the world made their appearance, once Schiavone and Dokic had completed their business, the lights were shining from beneath the translucent covering and the air was humid. Knights of the realm in the royal box included Jackie Stewart, Clive Woodward and Terry Wogan, along with Angela Mortimer, a British singles champion at Wimbledon in the long, long ago. In the only previous meeting between the two men, in 2009, Murray had won in straight sets on a hard court in Gimeno-Traver’s home town. Now the position was reversed, with the Spaniard venturing on to the Scot’s adopted turf and giving a good account of himself in the opening stages. This is Murray’s sixth visit to Wimbledon as a senior since his debut in 2005 – he missed the 2007 tournament with a wrist injury – and it will not have escaped his attention that his progress has taken the form of an unbroken upward curve: third round, fourth round, quarter-final, then consecutive semi-finals in the past two years, with his path to the final denied first by Andy Roddick and then by Rafael Nadal. Defeat in another semi-final, at the age of 24, would represent the consolidation of his known status, if not the satisfaction of moving up another level. Elimination at an earlier stage in his quarter of the draw would necessarily be at the hands of a player outside the top four, a Gaël Monfils or a Richard Gasquet, or maybe Roddick, the eighth seed, and would involve a significant disappointment. Murray dropped only two points in his first four service games, while Gimeno-Traver was holding his own serve with considerably more difficulty, fending off a break point in the fourth game. Serving at 4-4, however, the Scot suddenly lost control of his forehand, saving two break points before losing a third and finding himself unable to prevent the set slipping out of his hands at the first time of asking. “He deserved to be up at that point,” Murray said afterwards, and it was indeed a very enjoyable and competitive spectacle for the crowd. Gimeno-Traver, the son of a chemist and a nurse, is said in his official biography to have taken up the game at two years of age – his more celebrated opponent delayed his first efforts until after his third birthday – and he was matching Murray shot for shot, covering the court with springy athleticism and mixing up the pace and angles to considerable effect. When he took the first point of the seventh game in the second set against Murray’s serve, with a beautifully manufactured low forehead lob that hit the baseline and scurried away, the court rang with warm applause. The crowd were showing their appreciation of what was, at that stage, still a proper contest, but a couple of minutes later the evening took a decisive turn when Murray exploited a series of errors and made the most of a third break point before brusquely closing out the set with a service game that included three aces from the deuce court, each one scorching the centre line at around 125mph. Here was a hint of the consistent menace he will no doubt need in the later rounds. The best of Murray came as he broke Gimeno-Traver again in the opening game of the third set, again needing threebreak points to achieve his aim but also producing a running forehand down the line and a marvellously judged drop shot. At that point his opponent caved in and hardly won another point, never mind a game. At 4-0 in the third the Spaniard called for treatment to a thigh injury, probably the result of a fall in the sixth game of the second set, and the remainder of the match constituted little more than an exhibition. It ended with a gentle exchange of angled volleys and drop shots, Murray delivering the coup de grâce with a lethal delicacy that he may not have occasion to display in what will surely be the sterner contests to come. Andy Murray Wimbledon 2011 Wimbledon Tennis Richard Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Architect of New Labour expresses concern over pace of progress in development of a coherent party ideology Ed Miliband needs to be more courageous so that he cannot be seen as a leader of factions inside the party, Peter Mandelson, the former cabinet minister and architect of New Labour has warned. He also called on him to take more risks and for the party to produce a coherent policy review that addressed the big issues facing the country, including public services in an era of austerity. Speaking to a seminar at the Labour pressure group Progress, Mandelson reflected some of the frustration at the pace of the party’s attempts to find a voice since the general election, and appeared to admit that Miliband has yet to prove himself. He said “Our leader is a leader of the country, not of the party’s sections and factions, and it is to the country he needs to be given the space to prove himself. The leadership election is over. We support Ed. No ifs and buts. He is our leader, period”. He warned that infighting in any party is deeply corrosive, saying it “all but killed Labour in the eighties”. He also appeared to express a concern at the perception of the party’s wider leadership, saying: “We have to sound and look like a genuinely national party drawn from every region and social background, and not just ex-political assistants, researchers and trade union apparatchiks recruited from inside the London beltway”. He expressed concern at the pace of progress, saying the party currently appears “too tactical, too afraid to answer questions that would trigger difficulty in the party or how the media will report it.” He added: “We need to spend less time talking to ourselves about Ed and more time talking to the country with smart ideas that are realistic and sufficiently innovative to command media and public attention”. He urged Miliband to take a few risks, talk directly to the country and innovate on policy challenges. There is also concern that the party’s policy review may prove to be fragmented without a coherent overall ideology. Mandelson said “the party needed to realign our instincts and outlook with those of the British people”. He argued that “the lesson from the 80s and the pre-1997 is this renewal has to be done as a coherent whole if we are to be sure that policies fit with the aspirations and outlook of the British people. He said that in a whole swath of areas Labour need to be clearer about the need for responsibility and the overlap between the state and the individual. “Rights coming with responsibility is an eternal verity of our party,” Mandelson said, arguing this principle could be applied to issues such as antisocial behaviour, health, cultural integration and sexualisation of children. A key task for the party, he said, was how to continue to improve public services and lever up productivity. He said this was “a huge challenge now the economy is not growing. People will not support further tax and spend unless they can see clear value for money”. “Further enlarging public sector employment is not an option in the coming decade and we need to look to the real economy, to the private business sector, to deliver sufficient numbers of decently paid skilled jobs.” He said the party itself needed to go through radical reform. He said the party needed to revolutionise its funding sources, saying “we cannot let this situation persist.” Mandelson insisted this was not a coded attack on the unions, admitting the party could not exist without them, but added: “We have to develop smarter ways of raising money. We have to combine the latest solutions with community engagement to open up new sources of cash.” “We have to go where the public are, having allowed ourselves to drift away from them in the last few years of our government. People take their politics from the issues they care about – jobs and unemployment, immigration and asylum, health and the NHS, schools, cost of living, pensions and poverty. In these issues people find meaning to their policy”. Ed Miliband Peter Mandelson Labour Trade unions Party funding Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Architect of New Labour expresses concern over pace of progress in development of a coherent party ideology Ed Miliband needs to be more courageous so that he cannot be seen as a leader of factions inside the party, Peter Mandelson, the former cabinet minister and architect of New Labour has warned. He also called on him to take more risks and for the party to produce a coherent policy review that addressed the big issues facing the country, including public services in an era of austerity. Speaking to a seminar at the Labour pressure group Progress, Mandelson reflected some of the frustration at the pace of the party’s attempts to find a voice since the general election, and appeared to admit that Miliband has yet to prove himself. He said “Our leader is a leader of the country, not of the party’s sections and factions, and it is to the country he needs to be given the space to prove himself. The leadership election is over. We support Ed. No ifs and buts. He is our leader, period”. He warned that infighting in any party is deeply corrosive, saying it “all but killed Labour in the eighties”. He also appeared to express a concern at the perception of the party’s wider leadership, saying: “We have to sound and look like a genuinely national party drawn from every region and social background, and not just ex-political assistants, researchers and trade union apparatchiks recruited from inside the London beltway”. He expressed concern at the pace of progress, saying the party currently appears “too tactical, too afraid to answer questions that would trigger difficulty in the party or how the media will report it.” He added: “We need to spend less time talking to ourselves about Ed and more time talking to the country with smart ideas that are realistic and sufficiently innovative to command media and public attention”. He urged Miliband to take a few risks, talk directly to the country and innovate on policy challenges. There is also concern that the party’s policy review may prove to be fragmented without a coherent overall ideology. Mandelson said “the party needed to realign our instincts and outlook with those of the British people”. He argued that “the lesson from the 80s and the pre-1997 is this renewal has to be done as a coherent whole if we are to be sure that policies fit with the aspirations and outlook of the British people. He said that in a whole swath of areas Labour need to be clearer about the need for responsibility and the overlap between the state and the individual. “Rights coming with responsibility is an eternal verity of our party,” Mandelson said, arguing this principle could be applied to issues such as antisocial behaviour, health, cultural integration and sexualisation of children. A key task for the party, he said, was how to continue to improve public services and lever up productivity. He said this was “a huge challenge now the economy is not growing. People will not support further tax and spend unless they can see clear value for money”. “Further enlarging public sector employment is not an option in the coming decade and we need to look to the real economy, to the private business sector, to deliver sufficient numbers of decently paid skilled jobs.” He said the party itself needed to go through radical reform. He said the party needed to revolutionise its funding sources, saying “we cannot let this situation persist.” Mandelson insisted this was not a coded attack on the unions, admitting the party could not exist without them, but added: “We have to develop smarter ways of raising money. We have to combine the latest solutions with community engagement to open up new sources of cash.” “We have to go where the public are, having allowed ourselves to drift away from them in the last few years of our government. People take their politics from the issues they care about – jobs and unemployment, immigration and asylum, health and the NHS, schools, cost of living, pensions and poverty. In these issues people find meaning to their policy”. Ed Miliband Peter Mandelson Labour Trade unions Party funding Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Remember the deportation program that Nancy Pelosi said was a waste of taxpayers’ money ? The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced they’ll start screening for signs of bias after several states opted out of Secure Communities, saying people were being deported for minor violations like traffic tickets instead of serious crimes: On Friday, federal officials announced that ICE would review localities in Secure Communities once every quarter for signs of bias. “Jurisdictions are different in terms of a lot of things,” Margo Schlanger, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s chief civil rights officer, told reporters. “They’re different in terms of who lives there, they’re different in terms of the criminal activity that goes on there.” “Of course, ICE does not want to be a conduit for discrimination,” Schlanger said. “We need to do good and solid oversight to make sure that we are not.” The reviews are one of several tweaks to Secure Communities that ICE announced last week in response to escalating criticism, as well as an upcoming review of the program by the agency’s inspector general. ICE Director John Norton also said he is considering a change related to deportation of immigrants arrested for traffic offenses. Currently, ICE can go after the suspects even before their traffic charges are heard, but the change under consideration would start deportation proceedings only after they were convicted. Nearly three quarters of all foreigners living in the United States live in places where Secure Communities has been rolled out. But it is a program still very much in startup mode. Almost half of the 1,200 police agencies it covers joined since October. There is a lot more ground to cover. Many states have only a few jurisdictions signed up. For example, three of Pennsylvania’s biggest counties are on board, but a spokesman for the State Police says ICE has not asked the state agency to join. The first counties in Washington State will go online very soon, but, there, the State Patrol decided it will defer to local sheriffs on whether they want to participate. “We have our hands full enforcing state law,” says state patrol spokesman Bob Calkins. “We’re not in any hurry to take on a new role that is properly the work of a federal agency.”
Continue reading …Remember the deportation program that Nancy Pelosi said was a waste of taxpayers’ money ? The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has announced they’ll start screening for signs of bias after several states opted out of Secure Communities, saying people were being deported for minor violations like traffic tickets instead of serious crimes: On Friday, federal officials announced that ICE would review localities in Secure Communities once every quarter for signs of bias. “Jurisdictions are different in terms of a lot of things,” Margo Schlanger, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s chief civil rights officer, told reporters. “They’re different in terms of who lives there, they’re different in terms of the criminal activity that goes on there.” “Of course, ICE does not want to be a conduit for discrimination,” Schlanger said. “We need to do good and solid oversight to make sure that we are not.” The reviews are one of several tweaks to Secure Communities that ICE announced last week in response to escalating criticism, as well as an upcoming review of the program by the agency’s inspector general. ICE Director John Norton also said he is considering a change related to deportation of immigrants arrested for traffic offenses. Currently, ICE can go after the suspects even before their traffic charges are heard, but the change under consideration would start deportation proceedings only after they were convicted. Nearly three quarters of all foreigners living in the United States live in places where Secure Communities has been rolled out. But it is a program still very much in startup mode. Almost half of the 1,200 police agencies it covers joined since October. There is a lot more ground to cover. Many states have only a few jurisdictions signed up. For example, three of Pennsylvania’s biggest counties are on board, but a spokesman for the State Police says ICE has not asked the state agency to join. The first counties in Washington State will go online very soon, but, there, the State Patrol decided it will defer to local sheriffs on whether they want to participate. “We have our hands full enforcing state law,” says state patrol spokesman Bob Calkins. “We’re not in any hurry to take on a new role that is properly the work of a federal agency.”
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: ABC News Of all of Mitt Romney’s comical flip-flops on the issues, his gymnastic reversal on abortion rights is the most pathetic. During his 1994 Massachusetts Senate run, Mitt and his wife Ann contributed $150 at a Planned Parenthood event. Eight years later during his race for governor, Romney assured Planned Parenthood he supported Roe v. Wade , state Medicaid funding for abortion services and access to emergency contraception. But now under pressure to sign a pledge promising draconian new restrictions on Americans’ reproductive rights, Mitt Romney has joined the right-wing crusade against Planned Parenthood. Romney’s latest troubles this week began with his refusal to sign an anti-abortion pledge demanded as proof of pro-life bona fides by the right-wing Susan B. Anthony’s List . As Politico described that stunning document, the SBAList pledge combines now-standard Republican orthodoxy with the latest in conservative junk science: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum each signed the pledge, sponsored by Susan B. Anthony List, vowing to nominate judges and appoint executive branch officials who are opposed to abortion. The pledge also commit signers to push legislation to end all taxpayer funding of abortion and to sign a law to “protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.” For his part, Romney insisted that “as much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List,” its requirement to end funding not just for Planned Parenthood and but for “all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions” would mean eliminating “federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America.” The SBAList litmus test, Romney added, “also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government.” But under fire from competitors flanking him on the right, Romney responded in the pages of the National Review with ” My Pro-Life Pledge .” In it, Multiple Choice Mitt gave the hard liners almost everything they want using the talking points they love most on Roe, judicial appointments, “fetal pain” and more: I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench. I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services. Sadly, Mitt Romney the Right-to-Life crusader of 2011 wouldn’t recognize the Mitt Romney of 1994 or 2002 who completed a NARAL questionnaire by promising : I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let’s end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain. Back then, Romney hoping to appease progressive voters in Massachusetts wary of his pro-life Mormon past, Romney declared “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.” As ABC News first reported, Romney and his wife went so far as to attend a Planned Parenthood fundraising house party in 1994 and wrote that $150 check to the group. Running for governor in April 2002, Romney put his mouth where his money was in a questionnaire submitted to the organization : Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES Ultimately, Romney was successful in defusing the issue in his 2002 race against Democrat Shannon O’Brien by promising to avoid changing the status quo in the Commonwealth: “I promised that if elected, I’d call a truce – a moratorium, if you will…I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules…I fully respect and will fully protect a woman’s right to choose.” Those gymnastics on reproductive rights may have worked with socially liberal, suburban voters in 2002, but they offered a recipe for disaster with the Christian Coalition’s so-called “values-voters” in the 2008 GOP primaries. Predictably, Romney began his sharp right turn . By the fall of 2005, Romney flip-flopped again on abortion, claiming that his position has “evolved” and that “my political philosophy is pro-life.” By the spring of 2006, his spokeswoman Julie Teer laid out Romney’s position of a proposed South Dakota abortion ban : “If Gov. Romney were the governor of South Dakota he would sign it. The governor believes that states should have the right to be pro-life if that is the will of the people.” It’s no wonder that in 2005, Romney’s own advisor Michael Murphy said of Mitt that “he’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.” Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, that conversion probably won’t be enough for either the likes of the Susan B. Anthony’s List or Republican primary voters. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: ABC News Of all of Mitt Romney’s comical flip-flops on the issues, his gymnastic reversal on abortion rights is the most pathetic. During his 1994 Massachusetts Senate run, Mitt and his wife Ann contributed $150 at a Planned Parenthood event. Eight years later during his race for governor, Romney assured Planned Parenthood he supported Roe v. Wade , state Medicaid funding for abortion services and access to emergency contraception. But now under pressure to sign a pledge promising draconian new restrictions on Americans’ reproductive rights, Mitt Romney has joined the right-wing crusade against Planned Parenthood. Romney’s latest troubles this week began with his refusal to sign an anti-abortion pledge demanded as proof of pro-life bona fides by the right-wing Susan B. Anthony’s List . As Politico described that stunning document, the SBAList pledge combines now-standard Republican orthodoxy with the latest in conservative junk science: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum each signed the pledge, sponsored by Susan B. Anthony List, vowing to nominate judges and appoint executive branch officials who are opposed to abortion. The pledge also commit signers to push legislation to end all taxpayer funding of abortion and to sign a law to “protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.” For his part, Romney insisted that “as much as I share the goals of the Susan B. Anthony List,” its requirement to end funding not just for Planned Parenthood and but for “all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions” would mean eliminating “federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America.” The SBAList litmus test, Romney added, “also unduly burdens a president’s ability to appoint the most qualified individuals to a broad array of key positions in the federal government.” But under fire from competitors flanking him on the right, Romney responded in the pages of the National Review with ” My Pro-Life Pledge .” In it, Multiple Choice Mitt gave the hard liners almost everything they want using the talking points they love most on Roe, judicial appointments, “fetal pain” and more: I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was a result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench. I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. And as president, I will support efforts to prohibit federal funding for any organization like Planned Parenthood, which primarily performs abortions or offers abortion-related services. Sadly, Mitt Romney the Right-to-Life crusader of 2011 wouldn’t recognize the Mitt Romney of 1994 or 2002 who completed a NARAL questionnaire by promising : I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let’s end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain. Back then, Romney hoping to appease progressive voters in Massachusetts wary of his pro-life Mormon past, Romney declared “I believe women should have the right to make their own choice.” As ABC News first reported, Romney and his wife went so far as to attend a Planned Parenthood fundraising house party in 1994 and wrote that $150 check to the group. Running for governor in April 2002, Romney put his mouth where his money was in a questionnaire submitted to the organization : Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill.” Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES Ultimately, Romney was successful in defusing the issue in his 2002 race against Democrat Shannon O’Brien by promising to avoid changing the status quo in the Commonwealth: “I promised that if elected, I’d call a truce – a moratorium, if you will…I vowed to veto any legislation that sought to change the existing rules…I fully respect and will fully protect a woman’s right to choose.” Those gymnastics on reproductive rights may have worked with socially liberal, suburban voters in 2002, but they offered a recipe for disaster with the Christian Coalition’s so-called “values-voters” in the 2008 GOP primaries. Predictably, Romney began his sharp right turn . By the fall of 2005, Romney flip-flopped again on abortion, claiming that his position has “evolved” and that “my political philosophy is pro-life.” By the spring of 2006, his spokeswoman Julie Teer laid out Romney’s position of a proposed South Dakota abortion ban : “If Gov. Romney were the governor of South Dakota he would sign it. The governor believes that states should have the right to be pro-life if that is the will of the people.” It’s no wonder that in 2005, Romney’s own advisor Michael Murphy said of Mitt that “he’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.” Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, that conversion probably won’t be enough for either the likes of the Susan B. Anthony’s List or Republican primary voters. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …
Outcry from Tory right and tabloid press leads to scrapping of plan despite support from Lib Dems David Cameron has forced Kenneth Clarke to abandon all plans for 50% sentence discounts for early guilty pleas after an outcry on the Tory right and in the tabloids. Cameron will announce the change at a Downing Street press conference on Tuesday, when the Ministry of Justice publishes its justice bill containing proposals for tougher community sentences and the introduction of a payment-by-results system to reduce prisoner reoffending. After an outcry, Cameron forced Clarke to withdraw plans for the discount for rapists. There had been speculation that Clarke would manage to keep 50% discounts for some lesser offences, but the justice secretary has lost that battle. Cameron has decided that any reduction in sentences in return for early guilty pleas would undermine his broader commitment to bring sense to sentencing. The current discount is a third, and an extension to 50% would have meant a big drop in the prison population. The decision will mean the Ministry of Justice has to find as much as £100m in extra savings over four years from elsewhere in its budget. Most of the savings will come from a further squeeze on probation. The Treasury has said it is willing to see the justice ministry change the speed at which it finds savings. No official confirmation was available from Downing Street before a meeting of the cabinet on Tuesday and Cameron’s press conference. Number 10 argues that trust in the criminal justice system is so low that it would be unable to sell a cut in sentences in return for early guilty pleas. Cameron’s advisers have told him his party is losing its grip on the law and order agenda. The Liberal Democrat leadership, which had promised to side with Clarke, appeared to have accepted defeat. A Lib Dem source said the 50% discount was not a party policy: “We never said we would want to bring it in. We are not totally wedded to it and it is not a big loss.” Clarke’s original green paper proposal was expected to produce savings of £210m a year by reducing the demand for prison places by 6,000. Ministry of Justice officials estimated that this would cut the record 85,000 prison population in England and Wales by 3,000 by the time of the next general election. Other proposals expected on Tuesday include removing the courts’ option of remanding in custody defendants who are unlikely to receive a prison sentence. This would save 1,300 prison places a year. Other proposals include deporting more foreign prisoners (500 places), a new release test for those serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (300 to 600 places), and diverting mentally ill prisoners into community health treatment services (650 prison places). Helen Goodman, the shadow justice minister, said: “Ken Clarke’s plan is to send fewer people to prison and to put more people on community sentences. This cannot work when probation trusts are taking the lion’s share of the Ministry of Justice’s cuts. These cuts will mean that there will be fewer probation officers monitoring fewer offenders less often.” The justice minister, Crispin Blunt, gave a broad hint last week that any need to find further savings in the Ministry of Justice budget as a result of changes to the sentencing package were likely to come from the courts and probation services. Blunt told MPs that probation had so far been “quite significantly protected” from his department’s 23% budget cuts. The plans have provoked fierce opposition, particularly from the solicitors’ organisation, the Law Society. One initial recommendation was to withdraw legal aid in family cases except those involving allegations of domestic violence. Critics warned that this would provide a perverse incentive to exaggerate grievances. Des Hudson, the Law Society chief executive, said he feared that cuts to legal aid could be even deeper than the proposed £350m because less money may be saved by keeping people out of prison. He said: “This means they will come to the budget with sharpened pencils. We will not stand by and see the most vulnerable left with no access to justice.” UK criminal justice Prisons and probation Kenneth Clarke David Cameron Patrick Wintour Allegra Stratton Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Exclusive : Royal College of Psychiatrists warns society will be overwhelmed if ministers fail to fill gap Overcrowded and understaffed psychiatric wards are leaving patients fearful for their safety and unable to make proper recoveries, according to a damning assessment of Britain’s mental health service by its lead professional body. Professor Dinesh Bhugra, the outgoing president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, told the Guardian that widespread failures in inpatient care for mentally ill people meant many hospital wards did not meet acceptable standards and discharged back into society sick people who remained a risk to themselves and others. Bhugra blamed the problem partly on a “dangerous vacuum” created because British doctors are not training as psychiatrists, while visa restrictions mean doctors from abroad can no longer fill the gap. “Society will be overwhelmed by the demand of those in need if government doesn’t act now,” he said in an interview. A survey by the royal college found that 544 consultants’ posts in the UK – 14% of the total – are either unfilled or filled by a locum. In addition, 209 consultants intend to retire or resign soon, a situation exacerbated by the government’s cap on immigration from outside the EU. “This is a huge, a massive problem,” said Bhugra. “We will be left with a dangerous vacuum of help for people with mental health disorders or will be forced to get special dispensation from the government to recruit heavily from countries who can ill afford to lose their mental health professionals.” His warnings are supported by a study to be published next week in which the royal college describes how about half of patients – mostly women – report feeling unsafe in many of worst-performing hospital trusts. The report also says: • Average bed occupancy rates in English inpatient units are much higher than the 85% standard, with some wards running at 120% occupancy. • Access to psychological therapies falls far short of acceptable standards recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and other health bodies. • Daily one-to-one contact with nursing staff is less than that accepted as being conducive to recovery. • Outreach links into the community are insufficient in two-thirds of the wards inspected by the royal college’s centre for quality improvement. Bhugra said the failure of wards on the 85% bed occupancy rate was particularly troubling. The report reveals that more than half of all adult general wards run at more than 100% occupancy, with 16% meeting the required target. Just 21% of acute wards meet the 85% target. “Very high bed occupancy militates against quality and safety of inpatient care,” Bhugra said. “It is a main driver of inpatient care standards. [High bed occupancy] can result in patients becoming more distressed and unwell, and likely to need more longterm care. “Given the continued reduction in bed numbers and increased community care over the past decade, inpatient units have become places for crisis stabilisation and are likely to admit only those individuals who are the most disturbed, distressed or unwell. For such people especially, as they are unable to make the choice to leave, the ward is their home.” The report also reveals that wards are failing to provide separate sleeping and toilet facilities for men and women, despite gender-segregated accommodation having been government policy for a decade. Just 85% of wards have segregated sleeping accommodation and less than 60% have separate lounges. “This remains an intractable problem,” said Bhugra. Several dozen psychiatric patients take their own lives while in NHS care every year. Mental health charities such as Rethink claim this shows that care needs to be improved and staffing levels boosted. Rethink spokeswoman Rachel Whitehead said: “Psychiatric wards are not a therapeutic environment. Many people tell us they don’t feel safe there and they are not getting access to the support and therapy they need. Supervision is also a problem, largely due to overstretched staff and wards which are over their occupancy levels.” Another research paper by the college, to be published next month, shows that the number of medical graduates who accepted an offer of psychiatry training posts in England and Wales fell from 184 in 2009 to 158 in 2010. Bhugra said “dangerously few” doctors train as psychiatrists because the specialism suffers from a poor reputation compared with other medical disciplines. “It is wrongly seen as less scientific,” he said. Professor Peter Jones, head of the neuroscience department at Cambridge University, admitted the lack of psychiatry applications was a “terrible state of affairs”. He said the formation of specialist mental health trusts had made psychiatry “seem more remote from mainstream medicine”. He also said stigma “is a huge problem for people with mental health disorders and trickles into professional lives.” Wards are also failing to provide structured therapeutic activities, the royal college report finds, with 35% of patients complaining of too little to do during weekdays, rising to 54% in the evenings and at weekends. Bhugra said: “The value [of this] cannot be overestimated. A lack of regular activities can lead to boredom, frustration and inactivity, which not only impede recovery but also can instigate unsafe, violent and erratic behaviour. Inpatients may be experiencing paranoia, be easily over-stimulated and sometimes frightened and disorientated.” Bhugra criticised wards for falling short in standards of security, risk management, violence prevention and management, medicines and confidentiality. The report highlights evidence revealing that in the worst-performing 20% of trusts, only 50-60% of patients said they felt safe. Overall, less than 45% said they “always” felt safe. “The Care Quality Commission has found that unnecessary and excessive restrictions, and security measures are sometimes imposed on detained patients,” said Bhugra. “Undue restrictions on a patient’s autonomy compromise their personal dignity and rights as an individual. Such excessive restrictions are upsetting for the patient and can delay recovery. “Safety and risk policies are in place to aid patient recovery. Unnecessary bureaucracy and rules can not only hamper a patient’s recovery but possibly exacerbate their mental illness. Whether a person is detained or voluntarily admitted to hospital, general ethical standards that are adhered to in the community should, wherever possible, apply on the ward.” The report found just 52% of patients claimed to have “supportive”, one-to-one meetings with staff for at least 15 minutes every day. In 20% of the worst-performing trusts, as few as 50% of patients felt they were given enough time with a psychiatrist and even fewer said they were given enough time with a nurse. Bhugra said every patient should have a one-to-one session with a relevant staff member once a day. Bhugra also admitted deep worries about the drop in British medical graduates going on to train as psychiatrists. He said that government’s cap on immigration from outside the European Union will make the problem much worse. The Royal College’s survey reported that 544 consultants posts in the UK are either unfilled or filled by a locum: 14% of all posts. In addtion, there are 209 consultants who intend to retire or resign in a short time. “This is a huge, a massive problem,” he said. “We will be left with a dangerous vacuum of help for people with mental health disorders or will be forced to get special dispensation from the government to recruit heavily from countries who can ill-affod to lose their mental health professionals.” A Department of Health spokesperson said: “Mental health is a cross-government priority. We published No Health Without Mental Health, our cross-government mental health outcomes strategy, to drive up standards in services and improve the nation’s mental health. The strategy makes clear that mental health services should be just as important as physical health services such as those for cancer and heart disease. “We have supported the Royal Colleges of GPs and Psychiatrists to develop advice and support for commissioning consortia to commission effective mental health services. The strategy emphasises the importance of improving quality and productivity across the system, while making efficiency savings that can be reinvested in the service to deliver quality improvements. “In addition, we will invest around £400m over four years in psychological therapies for those who need them in all parts of England, expanding provision for the entire population.” Mental health Health NHS Health policy Public services policy Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …