Labour leader hopes housing speech will answer critics who blame him for failure to capitalise on Cameron U-turns Ed Miliband will attempt to rejuvenate his ailing leadership of the Labour party on Monday by marching on to territory once occupied by Tony Blair when he pledges to make it easier for voluntary workers and the employed to gain council housing. In an attempt to show he is capable of the sort of bold initiative perfected by Blair and David Cameron in opposition, the Labour leader will say he is determined to end his party’s image as the champion of “those ripping off our society”. The speech is designed to answer critics who say his lacklustre performance is to blame for Labour’s failure to capitalise on Cameron’s recent U-turns. Miliband’s position was not helped by the serialisation on Sunday of a biography that suggests that he and his brother are barely on speaking terms after the fallout of their leadership contest. David Miliband denied undermining his brother. “I have moved on from the leadership election and so should everyone else,” he said. In his speech at a neighbourhood centre in London, Ed Miliband will focus on responsibility and promise to champion one of the core principles pioneered by the architect of the welfare state William Beveridge: the welfare state should reward those who contribute. Aides stressed this is reviving the principles behind Beveridge’s thinking and does not denote a new national insurance system. “We will be a party that rewards contribution, not worklessness,” he will say. Miliband will highlight social housing as an example of where this could be applied more effectively, indicating that a future Labour government would follow the example of Manchester, where working people and volunteers are rewarded. “One area where people’s sense of fairness is under threat is social housing,” he will say. “In Manchester, as well as helping the most vulnerable families and disabled people with housing, they prioritise households who are giving something back to their communities – making a contribution – for example, people who work for or run local voluntary organisations. They also look to reward people who have been good tenants in the past and who have paid their rent on time and never been involved in any antisocial behaviour.” Miliband will say that responsibility should not just focus on those at the bottom of society but should also apply to those at the top. He will say that a future Labour government will require boardrooms to “publish the ratio of high pay to average employee pay”, exposing the growing gap between the pay of chief executives and that of the average employee. In language that challenges all wings of his party, Miliband will say: “For too many people at the last election, we were seen as the party that represented these two types of people: those at the top and the bottom who were not showing responsibility and were shirking their duty to each other. From bankers who caused the global financial crisis to some of those on benefits who were abusing the system because they could work – but didn’t. “Labour – a party founded by hard-working people for hard-working people – was seen by some, however unfairly, as the party of those ripping off our society. New Labour did a lot to change the fabric of the country. But it didn’t do enough to change the ethic of Britain. My party must change.” Ed Miliband Labour Housing Communities Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Head of government review says school syllabus needs to ‘get back to the science in science’ Climate change should not be included in the national curriculum, the government adviser in charge of overhauling the school syllabus in England has said. Tim Oates, whose wide-ranging review of the curriculum for five- to 16-year-olds will be published later this year, said it should be up to schools to decide whether – and how – to teach climate change, and other topics about the effect scientific processes have on our lives. In an interview with the Guardian, Oates called for the national curriculum “to get back to the science in science”. “We have believed that we need to keep the national curriculum up to date with topical issues, but oxidation and gravity don’t date,” he said. “We are not taking it back 100 years; we are taking it back to the core stuff. The curriculum has become narrowly instrumentalist.” His stance marks a turning point in the development of the national curriculum. Oates’ intention is to substantially reduce the national curriculum. Under the previous government, the curriculum expanded to nearly 500 pages. His remarks also show he wants to reverse a shift in emphasis, made under the Labour government, under which teachers were encouraged to place great importance on scientific “issues” and not just scientific knowledge. Climate change has featured in the national curriculum since 1995. In 2007, the topics “cultural understanding of science” and “applications and implications of science” were added to the curriculum for 11- to 14-year-olds. But Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, warned that Oates’ ideas might not be in pupils’ best interests and could make science less interesting for children. “An emphasis on climate change in the curriculum connects the core scientific concepts to topical issues,” he said. “Certain politicians feel that they don’t like the concept of climate change. I hope this isn’t a sign of a political agenda being exercised.” He said leaving climate change out of the national curriculum might encourage a teacher who was a climate change sceptic to abandon teaching the subject to their pupils. “This would not be in the best interests of pupils. It would be like a creationist teacher not teaching about evolution. Climate change is about science. If you remove the context of scientific concepts, you make it less interesting to children.” Annette Smith, chief executive of the Association for Science Education , said she agreed with Oates that the curriculum was too crowded. “However, what I wouldn’t want to lose from the national curriculum is the idea that science is developing all the time and that it impinges on our lives,” she said. But Oates, who is director of research at Cambridge Assessment, one of the biggest exam boards in Europe, said the topics that engaged children in science “changed dramatically” from year to year. “The national curriculum shouldn’t ever try to keep up with those, otherwise it would keep changing.” Teachers knew best which current affairs topics related to science would interest their pupils, he said. “A lot should not be in the national curriculum at all. A lot of damage was done to the curriculum last time it was reviewed,” he said. “If you live in a town where there is a lot of manufacturing, then teachers can use that as a context to discuss the social effects of science; other groups of pupils might be more interested in how the pharmaceutical industry produces drugs. It’s really important that children think through the social application of science, but the precise topics… do not have to be specified by the state.” Oates also called for algebra to be taught to pupils at an earlier age. “Algebra has crept later and later over the last few decades. We should start ‘pre-algebra’ with young children – aged eight, for example,” he said. He said that by the age of 11, children could be solving simple algebraic equations. He said this would bring England into line with some nations in Asia. “Algebra is so important because it is the foundation of so much of maths. In other nations, children operate with equations and algebraic expressions.” He said some maths was taught only to older children, because teachers in primary school did not have the confidence to teach it themselves. The curriculum review, which started in January, will look at 12 subjects, including maths, English, science, and art and design. It will consider which subjects should be compulsory and at what age. At the launch of the review, Michael Gove, the education secretary, said the national curriculum was “too long … patronising towards teachers and stifled innovation”. “Its pages are littered with irrelevant material – mainly high-sounding aims, such as the requirement to ‘challenge injustice’, which are wonderful in politicians’ speeches, but contribute nothing to helping students deepen their stock of knowledge.” Climate change in the current curriculum What the national curriculum says children should learn about climate change and caring for the environment in science lessons: Age 5-11: Pupils should be taught to care for the environment as part of a topic on life processes and living things. Age 11-14: Pupils should be taught how human activity and natural processes can lead to changes in the environment and about ways in which living things and the environment need to be protected. Teachers are encouraged to examine issues such as the finite resources available to us, waste reduction, recycling, renewable energy and environmental pollution. Pupils demonstrate exceptional performance if they can “describe and explain the importance of a wide range of applications and implications of science in familiar and unfamiliar contexts, such as addressing problems arising from global climate change”. Age 14-16: Pupils should learn that the surface and the atmosphere of the earth have changed since the earth’s origin, and are changing at present. They should also study how the effects of human activity on the environment can be assessed, using living and non-living indicators. Under “applications and implications of science”, pupils should be taught to “consider how and why decisions about science and technology are made, including those that raise ethical issues, and about the social, economic and environmental effects of such decisions”. Climate change also comes up in the geography curriculum and may be tackled in religious education too. National curriculum Schools Climate change Michael Gove Education policy Climate change Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) looked great in the first photos seen of her since she was critically injured by a gunshot to the head. The photos were released to her Facebook page Sunday. The photos were taken May 17, a day after Giffords witnessed the launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour with her husband Commander Mark Kelly aboard. She was scheduled to have skull surgery the next day.
Continue reading …ABC’s Claire Shipman: ‘A Group of All White Men Are Not Going to Reach the Best Decisions’
June 12, 2011 No Comment
ABC's “This Week” actually used the occasion of Congressman Anthony Weiner's (D-N.Y.) sex scandal to discuss whether this was “a good moment for women.” During a lengthy segment, host Christiane Amanpour along with her exclusively white female guests proceeded to bash members of the opposite sex with ABC's Claire Shipman actually saying, “A group of all white men are not going to reach the best decisions” (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: You'd be hard-pressed to find a sex scandal involving a female politician these days, which begs the question, what if there were more women in politics and in positions of power? Would they change the way business is done from Wall Street to Washington and beyond? We decided to explore that issue this morning with Torie Clarke, the former assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in the Bush administration, with Cecilia Attias, the former first lady of France who was married to president Nicolas Sarkozy, and she is the founder of Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women, and ABC's Claire Shipman, author of “Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules For Success.” So this is a great moment to discuss something that we always try to discuss. What would parity mean? We're not trying to say that if it was all women and not men the world would be different. We're trying to understand, would there be a difference in attitude, in behavior, in results? So let me start with you. You think this might be actually a good moment for women, this scandal? CLARKE: I do. In politics, in the public sector, often women are seen as more honest, more sincere, those — harder-working, all of which I think is true, so this may be an opportunity for more women to step into those positions. But I'm thinking — you know, yes, we want parity in so many ways. Where we don't want parity is that when they get to those positions and they get the power and adulation that Senator Ensign was talking about, we don't want them to behave in the same way. So I want parity of a certain kind, and I'm very hopeful that women do achieve more of these positions, they're not going to engage in the same kind of behavior. AMANPOUR: It is interesting you say that, because there has been a study done in the Netherlands about power and suggesting, by polling, you know, perhaps women might behave that way if there were as many of them in power. But I want to ask you because you've written a book specifically about this, and there is a lot of research that talks about what the effect on society is of more women in various areas of power. SHIPMAN: It's interesting, Christiane, because one woman I've really been watching is Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, who may soon be the head of the IMF. And she has been talking about this for a number of years. She's been sounding the alarm about the perils of too much testosterone in a room. And it's true. What you find — there are half-a-dozen major studies that show the more women you have at a company, the more senior women, the more money it makes. There are studies — there was a recent study that was done from 2000 to 2009 about women hedge fund managers. They doubled the rate of success of their hedge funds compared to male-managed hedge funds. And they manage this way. They don't manage — the hedge funds don't go up and down. There's also an economist at the University of Michigan who has studied diversity and decision-making and has found that, in every business decision, diversity leads to better decisions. In other words, a group of all white men are not going to reach the best decisions. Imagine for a second a televised panel of exclusively white men discussing why a group of non-white men or an assemblage of females of any ethnic group would not reach the best decisions. The network, the producers, and the anchor involved would all be required to make public apologies. Yet, as we've seen from the media in recent years, attacking white men is not only acceptable, it's all the rage. I don't know about you, but as a successful white man who has raised two wonderful children that both will likely be very successful members of this society, I'm getting awfully tired of the reverse racism and reverse sexism in this nation. Is this really what my son who has just graduated from college has to look forward to the rest of his life, or is all this white male-bashing going to some day soon run its course? As an aside, Shipman is married to Jay Carney, the current White House press secretary. Makes you wonder what he thinks about white men or if he shares his wife's disdain for them – especially as he is one.
Continue reading …
Zimbabwe ready to bury decades of hostility towards Britain following Cameron’s election says senior Zanu-PF MP Robert Mugabe’s chief spin doctor has signalled that Zimbabwe is ready to bury decades of hostility towards Britain following the election of David Cameron. Jonathan Moyo , a senior MP in Mugabe’s Zanu-PF party, credited the British prime minister with reducing tensions between Zimbabwe and its former colonial master. “The fact of the matter is, sooner or later Zimbabwe and the UK should engage each other,” Moyo told the Guardian during a visit to South Africa. “There are many reasons why that should be possible.” Once knighted by the Queen, Mugabe has reserved his most embittered rhetoric for Britain, accusing it of neocolonial meddling that he blames for the country’s ills more than 30 years after independence. But Moyo said last year’s general election result in the UK created space for a shift in relations. “For one, we can all see that David Cameron is not as loquacious as [Gordon] Brown or, worse, Tony Blair. Definitely not. He’s kept his views on Zimbabwe to himself. He’s not even as loquacious as [William] Hague, who sometimes gets carried away, because of what he imagines is the success he’s having in Libya, to say ridiculous things. “But, by and large, they are behaving as the Conservatives we historically have known. It is a historical fact that the independence process was in colonial terms made possible by the Conservatives. The approach of the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher was very different from the approach of Labour.” Moyo did criticise Cameron for being a “cheerleader” in the military intervention in Libya, but added: “Re: Zimbabwe, I think an objective assessment would be that he has managed to lower down the levels of noise which in turn has contributed in lowering levels of tension. We don’t make as much noise ourselves against the UK as we did because we think that there’s an opportunity that was squandered by Brown and Blair. “Also, I think it is safe to say there have been attempts by both sides to reach out and there have been some re-engagements and there have even been attempts to solve things on the cricket front, which would be one useful entry point.” He deployed a colourful image to suggest Britain might now be willing to climb down from its former position. “I think the British problem is that they behaved like a drunkard who climbed a tree overnight only to wake up in the morning naked and unable to come down, and so conjures up all sorts of stories to justify why they are there, and it takes time to get down,” Moyo said. “We are prepared to give them a ladder. What we don’t know is will they want to use it at night or during the day.” Moyo, 54, is a former information and publicity minister seen as the architect of Zimbabwe’s harsh media laws. He fell out with Zanu-PF in 2004 and became an independent MP and outspoken critic of Mugabe , only to return to the fold in 2009. He is likely to be the mastermind of Zanu-PF’s next election campaign, which, opponents say, will include propaganda aimed at demonising the rival Movement for Democratic Change . Moyo has been described as “the dictator’s most notorious henchman” with a “deviously brilliant mind”. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Zimbabwean civil society groups and countless media reports have accused Zanu-PF of killing, torturing and beating its opponents and rigging elections. Last week finance minister Tendai Biti of the MDC, whose home had been bombed, compared the mood in Zimbabwe with Rwanda on the eve of its 1994 genocide . But Moyo said: “Not to say we have not had violence in Zimbabwe because we’ve conceded that, and all the political parties have conceded that. But the way it’s blown out of proportion and there’s harrowing tales of torture chambers, I think it’s unfortunate.” Alleging a gigantic conspiracy, he went on: “It’s going to collapse because sooner or later you will hear completely different stories. I don’t deny there have been cases of violence but the way they have been told and the extent of the incidents told has been exaggerated beyond what is rational. “I’m not denying that you guys get told all sorts of horror stories, I’m just saying most of those stories, especially told by people who are refugees, are fictitious. They are looking for economic opportunity – these are economic refugees.” Asked for an honest assessment of Mugabe’s weaknesses as a leader, Moyo replied: “Contrary to the public image, I think he’s too tolerant of things and people. I always wish we could get him to sometimes be more decisive in dealing with misfits than he often is. He doesn’t have a history of firing people. I wish he could fire people more often.” Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe Africa David Cameron David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Regime deploys riot police and militia to disperse demonstrators protesting against 2009 election result Iranian security officials have used baton charges and tear gas to disperse hundreds of protesters at a silent rally in central Tehran marking the second anniversary of the country’s disputed presidential election. Riot police and plainclothes basij militia were deployed in various locations in the capital, arresting at least tens of protesters. Supporters of the opposition green movement marched in groups along Vali-e-Asr street – the city’s main commercial thoroughfare and a rallying point for protesters in recent years. A protester told the Guardian that demonstrators mainly marched on the pavement, and – as requested by the organisers – did not shout any anti-regime slogans. “People were pretending that they were in the streets for a walk but it was obvious that they were out in protest to mark the rigged election in 2009,” he said. “They were silent but their numbers were ten times more than an ordinary day in Vali-e-Asr street, I think around 30,000 people were out there in total,” the protester said in a phone interview from Tehran. Kaleme, the website of the opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, said that protesters clashed with riot police near Saei Park in Vali-e-Asr and Sahamnews, the website of Mehdi Karroubi, another leader of the opposition, said the police attacked people with electric batons. Mousavi and Karroubi have been placed under house arrest since mid-February when they called for street protest in solidarity with the Arab uprisings. “Security forces attacked the crowd with electric batons … in the Vali-e Asr street to disperse the demonstrators,” Sahamnews said. “Shopkeepers were ordered to close their shops … hundreds of people have gathered in other areas of Tehran,” the website added. Another protester told the Guardian: “The riot police panicked and although people were silent, they arrested people without any charge or suspicion just to intimidate them.” The protester continued: “Plain-clothes basijis were riding past on fast motorbikes to spread panic among protesters.” News of the protests came as it emerged that a leading journalist and opposition figure had died of a heart attack after spending 10 days on hunger strike in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison. Hoda Saber, a 52-year-old political activist from the opposition Nationalist-Religious movement, was taken to the Modarres hospital in the city after a cardiac complication, which his wife claims was brought on by his hunger strike. Speaking from Tehran, Saber’s wife, Farideh Jamshidi, told the Guardian: “My husband died two days ago, but we were unaware of his death until today when someone in the hospital informed one of our friends.” She said Saber stopped eating food and later stopped drinking water in protest at the death of his fellow dissident Haleh Sahabi, She died of a heart attack during scuffles with security forces at the funeral of her father, Ezatollah Sahabi, the leader of the Nationalist-Religious alliance of politicians, on 1 June. Several human rights organisations have issued statements coinciding with the anniversary of the election and many have expressed concerns for those political prisoners arrested since 2009. The foreign secretary, William Hague, also issued a statement, saying: “Two years after people took to the streets to demand reform, I want it to be known that our attention has not been diverted and we will continue to call on Iran to implement its international human rights obligations.” Iran Protest Middle East Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Four men who were being held on charges of spying and terrorism have been released after five months in captivity Four British men held on spying and terrorism charges in the Horn of Africa state of Eritrea have been freed after five months in captivity. The two ex-Marine guards and two civilian crew members, working for an anti-piracy security firm, were expected to land at Heathrow airport late tonight. But questions remained over the security contractors’ activities in the isolationist country, including official allegations that they set up a “military base” on a remote island and stashed sniper rifles, silencers, pistols and “poison-tipped” bullets “intended for perpetrating acts of terrorism and sabotage”. The men worked for British maritime security company Protection Vessels International, which said they made an unscheduled stop in Eritrea last December owing to rough weather while en route to provide security for ships in an area where piracy is rife. PVI claimed they were arrested because of “confusion over fuel payments”. But Eritrea’s government insisted that the men were detained as they tried to leave Eritrean waters without permission, and said its searches then uncovered a weapons cache on the island of Romia. The government alleged that a total of 21 PVI employees were involved in crimes “against Eritrean sovereignty”, and that four were caught while trying to escape. “On 19 December, 21 members of the PVI (including those four detained) infiltrated and deployed different types of weapons, poison-tipped bullets, bulletproof vests, specialised communication equipment and infrared night-vision binoculars in the sovereign Eritrean island of Romia,” a government press release said last week. “There is high possibility that such military hardware is intended for perpetrating acts of terrorism and sabotage. Hence, the members are accountable for infiltrating into the sovereign Eritrean island of Romia and stashing weaponry, for orchestrating acts of espionage and terrorism.” The statement also claimed that 11 seamen stayed in hiding on Romia for four days, along with military hardware, equipment and communication facilities. “These seamen were given directives to keep guard in twos and to pose as ‘tourists keen to observe sharks’,” it said, proving that the PVI had been using Romia “as its military base and arms depot”. PVI employs former British marines to provide armed on-board security and escort vessels for shipping operating in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. It has denied Eritrea’s claims. Paul Gibbins, a company spokesman, said this was the worst event in the company’s two-year history and a full investigation would be conducted into what had gone wrong. “We need to find out what the pinch point was. Was there a confusion over the fuel? Was there an issue over the vessel’s departure? We just don’t know at this stage,” he said. “The whole episode has been a series of unfortunate events.” Gibbins denied that the company was involved “any espionage or acts of assassination”. He said that the ship had been forced to stop in Massawa for a crucial fuel resupply and equipment repair. But, he insisted, the company had worked hard before it docked to ensure that the ship’s presence was not regarded “as a threat or hostile action”. “Christopher Collison was dispatched to Massawa to liaise with the local shipping agent and the port authority,” he said. “He was there for four days, explaining and negotiating. We had only intermittent contact with him during that time, because mobile phones don’t work in that area. We worked very hard to ascertain if it was safe to enter the port.” Gibbins said that, despite the lack of contact, the company was eventually forced to make the decision to give the ship permission to enter the port. However, he said, it had tried to “desensitise” and “detune” the presence of both the ship and its crew by unloading the weapons they carried as part of their regular duties on Romia, an outlying and uninhabitated island, before landing. “We did everything we could to make it clear our presence was not misconstrued as a hostile act,” he said. The ship spent five days at Massawa, but was eventually forced to leave before it had fully refuelled. “We needed 15 tonnes of fuel but could only get 1,500 litres before we were forced to leave to meet an engagement to provide security for clients,” said Gibbins. “In hindsight, it’s true we could have done things better but, given the time constraints and the immediacy of the decisions that needed to be made, we worked hard to facilitate safe entry to the port. We do regret those unfortunate events and apologise to everyone concerned.” Eritrea Africa David Smith Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tories accuse deputy PM of ‘kindergarten politics’ after Lib Dems briefed he would toast amendment successes Nick Clegg has been accused by the Tories of resorting to “kindergarten politics” after the Liberal Democrats briefed that the deputy prime minister would declare victory when the amended health service reforms are published on Monday. In a sign of growing resentment among Tory backbenchers, whose newest members will express their frustration to David Cameron at a meeting, an influential voice turned on the Lib Dems. Nick de Bois, the Tory MP for Enfield North, the 1922 committee’s unofficial voice on the NHS reforms, told the Guardian: “The NHS is too serious a policy issue to warrant all the kindergarten politics witnessed this weekend from our partners. We should focus on the policy not the politics and from what I have seen so far I am encouraged and am looking forward to seeing the detail of the reforms.” The Future Forum report by Professor Steve Field is due to be published on Monday. Field was appointed to lead the “listening exercise” on the NHS reforms after the health and social care bill was paused. Clegg is planning to tell his MPs and peers that the Lib Dems have secured a famous victory after ensuring that their “loud voices” have been heard. Field is expected to announce that: • The main duty of Monitor, the health service regulator, will be promoting patients’ interests and not competition. It will promote competition only if that helps patients. • A 2013 deadline for the creation of new GP-led consortiums, initially designed to take control of 65% of the NHS budget, is to be relaxed. • The membership of the consortiums is to be opened up to include hospital doctors and nurses. Clegg will tell his parliamentary party: “We have achieved all we set out to achieve. It is a job well done.” The Tories were irritated when the Lib Dem leadership published a “scorecard” showing the party has secured 11 of the 13 changes its conference demanded. A source close to Clegg said: “Nick will now be able to present his colleagues with the scorecard and tick off each of their 13 objectives. They’ll be there for all to see. We’re expecting the parliamentary party to be pretty pleased with the result. We have won.” But the party later toned down its rhetoric. Norman Lamb, senior parliamentary adviser to Clegg, said it was not talking about winning. Lamb, the former health spokesman who threatened to resign unless changes were made, told BBC1′s Politics Show: “It’s not a question of people winning things, I just think we raised a number of very serious concerns, concerns that were shared by many people within the health service and the health policy world. I’m satisfied the concerns raised have been met. It’s been a very constructive process.” Field will publish his report on Monday afternoon. Clegg, Cameron and the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, will give the government’s formal response at a joint event at a hospital at midday on Tuesday. De Bois made clear that a series of “red lines” he emailed to colleagues last month must remain in place: GPs must take charge of commissioning, and the 2013 target must be met to avoid creating a two-tier health service. De Bois, who was involved in the committee stage of the health and social care bill, said: “I am hopeful the fundamentals will remain in place. While the early indications are that there are positive improvements, it is critical to the future of the NHS that the main pillars of the reforms are kept in place because we are talking about the future of our health service here.” Lib Dem scorecard Nick Clegg claims that he has secured eleven of the 13 changes demanded by his party at its spring conference in March. This is his scorecard: 1. More democratically accountable commissioning. Secured. 2. A much greater degree of co-terminosity between local authorities and commissioning areas. Secured. 3. No decision about the spending of NHS funds to be made in private and without proper consultation, as can take place by the proposed GP consortia. Secured. 4. The complete ruling out of any competition based on price to prevent loss-leading corporate providers under-cutting NHS tariffs, and to ensure that healthcare providers ‘compete’ on quality of care. Secured. 5. New private providers to be allowed only where there is no risk of “cherry picking” which would destabilise or undermine the existing NHS service relied upon for emergencies and complex cases, and where the needs of equity, research and training are met. Secured. 6. NHS commissioning being retained as a public function in full compliance with the Human Rights Act and Freedom of Information laws, using the skills and experience of existing NHS staff rather than the sub-contracting of commissioning to private companies. Secured. 7. The continued separation of the commissioning and provision of services to prevent conflicts of interests. Secured. 8. An NHS, responsive to patients’ needs, based on co-operation rather than competition, and which promotes quality and equity not the market. Secured. 9. Uphold the NHS Constitution. Secured. 10. Ensure full scrutiny, including the power to require attendance, by elected local authorities of all organisations in the local health economy funded by public money, including foundation trusts and any external support for commissioning consortia; ensuring that all such organisations are subject to FoI requirements. Secured. 11. Ensure health and wellbeing boards (HWBs) are a strong voice for accountable local people in setting the strategic direction for and co-ordinating provision of health and social care services locally by containing substantial representation from elected local councillors; and by requiring GP commissioning boards to construct their annual plans in conjunction with the HWBs. Secured. 12. Ensure commissioning of health services has some degree of accountability by requiring about half of the members of the board of commissioning consortia, alongside GPs, to be local councillors appointed as non-executive directors. Alternative secured: Instead, we will strengthen the accountability of commissioning through health and wellbeing boards (which will have a majority of councillors if that is what local councillors want). This has the support of the movers of the conference amendment. 13. Offer additional freedoms only to foundation trusts that successfully engage substantial proportions of their local populations as active members. Alternative secured: Monitor, rather than the foundation trusts themselves, will retain a supervisory role. Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats Health policy Public services policy Liberal-Conservative coalition Conservatives NHS Health Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Ann Coulter Smacks Down Arrogant Eliot Spitzer: ‘What Business Have You Ran? You’re a Governor’
June 12, 2011 No Comment
CNN's Eliot Spitzer arrogantly lectured about the benefits of Keynesian economics Sunday while accusing fellow panelists on “Fareed Zakaria GPS” of not knowing what they were talking about because they weren't business owners. This led British historian Andrew Roberts to point out that President Obama's administration are mostly academics, and Ann Coulter to ask Spitzer, “What business have you ran? You’re a governor” (video follows with transcript and commentary): ELIOT SPITZER, CNN: Just so it’s clear before Ann starts jumping up and down, I actually believe Keynes was right. I believe that Keynesian economics works and is also true of the Constitution, something the Tea Party may not agree with. And I think the President needs to defend not just in the context of the auto bailout where it’s easy to point to GM and Chrysler and say, “Look what we accomplished,” but the entire economy would have been so much worse. The implosion of both confidence, the financial system, job creation, would have been devastating had we not put in place that cushion of the stimulus package. Now, you’re arguing it counter-intuitively, you’re saying, “It would have been worse but for,” and that’s not an appealing political argument, but it’s economically beyond question. And I think the President now at this moment of intense weakness, lack of job creation, needs to bring all of this oratorical and intellectual skills to bear to say, “Here’s what the record shows us.” David Cameron may be a great leader, the British economy is not faring terribly well because of those cuts. I mean, there is a certain mathematical reality… ANDREW ROBERTS, BRITISH HISTORIAN: In Britain, we’re trying to deal with this debt. CHRYSTIA FREELAND, THOMSON REUTERS: But maybe you’re doing the wrong thing. ROBERTS: Maybe we are, but, but, but he has been elected to try and see this through, and he is seeing it through, and if he does turn out, as I believe, to actually to get away with it, then the anti-Keynesian view will be proven right. The Hayekian view, this next election is going to be a classic Hayekian versus Keynesian election. FREELAND: In the U.S. ROBERTS: In the U.S. ANN COULTER: We’ve run this experiment at different times in this country over and over and over again, and every time nothing is done, there is no Keynesian spending, the economy recovers like that and we have a boom. It did in the ’20s, it did in the ’80s, and every time FDR and Obama jumped in… FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: In the ’80s, I would call a massive increase in defense spending during the Cold War… COULTER: And massive cuts in taxes… ZAKARIA: Which are Keynesian. Keynes was in favor of taxing. He never made a particular distinction between government spending and or taxing. His point was you need demand in the economy, you need to stimulate demand. COULTER: Right, but, no, no, no Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War was not part of his taking a Keynesian approach to the economy. SPITZER: Ann, your statement would be nice if it were true, but it’s not. The reality is if you look at the economics, and you look at what the impact is of both cutting the marginal rates, government spending, the incentives you create to job creation, Keynes has been right at every turn in terms of understanding. If you actually sat down and either were a business person making capital allocation decisions, hiring, you’d understand that what you look at is your return. In reality, I quite agree with Spitzer that business people making capital allocation and hiring decisions are best-suited to understand how the economy works. Unfortunately, the former New York governor turned CNN host doesn't qualify, as his curriculum vitae identified absolutely no business experience whatsoever. After graduating from law school, Spitzer first clerked for Judge Robert W. Sweet in Manhattan, then went to a variety of law firms and the Manhattan district attorney's office before entering politics in 1994. As such, there is not one second of actual business experience in Spitzer's background. Yet, he's lecturing fellow panelists about his economic acumen while claiming businessmen are better suited to make such decisions: SPITZER: Right now there’s a demand crisis of enormous volume. That’s why we need to create demand in this economy to generate things that we can buy… COULTER: And Obama’s been following your policies, and that’s why we have a crisis. SPITZER: The executives are sitting on $2 trillion of capital. The key to getting that capital back into the economy to hire people is demand for the products being made. There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity about that. COULTER: We have been creating demand with the stimulus money and oddly enough it hasn’t worked, and what the businessmen themselves are asking for is, “Release us from taxes and regulations.” ROBERTS: The kind of tax cuts that Mr. Pawlenty is talking about, the huge tax cuts that Mr. Pawlenty is talking about, and indeed cutting back the GDP, the amount spent on GDP from the 24 percent it is now to the 20 percent that Mr. Romney wants or the eighteen percent is going to allow moneys to come back into the economy through tax cuts. SPITZER: Explain to me why. If people are sitting on capital, who are sitting on capital right now who are not investing because capital gains rates are 15 percent… ROBERTS: Yeah. SPITZER: You’re saying if you take that fifteen percent, you’re assuming they’re going to invest even when there’s no demand for the product? FREELAND: Right. What Eliot is pointing out is there’s a lot of money, there’s a lot of money on the sidelines. Now watch Spitzer stick his foot in his mouth: SPITZER: Have you ever made, have you been in business? ROBERTS: Not myself. SPITZER: You don’t understand how these capital allocation decisions are made. You really don’t. ROBERTS: Okay, sorry, how many of President Obama’s actual, of which he now only has one left, Mr. Geithner from his original team, they all have left, how many of them actually did businesses themselves? Very few of them. Most of them were academics. So don’t just attack people simply because they think differently than you do. Indeed. As JPMorgan's Michael Cembalest wrote at Forbes in 2009, Obama's cabinet has few members with actual business experience. Using Spitzer's guidelines, shouldn't they be exempt from making economic decisions for this nation? More importantly, shouldn't Obama who also has ZERO experience in the private sector and NONE as a business owner? And why should Spitzer be qualified to lecture about something that by his own standards he's unqualified for? Coulter didn't miss this hypocrisy: COULTER: What business have you ran? You’re a governor. SPITZER: Ann. COULTER: You’ve been in politics your whole life. You’re haranguing us. “If you were a businessman.” This is the strangest conversation I’ve ever seen. SPITZER: No, Ann, because you’re making statements that are so completely counter-factual… ROBERTS: I'm a historian. I didn't live in ancient Rome but I can still write about it. SPITZER: You're statements about the economy are simply counter-factual, contrary to every piece of evidence… COULTER: You’re right, you’re right, the economy is just booming right now. That Keynesian economics Obama gave us has been a delight. Indeed. The reality is that Spitzer once again showed himself to be a staggering hypocrite. On the own hand, he lectured guests about economic theory having majored in international affairs at Princeton University and attended Harvard Law School. He then claimed that others sitting with him were unqualified in matters of finance and economics due to their lack of business ownership while having never himself owned a business. As I agree with him that folks with actual business experience are likely far more adept in financial and economic affairs, it would be nice to see him and other Democrats now lecturing Americans about their expertise in such issues to disqualify themselves as quickly as they are those on the other side of the aisle that have spent their entire adult lives in the private sector. Or is that asking too much from a disgraced politician turned disgracefully biased journalist?
Continue reading …
Research has led to calls for changes in government policy and a remodelling of provision to help this vulnerable group Services need to be reformed to adapt to a new demographic of thirtysomething grandparents often enduring poverty and deprivation in Britain’s most blighted communities, experts warn. Authoritative research, to be launched in Westminster on Monday, has led to calls for changes in government policy and a remodelling of social service provision to help this hidden but growing group of vulnerable young people. The project, Timescapes: Changing Lives and Times, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, found charities working with impoverished communities are adapting their services to support those in their mid-30s who are forced to take on the role as parents to two younger generations while often caring for elderly parents at the same time. “High rates of young motherhood and closely spaced generations is an increasingly common experience in some of the most deprived areas in the country, with grandparents often having children of a similar age to their own grandchildren,” said Dr Kahryn Hughes, a co-author of the research. “High rates of midlife disability, mid- to later-life illness, and early mortality rates mean that becoming a midlife grandparent – from 35 years onwards – is increasingly seen as the right time in these areas.” The study, which has been following more than 300 families for 11 years across northern England, found that rather than conforming to the traditional “leisure and pleasure” ideal of grandparenting, midlife grandparents were often providing help that keeps their families together – and their grandchildren out of the care system. It was, Hughes said, a “firefighting” form of grandparenting. “This highly vulnerable and marginalised group are sacrificing their own health, futures and finances to provide care that ranges from being the rock that keeps their grandchildren’s families together to having their grandchildren come to live with them full-time,” she said. Hughes also discovered, however, that social services were failing to adjust to families in which a grandparent was forced to take on the role of surrogate parent to their grandchild. When her teenage daughter had a baby, 34-year-old Ruth found that the teenage pregnancy service officers who visited the family at home focused solely on her daughter. “At the age of 14, my daughter wasn’t capable of going down the post office and claiming her child benefit on her own,” Ruth said. “By not listening to me, services designed to help in times of need were not even able to understand what the needs of my family really were.” Sue Stewart, who became a grandmother at 39 and took on full-time care for two of her grandchildren, agreed. “It’s hard for social services to get their heads around the fact that a young woman can be a grandparent,” she said. “Society’s changing and they’re not keeping up to speed. And it’s the children who suffer.” Hughes found that although formal health and social care providers called on grandparents in emergency situations, they were unaware of the crucial and highly demanding day-to-day support young grandparents gave to their own, often barely adult children. “Mid-age grandparents who take on parental responsibility for their grandchildren struggle to access benefits and services amid complex relationships with health and social care providers,” Hughes said. “Young grandparents can often find themselves in conflicting situations when formal health and social care services become involved in their grandchildren’s lives. They can be acting as mother to two generations within the family but are not seen as having parental responsibilities for their grandchildren by service providers.” One issue, researchers found, was the increasing pressure public and third-sector organisations were under to provide targeted services. “These changes in policy are undermining their ability to deliver comprehensive services that address the worst effects of poverty,” Hughes said. “There is a need for new thinking around how services can support grandparents to help them give their grandchildren the best start in life.” Dave Cousins, from the Grandparents’ Association, has seen such an increase in young grandparents in recent years that he is setting up dedicated, specialised groups to support them. “We are also getting an ever-increasing number of calls from Sure Start centres and Family Outreach workers asking what they should do about this new but rapidly increasing group,” he said. Cousins believes government policies must change to address this new demographic. He points to statistics released last week by the Office for National Statistics, which show that the north-south divide in life expectancy has worsened over the past decade, with the average life expectancy for both sexes in greater Glasgow now lower than in Albania, and nearer to that of the Palestinian territories than to the wealthier London boroughs. “This is an issue closely associated with shortened life expectancies and early onset health problems,” he said. A couple’s view Jayne Fox and her husband, Ken, became grandparents three years ago, aged 37 and 41, when their 18-year-old daughter Katherine gave birth to Luke. They are the child’s full-time carers “We were married young – I was just 18. We started having our children right away because we wanted to be healthy and fit enough to still enjoy ourselves after they had grown up and left home. “It hasn’t worked out like that – and yes, if I’m honest, I am angry and frustrated by it. My youngest, Kaylee, had just become independent enough for me to get a job for the first time in my life when we had to take on full responsibility for our grandson. I had to give up work and go back to being a full-time parent all over again. “When Luke was born, I did think, ‘I’m too young to be a grandmother.’ But when I saw him, I felt so much love that I had no choice but to sacrifice my own hopes to give him the best start in life. “One big difference between my generation having children young and the next generation doing the same is that we tended to marry and stay together. This generation have children outside of stable relationships. “This means grandparents have to take on much heavier responsibilities for their grandchildren. It’s not fair on us but it’s how things are. “Being a grandmother at this age isn’t all bad, though. I have more energy to have fun with Luke than I would if I was a more traditional grandmother’s age. Also, if I had the health issues that people around here tend to get when they’re a bit older, I might not have been granted the residency order and Luke could have ended up in care. “Also, while it’s definitely an odd situation for Kaylee to be only 10 years older than her nephew, it might make it easier for Luke: he’s being bought up by his grandmother but people don’t realise that because they see me and assume I’m his mother. It hides the fact that his mother isn’t around. “I can certainly see grandparents getting younger around my neighbourhood. There’s a girl nearby who is just 31 years old and already has a granddaughter. It’s incredibly difficult: she is still a mother to her 15-year-old daughter but now has to be a mother to a new baby too. “Society is lagging behind in its recognition of how much things are changing. The traditional image of an old grandparent is out-of-date and out-of-touch.” Parents and parenting Family Welfare Social care Social trends Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …