Joe Lieberman joined Glenn beck on his FOX Show the other day and boy, was it a love-fest. Joe played Beck’s fanboy and showered him with hugs and kisses. Once upon a time this man ran as VP in 2000 for the Democratic Party. Beck said Joe was inspired by his insane 8/28 Rally in DC which he says was not political, but which was boring, really white and political. I guess Joe didn’t read anything about that event. Joe is going to join Beck for his Restoring Courage event which he says is going to Jerusalem. On his radio show, Beck immediately started in on the hyperbole. After discussing the details of the event, Beck warned his followers that “the very gates of hell are gonna open up against us” and declared, “I believe we live in historic times. I believe historians will remember what we do and what we say.” Restoring Courage will be “the same kind of feel that you experienced” at Restoring Honor, Beck said , “except I will tell you: much more profound. This is a life-changing, life-altering event.” Beck even said that the rally would “define” its participants: “This will be a — I think, a pinnacle moment in your life. It will define you. In the end, this event will define you.” Beck continued the hyperbole on his TV show today, paraphrasing the Gettysburg Address to say that at his rally in Jerusalem, “possibly for the first time in man’s history, God will remember and make note of what we do there. ” It’s an event to stand up for what you believe in, said Beck. Later he said that Lieberman helped him get into Yale University also. We know Sen. Lieberman blocks bills just to piss off Liberals out of spite like when he stripped out the Medicare-For-All provision in HCR when just three months before he was for it. But now he’s embarrassing himself in front of his Beltway media elite friends by being a foil for Beck. What would David Broder say about that? In the vid, Lieberman appeared to go further than the current Senate deal, which would expand Medicare to those aged 55-64, saying he supported the idea of expanding it to people aged 50 and over. Lieberman referenced his proposal along these lines during the 2006 campaign, and added: “My proposals were to basically expand the existing successful public health insurance programs Medicare and Medicaid… “When it came to Medicare I was very focused on a group — post 50, maybe more like post 55. People who have retired early, or unfortunately have been laid off early, who lose their health insurance and they’re too young to qualify for Medicare. “What I was proposing was that they have an option to buy into Medicare early and again on the premise that that would be less expensive than the enormous cost. If you’re 55 or 60 and you’re without health insurance and you go in to try to buy it, because you’re older … you’re rated as a risk so you pay a lot of money.” It’s not entirely clear that Lieberman was offering a full-throated current endorsement of the proposal, but his tone is clearly positive and approving. It’s yet another sign, as if you needed one, that Lieberman’s current opposition to the Senate proposal doesn’t appear to have any roots in a genuine policy disagreement. So he hurt American families when it mattered the most and now he’s aligning himself with Beck, really?
Continue reading …Media critics, decidedly un-conservative for the most part, are piling on Arianna-OL in the wake of
Continue reading …Anthony Baxter, director of You’ve Been Trumped, on the dangers of taking on Donald Trump’s Aberdonian golf resort as the subject of his documentary Shehani Fernando Ken Macfarlane Elliot Smith
Continue reading …Voice actor found fame on Rainbow as well as Doctor Who Roy Skelton, the voice of the Daleks and George and Zippy from Rainbow, has died aged 79. He brought Doctor Who’s arch-enemies to life between 1967 and 1988, and also provided voices for the Cybermen. But viewers will probably know him best as the voices of Zippy and George, the orange and pink puppets from ITV’s long running children’s show Rainbow. Geoffrey Hayes, who fronted Rainbow, told BBC News that Skelton was “fabulous at improvising if something went wrong”. “The most wonderful thing was if Zippy and George were having an argument between themselves, it sounded like he’d double-tracked it as they seemed to be talking over each other. It was a wonderful technique and I don’t know how he did it.” Rainbow was axed in 1992, but Skelton reprised Zippy’s voice in the BBC1 retro-drama Ashes to Ashes in 2008, and again in a special puppet edition of Weakest Link. Skelton’s agent Carole Deaner told MediaGuardian.co.uk: “He was an unassuming and brilliant man … He had been ill for some time and was in a wheelchair. We kept hoping he was going to improve but sadly he did not. He was a lovely man, everyone who worked with him said that.” In addition to writing around 100 scripts for Rainbow, Skelton also wrote Naughty Rainbow , a humerous double-entendre laden version that became a cult hit. Skelton’s wife Hilary told Mediaguardian.co.uk: “Roy had a great sense of humour. He wrote Naughty Rainbow for a competition. We still have the original script.” She said that the Brighton-based actor and musician was not the first voice of Zippy: “Originally he was played by Peter Hawkins, a great friend of Roy’s who he worked with on Doctor Who. “Zippy was a very benign sort of puppet then. Roy felt he needed to have a bit of an alter ego so he changed him to be a troublesome character. George came along later as they didn’t have a foil for Zippy.” Hilary added: “Roy loved going to work every day. His first love had been theatre but he brought theatre to Rainbow.” She said Skelton had requested a “green funeral”, to be buried in a cardboard coffin which he wanted people to write on. •
Continue reading …Ghazni, in south-east of country, looks for foreign help in effort to become Islamic capital of culture in 2013 If there was a prize for the world’s most ambitious, and least likely, cultural festival then the one planned for Ghazni in two years would be a serious contender. The scruffy city sits in a sea of insurgency in south-east Afghanistan. What remains of its once magnificent cultural heritage is rapidly disintegrating. The last tourist to visit the place – a mysterious young Canadian – was kidnapped by the Taliban and has only been seen in a video from the hardliners threatening to put him on trial for “spying”. But these are mere “minor problems”, says Musa Khan, the redoubtable governor of Ghazni province. Nothing will dampen his enthusiasm for Ghazni 2013, as the place will be known when it takes on the mantle of “Islamic capital of culture”. The honour is bestowed by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference . In 2006, Ghazni must have seemed a bold, but not bad, choice. Once a great centre of Islamic power and culture, it is home to two giant minarets and ancient palaces built when the city was the capital of the Ghaznavid state, an empire that once encompassed Iran, Afghanistan and much of north India. Since 2006 though, the Taliban insurgency has taken hold in the region, and the city’s chronic state of disrepair will take some fixing. “We will be advising the opposition that the city will be named a city of Islam so if they attack our city they are attacking religion also,” Khan warns. He says the city will have no difficulty attracting a flow of about 600 domestic and international visitors a day for the year-long jamboree. Whether he gets the additional resources he says he needs is another matter. Khan’s 2013 wish list involves 57 miles (92km) of surfaced road within the city, a fully functioning electricity grid, bus stations, a sports stadium, a proper sewage system, hotels, airport, a cold storage facility and public parks running along both sides of the river that will “give a very beautiful scene”. Khan also wants a £19.5m “expo centre” complete with theatre, library and an exhibition hall. It is just one element of a preposterously ambitious scheme that Afghan officials have costed at £122m. In one of the world’s poorest countries that raises barely £730m in tax revenues, there is scant chance of the Afghans paying for it themselves. Khan is hoping that foreigners, perhaps from the United Arab Emirates, might fill the gap. Officials at the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) are clear they are not paying for anything, and they believe many of the “wacky things on the governor’s wish list” will not come to pass. “We are not doing the hotel,” Colonel John McKee, a US official at the Ghazni PRT, said after a frustrating session trying to pin down the programme. At issue was Afghan hopes for a four, or possible five, star hotel on top of the ancient citadel. Nonetheless, they are supporting the governor’s quixotic mission to host a massive cultural jamboree in the name of Islam. “Even if Ghazni is still covered in scaffolding by the time people arrive it is still going to be a win for security,” says McKee. “The Taliban is not going to blow up the shrine of Mas’ud.” Perhaps most in need of protection are the town’s two giant minarets, or “victory towers”, that jut out of a brown wilderness on the edge of the city. Built in the 12th century by Ghaznavid kings, they once stood 44m tall, and were similar to the famous Minaret of Jam in western Afghanistan. Today, they are surrounded by a graveyard of old Soviet military ordnance. Their foundations are in “very, very bad condition” says one western archaeologist, not least as locals steal the bricks for their own homes. Much needs to be done to repair the old city, which contains some abandoned and hauntingly beautiful mosques. The ancient mud walls are in terrible shape, undermined by erosion. Earlier this year, one of the 36 giant towers that braced a section of the walls gave way, sending mud and bricks cascading down onto the makeshift shops below. Whether or not Ghazni 2013 is a success, or even happens, will depend not on infrastructure or conservation, but security. Some Americans in the province scorn the Polish unit that leads the Nato effort here. “Quite simply they do not want to be here,” says one who has observed them close. “And they don’t like going out and getting shot at.” Another jokes that with the establishment of a parallel PRT run by the US, the initials should really stand for “Polish Rescue Team”. Musa Khan will almost certainly have to lower his expectations. “If we get a hundred people down for a day in 2013 we’ll be pleased,” says a US official. “But the US will have to get them in and out and stop them from getting killed.” Afghanistan Islam Religion Jon Boone guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Coroner says neglect contributed to the death of Peter Thompson, who was left without checks for 10 hours The parents of a man who was left to die in a hospital corridor after staff presumed he was drunk have criticised staff for stepping over his corpse and not checking on him for more than 10 hours. CCTV cameras at the Edale House unit of Manchester Royal Infirmary captured staff pulling the lifeless body of Peter Thompson along the floor as though they were “dragging the body of a dead animal”, according to his father, Alan Thompson. The jury at Manchester crown court returned a misadventure verdict contributed to by neglect. The Manchester coroner, Nigel Meadows, said Thompson’s death was “wholly preventable” and he could have survived but for the neglect of nursing staff, three of whom faced disciplinary proceedings. Meadows is writing to Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust, which is responsible for Edale House, laying out his recommendations, and will also inform the Nursing and Midwifery Council, calling for an investigation into three of the nurses involved. Two members of staff have been sacked over the incident and a third has been disciplined. Peter Thompson, 41, from Gorton, was drunk and had taken anti-psychotic drugs, but instead of taking him to the accident and emergency department, staff at the unit left him sprawled on the floor, where he eventually died. He entered the hospital at 7.45pm on 3 April last year, not long before he collapsed and died. He was pronounced dead the following morning, more than 10 hours after he arrived at the unit, when a nurse noticed he was not breathing. His father Alan said: “Seeing your own flesh and blood being dragged across the floor like a dead animal is heartbreaking. “It was just inhumane what they did to our Peter and I just cannot understand how in this day and age this can be allowed to happen on a hospital corridor. “I can never, ever forgive these people for what little they did … I feel as if people will be awakened by what the verdict was and hopefully it will do a bit of good for other families who go through what we have been through.” Thompson’s daughter Carly, 23, said: “I just didn’t realise the extent of the neglect they had shown to my dad until this week. “He went to them for help and they left him out in the corridor to die cold, wet and lonely with nothing. I’m disgusted at their treatment of him.” The incident occurred after Thompson – a voluntary inpatient with a long history of alcohol abuse and addictions to heroin and crack cocaine – was prevented from entering his ward after he turned up with a bottle of vodka that he refused to hand over. He then fell asleep in the corridor at around 8.10pm after nurses decided to let him “sleep off” the effects of the alcohol. The unit has a policy of not allowing alcohol or drugs on its wards. But rather than wake him up or move him, a member of staff placed a towel next to the patient and he was not given a blanket or a pillow. Nurses and managers were forced to step over his body to get into the Grafton ward. Senior nurse Helen De Lacy-Leacey said she alerted night staff that the patient was outside the doors of the ward and asked them to “keep an eye on him and make sure he is OK”. But she ended her shift at 9.15pm and did not try to wake him or carry out a risk assessment of his condition. Night manager Steve Soobhug said leaving him to sleep outside was “the appropriate method of handling the situation at the time”. Fellow senior staff nurse Dini Oyebadejo said she checked on the patient several more times overnight but discovered him “stiff” at 6.15am and raised the alarm. When asked if she believed it was dangerous to leave Thompson in that condition, she replied: “It could have been dangerous, yes. I was concerned about the patient but I felt he needed to sleep. I didn’t want him to leave the ward.” Dr Alan Fletcher, a consultant in emergency medicine, concluded the victim would have lived had he been taken to an A&E unit during the night. A pathologist report concluded Thompson died from fatal levels of alcohol and anti-psychotic drugs, with liver cirrhosis as a contributing factor. He was four times over the drink-drive limit. Nadia Kerr, of Pannone solicitors, who represented the family, said: “This is a shocking indictment of the care standards provided by the Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust. “Peter Thompson was a voluntary patient who was aware he had problems but was trying to address them. The apology given during this inquest and the written apology from the trust go some way to acknowledging that Mr Thompson could and should have been treated more appropriately and with the dignity that was sadly lacking throughout this whole episode.” A Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust spokesman said: “We would like to apologise to Peter Thompson’s family and friends and express our deep regret about the circumstances of his death. “This was an isolated incident and does not reflect the high levels of care and dignity with which we treat our service users. On this occasion we fell short of our usual high standard and we are very sorry about this.” Health Helen Carter guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The bosses of Britain’s four biggest banks are being hauled before the Treasury select committee to discuss the independent banking commission’s proposals. Follow the action blow-by-blow with Jill Treanor • RBS boss Hester admits the government’s implicit bank guarantee could have fed through to bonuses 3.51pm: Stewart Hosie is asking questions now. Straight into capital ratios and return on equity for banks, which has become more of a problem since banks have been required to hold more capital since the financial crisis. Flint says banks are now holding three or four times what they used to. On a 10% equity tier one ratio, HSBC can make a return on equity of 15% – compared with 9% in 2010 when the bank did not make enough money to cover its cost of capital. HSBC spent an entire day last month spelling out how it intends to do this. Flint says a 10% capital ratio will become a “minimum figure”. [RBS's had eroded to 2%-ish after buying ABN Amro just as the credit crunch was beginning]. Flint is now listing all the changes the industry has made since the crisis – saying he wants a minute. He’s taking longer and Tyrie is now telling him to get a move on. Flint’s point is that the questions about reform should more than just about capital. Hosie is asking what is a safe ratio for banks. “If we go much beyond 10%… I think we risk costs to the economy… because it will be just about impossible to beat our costs of equity,” Flint says. He explains HSBC’s capital base is is £140bn so each time regulators hike capital requirements it takes “hundred of billions of capacity out of lending”. 3.41pm: Labour’s John Mann now. Not sure what’s he asked exactly, but Hester is saying that “everyone agrees there should be change”. Mann is quoting Flint, saying banking should be “predictable”. How can the taxpayer avoid picking up the cost of an investment bank? Flint says “you can never say never”, but that the chances have reduced. Mann is asking about the lack of competition in investment banking, with them all jumping into fund that takeover of Cadbury or float Glencore. Vickers does not really tackle this, says Mann, although Flint insists that he can’t agree that there isn’t competition in investment banking – or that it does not create value for the economy. Mann says the constant turnover of buyouts just creates fees for lawyers and investment banks. He is now turning on Tyrie, who is asking him to move on. “You don’t like my questions, chairman,” says Mann. Flint says investment banks won’t be bailed out going forward. “I agree,” says Hester. 3.32pm: Fallon is now asking what the difference is between the Vickers and HSBC proposals. Flint is making the point that Vickers hadn’t spelt out how ring-fencing would work. The HSBC version contains “certain inefficiencies” as new employment contracts might be needed and there would be a more complex administrative structure if banks were ring-fenced. 3.29pm: Flint is explaining that systemic risk doesn’t just come from retail deposits and argues that a broader ring-fenced bank is needed than the one proposed by the Vickers commission. The MPs and Flint have an advantage to anyone watching the hearing as they have the three-page HSBC submission that contains this HSBC version of ring-fencing. Fallon is describing it as “a ring-fence with holes in it”. 3.27pm: Hester is being asked what the cost would be for RBS if ring-fencing happened. Hester doesn’t answer directly, but says he can’t give a single number. Tyrie is asking if RBS can publish the numbers that RBS is working on. Hester warns they are “price sensitive”. Conservative MP Michael Fallon now. 3.25pm: Now she’s asking Flint if RBS should be broken up and more of Lloyds sold off. (The Vickers banking commission has suggested that Lloyds should sell more than the 600 branches the EU has ordered it to as a consequence of receiving state aid.) He essentially says no. “I don’t think for the consumer it would make much of a difference,” said Flint. First Labour MP now – George Mudie. Does ring-fencing prevent money moving from retail to the investment side of the bank? “The ring-fenced bank has to be broad in its scope…,” says Flint. “If you go down a ring-fencing route, you have to go with what is the best model to preserve the aggregate quantum of credit [to the economy],” he adds. It’s not entirely clear that he’s answered Mudie’s question, however. 3.22pm: Leadsom is asking Hester if it would be good idea to break up RBS. He says systemic risk is not about institutions but about how risk concentration is spread – citing the savings and loan crisis in the US, where lots of institutions all faced the same problems. Spanish cajas are in the same situation – none of them are big, but they are largely concentrated on the same risks, he says. “Really [it's] a red herring to look at the size of one institution to look at risk in the system,” he says. On deposits, Hester says that because people are encouraged to think there is government support, it means consumers and small businesses can put their deposits in an Iceland bank and know their money is safe. 3.15pm: Andrea Leadsom, another Conservative and one-time banker, is asking the questions now. She is talking to Flint, and asking him whether a review of the banks’ ratings by the agencies is a good thing. She is referring to a decision by Moody’s last month to put Lloyds, Royal Bank of Scotland and Santander UK on review for possible credit rating downgrades, saying that there will be no taxpayer-funded bailouts in the future. Flint says it’s a lagging indicator. Now is she asking: are the agencies wrong then? “They are just stating the obvious,” says Flint, as agencies factor in an expectation that governments would bail out their banks. Flint says the markets make a judgment about the possibility of default and bailout, which in turn feeds through to the rates bank charge each other to borrow – known as Libor. And the first question on competition. Are you too big to fail? she asks. Flint, who runs one of the biggest banks in the world and the biggest in the UK, says it’s easy for financial institutions to enter the market and compete on retail deposits and such like but harder on SME and business banking. “Virtually impossible” to compete for large deposits, such as from a house sale or pension, because wealthy investors will pick the most robust institutions. “I think there will be depositor preference for those institutions with the strongest balance sheets,” said Flint, talking about the “brand effect”. 3.09pm: So in answering the first pay question, Hester said: “To the extent able to carry less capital than in the past, that implicit subsidy could have fed through … to bonuses”. He cites better loan rates and higher employment too, as benefiting from the support of taxpayers in the markets. Ruffley doesn’t labour the point. Hester is citing Bradford & Bingley as an early example of breaking up a bank. The best bits – the branches and deposits – were sold to Santander at the end of September 2008 while the bad mortgages went to the taxpayer and have now been united with the “bad” parts of Northern Rock. 3.01pm: Ruffley wants to know what Hester and RBS support in the Vickers interim report. Hester’s retort? Strong capitalisation for banks, stronger liquidity as well as resolution powers for the authorities to take back parts of banks and bail-in powers, where more capital can be put in without taxpayer money. Ruffley says what is the government support for RBS. “RBS would have gone into liquidation without government support,” says Hester, who was appointed just as the bailout was happening in October 2008. Some £45bn has been used to buy shares, by the way, while the asset protection scheme insures the bank’s most troublesome assets. Ruffley’s questions are more about guarantees in the money markets, and he now wants to know if they have helped feed through into remuneration. 2.58pm: Hester is arguing that the City will know if bank reforms have worked in a few years’ time if ratings agencies stop trying to include government support into the banking sector. “One of the measures of whether they have succeeded in making banks stand on their own two feet is that the rating agencies do not ascribe rating for sovereign support,” said Hester. David Ruffley, Conservative, is asking questions now, and asking about the cost of the subsidiary from the taxpayer for the British banking sector. Hester says there is no agreement on the estimates and does not give a number. Oxera says its £10bn a year, as quoted in the interim ICB report and now being thrown at Hester by Ruffley. “Let’s try and make it zero,” says Hester. 2.57pm: Flint gave a pretty straightforward answer although Hester is being much more long-winded. “In the ring-fence part of what they are saying there are risks that need to be addressed,” Hester said. But Tyrie cuts him off to pull him back to answer: are you against a ring-fence? “Creating a ring-fence increases some of the systemic risk and decreases the ability of banks to withstand the risk and has significant costs,” said Hester. “It is our belief that it would be hard to create a ring-fence that improves upon the risk cost balance the commission is supporting,” he said. Hester is arguing that the losses in the system have been through regular lending not complex derivatives so a ring-fence concentrates risk. Early disagreement among the bankers then. 2.50pm: Complex question now about how derivatives should be treated. Flint, a former finance director, is getting intricate too. Flint is putting forward the argument that banks need to be able to include derivatives in the ring fenced back to price interest risk. It’s being likened to a “building society”. Hester is now being asked about the ring fence. “There are not black and white answers,” he says. 2.49pm: The Thatcher room is filing up. Hester sits first, now Flint. Tyrie is off, saying he wants a “public debate” on Vickers. He starts off with Flint, who has made proposals about how the ring fencing of retail assets could work. Is some sort of ring fence required? “I think it is required,” says Flint, because it would help to maintain the flow of credit that dried up during the banking crisis. “It was tragic,” he says. “If I were a policy maker I would seek to set aside the funding capacity from the intra-financial sector trading activity”. HSBC has submitted a three page note to the committee on how ring-fencing would work, and it will be published shortly, Tyrie says. Link here to the members of the committee, which is chaired by the Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie. 2.31pm: Treasury select committees have a pretty good track record for tripping up bank bosses. Ian Harley, who used to run Abbey National before it was taken over by Santander, admitted to one committee that “only with calculus could credit card interest rates be compared to choose the best card”. Matt Barrett, when he was Barclays boss in 2003, admitted he did not use his or anyone else’s plastic to borrow money “because it’s too expensive” and had been urging his four children not to rack up debts on their cards either. More recently, Bob Diamond, who ran the investment banking arm Barclays Capital in Barrett’s day, told the committee the period for remorse was over – which was not well received. Horta-Osório’s predecessor Eric Daniels had his moment of difficulty in 2009 when he described is £1m salary as “relatively modest”. 2.22pm: The bosses of Britain’s four biggest banks are being hauled before the Treasury select committee this afternoon to discuss the proposals put forward by the independent commission on banking (ICB) , chaired by Sir John Vickers. First up at 2.30pm are Stephen Hester, chief executive of bailed out Royal Bank of Scotland, who will sit alongside Douglas Flint, the chairman of HSBC, which was not bailed out. At 4pm Bob Diamond, chief executive of Barclays, and Stephen Hester, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, more than 80% owned by the taxpayer, will take their seats. Hester is the longest serving of the four, having been parachuted in to replace Sir Fred Goodwin during the October 2008 bailout. Flint only became chairman of HSBC six months ago after a messy boardroom row elevated him from finance director, while Diamond stepped up from running the Barclays Capital investment banking arm at the start of the year. Portuguese-born António Horta-Osório is the newest, having taken the helm of Lloyds at the start of March after being bought out of the UK arm of Santander, where many had thought he stood a chance of one day taking the top job. None of them are keen on the ICB and the team run by Vickers, who wants to ring-fence the retail assets from investment banking assets. Horta-Osório is also far from impressed about the proposal that the bank sell of more than the 600 branches that the EU is already demanding. The branches being put on the block are now emerging and range from Cheltenham & Gloucester branches as far afield as Aberdeen and Torquay as well as Lloyds TSB Scotland branches. Banking Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Prime minister gives full backing to justice secretary Kenneth Clarke, saying he has ‘plenty more fuel left in his tank’ David Cameron has denied that his government has made a “complete mess” of health and justice reforms amid claims of two major policy U-turns on the same day. The prime minister also gave his full backing to the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, saying he has “plenty more fuel left in his tank”. The defence came after the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, seized on reports that Cameron has ditched controversial plans to introduce a 50% prison sentencing discount for an early guilty plea after holding talks with Clarke on Tuesday. Miliband told Cameron at prime minister’s questions: “He knows, and the whole country knows, he’s in a total mess on his sentencing policy, just like on all his other crime policy.” The Labour leader also accused Cameron of being in a “complete mess” over his health plans after the announcement on Tuesday that the prime minister was abandoning key elements of health secretary Andrew Lansley’s, original blueprint for health reforms. He pledged changes to deadlines, competition, funding and waiting times, causing consternation among many Conservative MPs. Cameron had changed course because he had been “found out” over his plans to turn the NHS into a “free market free-for-all” , Miliband said. Cameron dismissed Miliband’s attacks, accusing him of “empty opposition”, “weak leadership” and “jumping on a series of bandwagons”. Miliband turned first to sentencing policy, asking Cameron to confirm reports that he had “torn up” a key plank of the justice secretary’s policy on sentencing. The prime minister did not answer directly, but said: “What we want is tough sentences for serious offenders. “We produced a consultation paper that had widespread support for many of the proposals that it made and, in the coming weeks, we will be publishing our legislation.” He said it was the Labour government that introduced a one-third discount on sentences, and lent his support to Clarke when asked by the Tory MP Philip Hollobone why magistrates were forced to retire at 70 when the justice secretary, who appoints them, is 71 later this year. Cameron said: “It is important that you get turnover in the magistrates so that new people come in. To be fair to the lord chancellor, he has only been in his job for a year – he’s doing a superb job, and I can tell you there is plenty more fuel in his tank.” On the NHS, the prime minister said the review of the plans was conducted because the government “wanted to get these right”. He added that there had been “widespread support” for the review from the shadow health secretary, John Healey. “What he [Miliband] calls a shambles, his shadow health secretary calls good government,” Cameron said. “He’s not really in command of the ship.” Miliband said Cameron had made a series of promises before the election, such as no more top-down reorganisations of the NHS, because he was “completely shameless and he will say anything”. He said the prime minister “didn’t think the policy through”, such as the decision, last June, to stop enforcing the 18-week target, claiming that the amount of patients waiting longer than 18 weeks had gone up by 69%. The prime minister said Miliband’s performance at the dispatch box suggested he “wasn’t thinking about politics on his honeymoon”. Cameron said median waiting times had gone down and claimed Miliband had misled the house about the issue two weeks ago, prompting an intervention from the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, who urged him to withdraw the remark in line with protocol. Cameron said: “What I meant, of course … he gave an interesting use of facts in terms of waiting times, which are down in the NHS.” Miliband responded: “The whole house will notice he didn’t withdraw that, and obviously he is rattled about the health service. “After a year, he’s proved the oldest truth in politics – you can’t trust the Tories on the NHS.” David Cameron Ed Miliband PMQs House of Commons Labour Kenneth Clarke Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Prisons and probation Health policy Health Public services policy UK criminal justice Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …So while Weiner did what he did, looks like the attack on his Twitter escapades was helped along by a political heavy hitter’s office. I’m sure it’s just a coinky dink! When are Democrats going to learn you don’t play nice with these people? There’s a lot of dirt on these Republicans, and it’s time the Dems started acting just like they do. It’s a shame, really: JUNE 6–The online duo who spearheaded a vicious months-long Twitter assault on Representative Anthony Weiner–whom they accused of improper contact with underage girls– apparently consulted with an aide to a powerful House Republican as they mulled over how to release information about Weiner’s purported relationship with a Delaware teenager, The Smoking Gun has learned. In a series of e-mails exchanged on May 25, Mike Stack and his Twitter sidekick “Dan Wolfe” discussed a Tumblr posting by the high school student that they believed showed she was having “private conversations” with Weiner. Wolfe, who noted that he had made screen captures of the girl’s Tumblr blog, exclaimed, “This is MAJOR!” Beginning earlier this year, Stack (a porn site moderator ) and Wolfe (whose true identity is unknown ) have carefully monitored Weiner’s Twitter page to catalogue the young women being followed by the New York Democrat. In several instances, they have sent tweets directly to these women “warning” them about the politician. The insinuation in these messages–as well as in postings on their individual Twitter pages–was that Weiner was a predator. After Wolfe told Stack about making the screen captures from the girl’s Tumblr page, Stack suggested how they could release the information: “I think that since we have the stuff screencapped we call or email his office. But cc a whole bunch of people asking for a comment.” But Stack then noted, “She is underage, however. Let me email Darrell Issa press sec.” Stack, e-mails reveal, was referring to Seamus Kraft, press secretary and “director of digital strategy,” for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is chaired by Issa, a California Republican. Issa, who has called the Obama administration “corrupt,” is effectively the leading congressional investigator. In an e-mail to Wolfe , Stack wrote, “This guy Seamus Kraft is awesome.” Stack noted that he was referred to Kraft by a woman who had recently worked for Issa’s committee. The female staffer, Stack said, “thought I would be good at keeping Seamus and Mr. Issa up to date with ethics and BHO [Barack Hussein Obama] issues around the clock.” Stack then remarked, “They have proven to be great allies,” adding that Wolfe should “Follow mr Issa at @darrellissa.” Asked this afternoon about Weiner-related contacts with the toxic Twitter Twins, Kraft said, “I don’t recall that right now.” After saying that, “I have exchanged e-mails with Mike Stack before” Kraft promised he would call back a reporter in 15 minutes after conducting some research. By press time–nearly two hours later–Kraft had not called back with the results of that research (though Kraft did start following TSG’s Twitter feed at 2:55 PM).
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Some people never leave high school. That’s what came to my mind while watching Sarah Palin make a forced and oh-so-sincere apology to Mitt Romney for stepping all over his announcement that he was running for the Republican nomination. But the look on her face makes it clear that she doesn’t think it’s her fault that the media would rather see her mangle American History 101 than watch the actual announced candidate. Palin’s all about the attention, doncha know? And all’s fair in love and war…and Republican politics. David Frum spoke to Lawrence O’Donnell about Sarah’s spoiler role in the Republican primary season. Click here to view this media Ultimately, I think it will be the non-Fox media that will have to come to grips with the notion that Palin is just not a serious player, no matter how hard Fox tries to legitimize her. Fox News cannot be the agenda-setter for all other media.
Continue reading …