West insists president quits in exchange for immunity from prosecution and financial guarantees about future The United States and Britain are pressing Saudi Arabia to persuade the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to formally stand down after flying to Riyadh for treatment for injuries that were sustained in shelling in Sana’a on Friday. Diplomats said that Washington and London were insisting Saleh now be urged to implement a deal under which he would relinquish power in exchange for immunity from prosecution and financial guarantees about his future. Pro-democracy protestors in Yemen were celebrating his departure after 33 years in power, but the Arab world’s poorest country still faces turmoil as well as immediate concerns over whether a truce will hold if Saleh tries to return and his relatives and supporters fight back. The risks ahead were underlined by clashes in the southern city of Taiz, which left at least two dead and four injured. Shelling was also reported in Sana’a. Saleh was described as recovering following emergency medical treatment in a Riyadh military hospital because he was injured by shrapnel when his palace compound was attacked by tribal rivals. Yemen’s ruling party, the General People’s Congress, insisted he would be back, but diplomats and analysts expressed doubt, suggesting that Saudi patience with an always fractious and often manipulative neighbour was exhausted. It would be impossible for Saleh to return, argued Abdul Ghani Iryani, a respected Yemeni political commentator. “He is out. That is the only rational course. The exit of the president has defused some of the tensions and war is less likely today than it was yesterday.” If Saleh is finished, he will come to be seen as the latest scalp of the “Arab spring” – which since January has seen the overthrow of the presidents of Tunisia and Egypt, repression in Bahrain and anti-regime unrest in Libya and Syria. Popular demonstrations in Sana’a made a huge impact but the immediate trigger for Saleh’s ouster was old-fashioned military action – not Facebook protest. Yemen, a desperately poor and volatile country of 23 million people, faces a complex series of problems including secessionist movements in the north and south, inter-elite and tribal rivalries and a small but menacing al-Qaida presence that has focused US and western attention and brought generous aid in recent years. Saleh has been formally replaced by his deputy, Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi but the constitution allows for the creation of a military council to oversee government business. Diplomats said a key question was the reaction of Saleh’s son Ahmed, commander of the powerful Republican Guard, and his nephews Yayha and Amar, who control other key elements of the security forces. Saleh’s brother commands the Yemeni air force. Al-Arabiya TV reported that Hadi had already met the US ambassador to Yemen Michael Feierstein and was also due to see members of the military and Saleh’s sons. The Saudi-owned channel also described Ahmed Saleh as running the country in his father’s absence in Riyadh. Reinforcing the point, the official Yemeni news agency Saba issued a statement saying that Saleh’s family had not accompanied him to Saudi Arabia – which was seen as a clear warning that his sons would remain in place. Amidst the jubilation in Sana’a, one good sign was the agreement of the al-Ahmar family, leaders of the Hashid tribal federation that has been fighting Saleh, to abide by a truce aimed at stopping the street fighting in the capital. Saleh blamed the al-Ahmars for the attack on his palace on Friday and ordered government forces to retaliate with an artillery barrage against their homes in the Sana’a neighbourhood of Hasaba. The Hashid announced their support for the protest movement in March, and al-Ahmar fighters initially adhered to the movement’s non-violence policy. Saleh’s departure was foreseen in the accord brokered by the six-nation Saudi led Gulf Co-operation Council. It provided a timetable for the president to leave office and to clear the way for new elections within 60 days. He declined to sign the agreement, despite several attempts by Gulf leaders to end to the crisis. Now in Saudi Arabia – and perhaps under pressure from his hosts – he may no longer be able to renege on it. “Saleh may be determined to brazen it out but he will find it hard to resist for very long,” predicted one western diplomat. William Hague, Britain’s foreign secretary, said he was “very worried” about the situation in Yemen, admitting that previous efforts to persuade Saleh to step down had failed. “We have not succeeded in that but we will continue working very hard on that,” he said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show. “It could become a much more serious threat to our own security.” Hundreds of British citizens have been urged to leave the country while Sana’a airport is still open. “People are worried about what will happen after Saleh’s departure,” Farouq Abdel Salam, a resident of the southern port city of Aden, told Reuters. “They’re most worried about a military coup or struggles for power within the army.” Saleh has ruled Yemen since unification in 1990. Yemen Saudi Arabia Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Bill Kristol admits the truth: ‘The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America.’
June 5, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media (h/t Dave at VideoCafe) Decade after decade, year after year, month after month, week after week, day after day, hour after hour we hear Republicans channelling Grover Norquist and claiming that taxes are too high, we must lower taxes for corporations and raising taxes is always forbidden. George Bush didn’t raise any taxes to finance his two wars and instead borrowed money from China to pay for them with not a whisper of complaint from deficit hawks while even going as far as keeping Iraq and Afghanistan out of his budgets and onto unprecedented emergency supplementals . The major talking point of the GOP is that we can’t raise taxes in a depression and we also have to cut spending. Some ConservaDems have adopted these ideas as well unfortunately. And even when taxes are as low as they have been under Obama’s administration , the media doesn’t report on it in any way that gets through to the American people. On FOX News Sunday, Bill Kristol broke the line from his GOP buddies and admitted that corporations have plenty of money and corporate tax rates aren’t hurting anyone. Kristol: Republicans are making a mistake if they focus on big businesses and corporate tax rates. Corporations have a ton of cash. The corporate tax rate is not killing big business in America. Wow, Kristol actually states the obvious which has been nearly impossible for Republicans to do because it breaks with the narrative that they have created ever since Obama took office even after Conservative policies trashed the global financial economy. Think Progress: Kristol is not right about much , but he is on the money here. Corporations are sitting on trillions in cash reserves and corporate profits have rebounded to record highs . In fact, “the Fortune 500 generated nearly $10.8 trillion in total revenues last year, up 10.5%. Total profits soared 81%. ” But none of that has translated into sustainable job growth. The only economic indicator that has been going up is CEO pay . Republicans are not only looking to cut the corporate tax rate, but they have been pushing to open a permanent tax loophole by switching to what’s known as a “territorial” corporate tax system, which would mean that corporations could permanently park money offshore and never pay taxes on it. The Republicans have also endorsed a misguided push to give corporations a tax windfall worth tens of billions of dollars through a tax repatriation holiday . Parking money to offshore accounts is something you see mafia-type gangs do to hide money from the government. Republicans have adopted the Vito Corleone Tax policy. Both parties have been talking up lowering the corporate tax rates so Digby asks the right question, why? Lowering corporate tax rates seems to be a given. The best we can hope for is that the two parties agree to close some loopholes and end some subsidies (at least until the lobbyists can get them re-instituted.) If Bill Kristol is suddenly antagonistic to this perfect bipartisan agreement I have to wonder why. Kristol is focusing on “regulatory matters’ which always has been a big problem. Kristol: Small business creates most of the jobs, that’s a regulatory matter, that’s a individual tax rate matter I think Kristol doesn’t define what constitutes a small business. With less regulations we’ll see more collapses throughout the system like we did with the mortgage scandal. Next time it’ll be the air we breath or the food we eat. But even if it’s not revealed why he said what he said, he helped kill a Republican tax myth. I can see this quote being used in ads as we move forward into election season against the GOP.
Continue reading …Bob Schieffer Asks Haley Barbour ‘Could You Ever Envision Supporting a Ticket With Palin on Top?’
June 5, 2011 No Comment
As no clear frontrunner emerges in the Republican presidential nomination race, the liberal media are in a full-scale panic over the thought that the former governor of Alaska might eventually enter and challenge their beloved president in November 2012. On Sunday, “Face the Nation's” Bob Schieffer asked Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour with some incredulity, “Could you ever envision yourself supporting a ticket that had Sarah Palin at the top?” (video follows with transcript and commentary): BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Well, what about Sarah Palin? You say she– you don’t know what she’s going to do. If she did get in, could you ever envision yourself supporting a ticket that had Sarah Palin at the top? MISSISSIPPI GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: If Barack Obama was the head of the other ticket, I could.There’s no question about that. I mean, we look at the Obama policies. He wants to raise taxes when raises taxes would hurt the economy. When in fact, what we need in our country is economic growth and job creation. He pays lip service to that but his policies hurt that. Obamacare makes it harder to hire people. How do you hire people, Bob, if you don’t know what your obligations and costs are going to be for health care. All this government spending, bigger government means a smaller economy. When government is sucking trillions of dollars out of the economy, there is no money on Main Street. I can tell you that. Wall Street may be doing all right but there’s no money on Main Street. That’s where the jobs come from. So policy after policy after policy makes it harder to create jobs and grow the economy in the Obama administration. What was particularly hypocritical about Schieffer's question was that in the following segment, while interviewing former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the host repeatedly challenged his guest about the awful state of the economy and that Obama's had almost two and a half years to fix it without any success. Irrespective of who the Republicans nominate, the fact of the matter is Obama has failed to solve the nation's economic woes and Americans are very displeased. A just-released Newsweek/Daily Beast poll perfectly illustrated this: By almost four to one, Americans say our economy is not delivering the jobs we need, 81 percent to 12 percent. And Obama isn't helping. 50 percent of respondents think the president has no real plan to balance the budget; 40 percent say he does. Over half (52 percent) say their personal economic situation makes them nervous. Forty eight percent say it makes them anxious, 44 percent say it makes them upset, and 30 percent say it makes them angry. These are serious headwinds for an incumbent president regardless of what opponent he'll face in seventeen months. Yet all the media want to talk about is Sarah Palin, someone who most political observers don't believe will ever enter the race. She's got to be laughing all the way to the bank.
Continue reading …
Care-home firm looking after 31,000 elderly and vulnerable people begs landlords such as Ian and Richard Livingstone, Nick Leslau, Nigel Wray and Tom Hunter for rent cuts Some of Britain’s richest property barons, including Ian and Richard Livingstone, Nick Leslau, Nigel Wray and Tom Hunter, will decide the fate of more than one in seven Southern Cross care homes as the crisis-stricken company goes cap in hand to landlord groups asking for rent reductions . The company, which looks after 31,000 elderly and vulnerable patients, insists it will go bust if it is required to pay rents at agreed levels. Landlord groups are currently receiving only 70 pence in every pound billed in rents to Southern Cross. The group, Britain’s largest operator with about 753 homes, wants to negotiate a deal with all 80 of its landlords and has given itself four months to do so. Landlords are engaging through a committee set up by Daniel Smith at Grant Thornton, but some are already talking of taking matters into their own hands. Jamie Buchan, chief executive of Southern Cross, estimates that the business could lose about 200 homes. Among the options he would like to explore with landlords is a debt-for-equity swap or some kind of similar deal that would give them a share of future profits. He also wants to ditch the Southern Cross name. The GMB union is urging the government to step in and appoint a cabinet minister to ensure a swift, orderly resolution to the care homes crisis. It will publish a report naming those in the City it believes are to blame for the firm’s difficulties. “This report shows the reality that they are either greedy pigs or gullible fools.” Among the most important landlord firms Southern Cross will have to win over to survive is London & Regional, the investment empire of former optician Ian Livingstone and his chartered surveyor brother Richard. The pair hold the freeholds to about 90 Southern Cross homes. The brothers, who have a joint fortune put at £1.2bn, control an £8bn global property empire which in the UK includes the Hilton hotel on Park Lane and the Empire Leicester Square cinema. Their London & Regional operation also includes the David Lloyd Leisure fitness group and a string of nightclubs and casinos. Also being asked to accept a rent reduction by Southern Cross is a company called PSX Holdings, which acquired 21 properties from Southern Cross in a sale-and-leaseback deal in 2005. PSX is owned by Prestbury, the investment vehicle of Nick Leslau and Nigel Wray, with the retail tycoon Tom Hunter and Uberior, a private equity investment arm of HBOS, now part of the taxpayer-backed Lloyds Banking Group. PSX’s latest accounts, signed off in February, appear to show little sympathy for the care-home firm, suggesting the crisis was of its own making. “The future of Southern Cross currently seems uncertain. Whilst the tenant has negligible net debt, it claims to have overstretched itself by entering into a sale-and-leaseback model across its entire estate where it is now claiming the rents it is paying are too high.” Another large landlord, Bondcare, which operates homes itself as well as renting out properties to rivals, has taken an even harder line. “Our suggested solution is to take back the operation of our homes and we have offered the same solution to other landlords to deal with this crisis,” it said last week. The ownership trail for Bondcare, which owns about 40 Southern Cross homes, disappears into a trust based in Gibraltar. Negotiations with the largest landlord NHP is complicated by the fact that its effectively in the hands of creditors after poor performance rendered shares owned by the Qatar Investment Authority worthless. Southern Cross Healthcare Healthcare industry Private equity Social care Social care Simon Bowers guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Care-home firm looking after 31,000 elderly and vulnerable people begs landlords such as Ian and Richard Livingstone, Nick Leslau, Nigel Wray and Tom Hunter for rent cuts Some of Britain’s richest property barons, including Ian and Richard Livingstone, Nick Leslau, Nigel Wray and Tom Hunter, will decide the fate of more than one in seven Southern Cross care homes as the crisis-stricken company goes cap in hand to landlord groups asking for rent reductions . The company, which looks after 31,000 elderly and vulnerable patients, insists it will go bust if it is required to pay rents at agreed levels. Landlord groups are currently receiving only 70 pence in every pound billed in rents to Southern Cross. The group, Britain’s largest operator with about 753 homes, wants to negotiate a deal with all 80 of its landlords and has given itself four months to do so. Landlords are engaging through a committee set up by Daniel Smith at Grant Thornton, but some are already talking of taking matters into their own hands. Jamie Buchan, chief executive of Southern Cross, estimates that the business could lose about 200 homes. Among the options he would like to explore with landlords is a debt-for-equity swap or some kind of similar deal that would give them a share of future profits. He also wants to ditch the Southern Cross name. The GMB union is urging the government to step in and appoint a cabinet minister to ensure a swift, orderly resolution to the care homes crisis. It will publish a report naming those in the City it believes are to blame for the firm’s difficulties. “This report shows the reality that they are either greedy pigs or gullible fools.” Among the most important landlord firms Southern Cross will have to win over to survive is London & Regional, the investment empire of former optician Ian Livingstone and his chartered surveyor brother Richard. The pair hold the freeholds to about 90 Southern Cross homes. The brothers, who have a joint fortune put at £1.2bn, control an £8bn global property empire which in the UK includes the Hilton hotel on Park Lane and the Empire Leicester Square cinema. Their London & Regional operation also includes the David Lloyd Leisure fitness group and a string of nightclubs and casinos. Also being asked to accept a rent reduction by Southern Cross is a company called PSX Holdings, which acquired 21 properties from Southern Cross in a sale-and-leaseback deal in 2005. PSX is owned by Prestbury, the investment vehicle of Nick Leslau and Nigel Wray, with the retail tycoon Tom Hunter and Uberior, a private equity investment arm of HBOS, now part of the taxpayer-backed Lloyds Banking Group. PSX’s latest accounts, signed off in February, appear to show little sympathy for the care-home firm, suggesting the crisis was of its own making. “The future of Southern Cross currently seems uncertain. Whilst the tenant has negligible net debt, it claims to have overstretched itself by entering into a sale-and-leaseback model across its entire estate where it is now claiming the rents it is paying are too high.” Another large landlord, Bondcare, which operates homes itself as well as renting out properties to rivals, has taken an even harder line. “Our suggested solution is to take back the operation of our homes and we have offered the same solution to other landlords to deal with this crisis,” it said last week. The ownership trail for Bondcare, which owns about 40 Southern Cross homes, disappears into a trust based in Gibraltar. Negotiations with the largest landlord NHP is complicated by the fact that its effectively in the hands of creditors after poor performance rendered shares owned by the Qatar Investment Authority worthless. Southern Cross Healthcare Healthcare industry Private equity Social care Social care Simon Bowers guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Planned change to liquid regulations for transfer passengers carrying duty free purchases cancelled at 11th hour An EU deadline for lifting restrictions on carrying liquids onto aeroplanes by 2013 is under threat after the US government warned it will impose further security checks if there is a partial relaxation of the ban. A planned change in liquids regulations for transfer passengers carrying duty free purchases on 29 April, viewed as a step change to a complete lifting of the ban in two years’ time, was cancelled at the 11th hour after the US warned that it would introduce its own measures in response. In an email to aviation bosses, a Brussels official said: “The US had informed the [European] Commission on 28 April that they would require additional measures for liquids to be taken on US-bound flights that were expected to cause great confusion for passengers at EU airports on whether or not they could take third country duty free liquids onto a connecting flight. The commission wanted to prevent such a situation.” Hours after receiving the warning from US officials, the EU announced that it was scrapping plans to allow transfer passengers on flights originating outside the EU to carry duty free purchases such as perfume and alcohol on to connecting services at European airports. According to one industry insider, the US Department of Homeland Security was considering additional checks for passengers once they arrive in the US if the partial lifting of the ban had gone ahead.The email from Filip Cornelis, head of aviation security at the European Commission, added that a compromise was thrashed out with the US last month but that also fell down. “Unfortunately, a few days later it turned out that the ‘agreement in principle’ was not acceptable for Washington.” The 29 April move had already descended into confusion by the time Brussels announced its about-turn. The UK transport secretary, Philip Hammond, refused to lift restrictions for transfer passengers at British airports and was joined by his counterparts in France and Italy, while Germany and Scandinavia had prepared to implement the changes. Aviation experts and politicians warned that the clash over a minor change to liquids regulations posed a threat to a complete lifting of the ban in April 2013 because if the US remains concerned it could impose a further wave of security restrictions in the wake of any relaxation, effectively negating EU changes. Chris Yates, an aviation analyst, said airports were also dragging their feet over investing in new technology that would allow screening of suspicious liquids, at a cost of up to £100,000 per machine. “If the aviation industry has its way 2013 is probably in doubt,” said Chris Yates, an aviation consultant. The British chair of the European Parliament’s transport committee also warned that the 2013 deadline could slip, with the US intervention bolstering airports’ concerns. “I am worried about 2013,” said MEP Brian Simpson. “For me it is not a security issue. It is a cost issue and that will still be there in 2013.” Current rules bar all passengers from carrying liquids on to planes unless they are in individual containers no bigger than 100ml. Introduced after police disrupted a plot to blow up airliners with liquid bombs in 2006, the ban has forced the confiscation of water bottles, shampoo and baby food at terminals across the continent. An aviation industry source said a wholesale lifting of liquid restrictions would require better technology and significant investment at hundreds of airports to install those machines. Until then, the source added, doubts will remain. The head of the UK Airport Operators Association, Darren Caplan, warned that meeting the 2013 deadline should “in no way be at the expense of security effectiveness”. He added: “Currently, the new technologies and processes required to screen liquids, aerosols and gels are simply not yet mature or adequately tested to the needs of a massive European aviation sector, catering for 1.5 billion passengers and 400 airports. Relaxing the ban in 2013 should not be about politics or cost – it should simply be about technology preparedness and delivering the highest levels of security for passengers.” Smiths Detection, a major supplier of airport X-ray machines, said more than 1,000 of its machines were deployed around the world and most needed only a software upgrade in order to detect suspect liquids. A spokesperson for the DfT said the UK government remained “committed” to the 2013 deadline. The email, seen by the Guardian, emerged as aviation security chiefs from EU member states prepare to meet this week to discuss the liquids ban, followed by a ministerial-level meeting later this month. Air transport Transport United States Global terrorism UK security and terrorism European Union Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Negotiations conclude after IMF praises country’s new budget, which transitional rulers say will help improve social justice Egypt’s interim government has agreed a $3bn loan package with the International Monetary Fund to help stabilise the country’s finances during the post-Mubarak transition period. The deal was hailed by the Egyptian finance minister as a “fund to relaunch the Egyptian economy” and a first step towards tackling a national budget deficit that has escalated sharply in the aftermath of this year’s political upheaval. US President Barack Obama has also promised Egypt $1bn in loan guarantees as well as a further $1bn of debt cancellation. French leader Nicolas Sarkozy has said the G8 will provide up to $10bn in direct aid to both Egypt and Tunisia, a figure likely to be matched by oil-exporting countries in the Gulf. Negotiations for the 12-month loan concluded just days after the IMF praised a new budget in Egypt which raised government spending by a quarter. The country’s transitional rulers claim the budget will help improve social justice and remedy some of the grievances that helped inspire the anti-government uprising in January. Some Egyptian business leaders have voiced opposition to the new policies, which include the raising of the national minimum wage from the near three-decades old level of 34 Egyptian pounds (£3.50) per month to 700 Egyptian pounds, and the establishment of a 2bn Egyptian pounds fund to pay for unemployment benefits. The IMF, however, argued that the package put the Egyptian economy back on the right track. “Following a revolution and during a challenging period of political transition, the Egyptian authorities have put in place a homegrown economic programme with the over-arching objective of social justice,” Ratna Sahay, deputy director of the IMF’s Middle East and Central Asia Department, said last week. The IMF’s latest overtures have been met with criticism elsewhere in Egypt, where the Mubarak regime’s neo-liberal reforms were widely applauded by the global financial community despite contributing to a growing chasm between rich and poor. Since the last major IMF injection of funds into the country in 1991, which was accompanied by a strict “structural adjustment programme”, the percentage of the population living below $2 a day has doubled. Over the past decade, when GDP growth rates were at their highest, levels of absolute poverty – the international measure used to describe much of the poverty in the third world – have climbed from 16.7% to almost 20%. The IMF has also been criticised for its record of issuing favourable reports about the progress of autocratic north African governments just days or weeks before they experienced widespread revolts. An IMF evaluation of Tunisia’s dictatorship in September 2010 praised its “sound macroeconomic management and structural reforms over the last decade” just three months before President Ben Ali was toppled by protests. IMF Reports in February this year noted the Mubarak regime’s “sound fiscal management” in Egypt and stated that the “outlook for Libya’s economy remains stable”. Days later Mubarak was ousted and Libya was engulfed in anti-Gaddafi demonstrations. Meanwhile, Egypt’s former finance minister Youssef Boutros-Ghali has been found guilty of profiteering and abusing state and private assets. Boutros-Ghali, who instituted a flat-rate income tax of 20% and fled abroad during the uprising, was sentenced in absentia to 30 years in jail. The IMF previously described Boutros-Ghali’s policies as “impressive” and praised his stewardship of “one of the Middle East’s fastest-growing economies”. Egypt Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East IMF Africa Economics Global economy Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Nancy Pelosi on Face The Nation: Ask Speaker Boehner Why Congress Hasn’t Gotten Anything Done
June 5, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media This morning’s Face the Nation was an interesting contrast in style. Bob Schieffer led off with Haley Barbour in what can only be a softball interview about Republicans, their chances in 2012, and the current field of candidates. In the second half, he suddenly got a bit more strident in his questioning of Nancy Pelosi, but she managed to place responsibility where it truly belongs. Here’s the money moment: Schieffer: The fact is, the Congress has been in session since January and it’s done basically nothing. Pelosi: Well you can talk to Mr. Boehner about that. Schieffer: So it’s all their fault. It’s not your fault. Pelosi: Well no, they set the agenda. We have said every day that they’re there another day goes by and there’s no jobs agenda or jobs bill that has come to the floor. But again, it’s about how we can work together to go forward. These issues are bigger than politics, they’re bigger than elections. They’re about the country that we will live in. And what we will see as we go forward is one vision of America that’s encompassed in the Republican budget plan that abolishes Medicare, that makes college unaffordable for nearly ten million young people in our country, that takes us deeper into debt and does not create jobs, or you can talk about an agenda that talks about making it in America, investing in American education, innovation and that’s what campaigns are about. The opener on this conversation drives me a little crazy. Blaming a President for the economy without holding Congress’ feet to the fire is disingenuous, given Congress’ responsibilities with regard to appropriations and setting the national agenda that the President must then act upon. Yet in this current session of Congress, we’ve seen numerous votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, legislate a woman’s right to choose into oblivion, the defunding of agencies like NOAA and the EPA, and an overall agenda that kills jobs in the public sector at the very least. So what exactly does the President have to do with any of that? And Pelosi delivers that message quite effectively. Bothered about the jobs report? Talk to Mr. Boehner, because he’s the guy who has set the agenda for this session of Congress. Democrats should be running with this message and asking Americans whether or not they understand Congress’ role in the economy and what this crazy Republican House of Representatives is doing to tank it. Schieffer pushes back on her
Continue reading …
Niall Ferguson and Steven Pinker also join AC Grayling’s initiative but critics complain of greater inequality in education University lecturers and students reacted with dismay on Sunday after a group of leading British academics took a step towards the establishment of an elite US-style university system in the UK by launching a new private college offering £18,000-a-year courses. AC Grayling, a professor of philosophy at the universities of London and Oxford, will welcome next year the first students to the New College of the Humanities to study for degrees in English, philosophy, history, economics and law taught by academics from Harvard, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge. There is a starry lineup of professorial talent: Richard Dawkins will teach evolutionary biology and science literacy; Niall Ferguson will lecture on economics and economic history; and Steven Pinker will teach philosophy and psychology. Inspired in part by the business model of American Ivy League universities where $40,000 (£24,000) annual fees are not unusual, New College will cost double the maximum tuition fee allowed in government-funded universities. It is set up to deliver a profit to its shareholders who include the professors and a team of wealthy businessmen who have bankrolled the plan. “At £18,000 a go, it seems it won’t be the very brightest but those with the deepest pockets who are afforded the chance,” said Sally Hunt, general secretary of the lecturers’ association, the University and Colleges Union. “The launch of this college highlights the government’s failure to protect art and humanities and is further proof that its university funding plans will entrench inequality within higher education.” Grayling said the decision to set up New College came after the government cut subsidies to humanities and social science subjects and introduced increased competition by allowing universities to charge annual tuition fees of up to £9,000. He admitted the business model might seem unusual for a group of professors who are, for the most part, “pink around the gills and a little bit left of centre”, but he said government cuts meant going private was the only way to provide a high-quality humanities education and he predicted more universities would go private. “It is the economic reality,” he said. “The £9,000 cap is completely unsustainable. The true cost is way more and that ceiling is going to have to be burst. Other universities might also think ‘either we sink or go independent’. Almost all of [the professors signed up] have served our time with decades in public sector higher education and we have seen it get more and more difficult. It is quite a struggle now to see into the future with how we can cope with these cuts. Either you stand on the sidelines deploring what is happening or you jump in and do something about it.” Other teachers signed up include Sir David Cannadine, a history lecturer at Princeton; Ronald Dworkin QC, a leading constitutional lawyer teaching at University College London and New York University; and Steve Jones, a leading geneticist. Lawrence Krauss, professor of earth and space exploration and physics at Arizona state university, who has advised Barack Obama on science policy, will teach cosmology. The college sets out to “inspire the next generation of lawyers, journalists, financiers, politicians, civil servants, writers and teachers” and every student must take extra classes in ethics, science, literacy and logic and critical thinking as well as a course in practical professional skills. Scholarships will be granted to one in five of the first 200 students. An endowment fund is being established to try to increase that ratio to one in three. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the move showed that “an education in humanities from some of the leading thinkers in the world will be restricted to the richest” and that academics would be removed from the public system. “This institution has been created as a reaction to the government’s swingeing cuts to higher education funding that have seen all teaching funding removed from many humanities subjects,” he said. “If the government does not hit the brakes on this rushed reform and reverse the cuts to funding, the UK’s currently world-leading public universities will be irreparably damaged.” Gareth Thomas, Labour’s universities spokesman, commended Grayling for his initiative, but added: “It is a sad reflection of the scale of government cuts in higher education that it is taking a private initiative to drive new investment in arts, humanities and social sciences courses. “When independent experts are warning that 80% cuts in funding are likely to lead to large numbers of humanities courses being axed I worry that high fees will deter many of the brightest and best from studying those arts, English and humanities courses that remain.” The college aims to attract candidates with at least three A grades at A-level with the promise of more direct teaching than at traditional universities. The student-teacher ratio will be better than 10 to one and there will be 12 to 13 hours’ contact with teachers each week. Graduates will come away with a degree from the University of London and a separate diploma from the college to reflect the additional course that includes practical professional skills such as financial literacy, teamwork, presentation and strategy. One of the backers is Charles Watson, chairman of the City PR firm Financial Dynamics. He said: “Higher education in the UK must evolve if it is to offer the best quality experience for students and safeguard our future economic and intellectual wealth. New College offers a different model – one that brings additional, private sector funding into higher education in the humanities when it is most needed, and combines scholarships and tuition fees.” Grayling said the organisation had raised “a very significant” amount of money, thought to be more than £5m, to fund the college . One third is owned by Grayling and the 13 other founding professors, while shares are also owned by a group of wealthy businessmen. They include Jeremy Gibbs, former chief executive of specialist venture capital consultancy, Matthew Batstone, former marketing chief of the Economist Group and a trustee at Bedales, a £30,000-a-year boarding school, and Roy Brown, the founder of Metier Management Systems which pioneered computer project management systems in the 1970s and 1980s. Higher education Tuition fees Students Lecturers Richard Dawkins Steve Jones Niall Ferguson Robert Booth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Bloodiest weekend of uprising yet as Assad regime attempts to quell news by cutting off internet in major cities Syria has experienced one of its bloodiest weekends since the start of the uprising, with details emerging today of a violent crackdown on Friday despite the government’s attempt to stop news spreading by cutting off the internet in major cities. Across the country, an estimated 90 people were killed on Friday, with dozens more dying since. Residents of the western town of Jisr al-Shughourin said at least 35 people had been killed there since Saturday. The crackdown continued today, with activists reporting gunfire and tanks moving into the town of Khan Shikhon in the north-west province of Idlib. Rights groups say more than 1,200 people have died and at least 10,000 have been detained in Syria since March . Videos from Friday show what appears to be some of the biggest rallies yet, as well as graphic scenes of violence. One, purportedly taken from the roof of Al-Karak mosque in Deraa shows five men with their heads smashed lying in pools of blood. Another shows a man in plain-clothes firing on unarmed protesters in the city of Hama, where most of the people were killed on Friday; the city was calmer on Saturday, when thousands of people gathered for funerals, activists said. In 1982 in Hama, between 10,000 and 30,000 people were killed when Syria’s then president, Hafez al-Assad, father of the current president, Bashar al-Assad, ordered security forces to put down an Islamist uprising in the city. State media agency, Sana, reported that four policemen were killed by armed terrorist groups who attacked state buildings and police stations in Jisr al-Shughour. It did not mention a video posted online that purports to show Hama protesters hanging a man, apparently a security policeman found among mourners at a funeral on Saturday. Activists say the video has not been verified, but acknowledge that a small minority of protesters are fighting back. At least four children were among those killed at the weekend, the Local Co-ordinating Committees, a network of local opposition groups, said. Friday’s protests were called Freedom for Children Friday in memory of more than 72 children killed since the protests began in mid-March. Outrage has grown over the death of 13-year-old Hamza al-Khateeb, whose body was handed back to his parents last week with marks of severe torture. “We are all mothers of Hamza al-Khateeb” reads one of the banners held by women shown in a video of a sit-in at a private home. Meanwhile, rights groups say around 500 people have been released from prison under an amnesty announced last week as the government continues to claim it is making preparations for a national dialogue. Opposition members and analysts have said the moves are insincere, and do not go far enough. A gathering of opposition members last week in Turkey described Assad’s rule as unsustainable, given the brutality of the regime towards its citizens. A statement on Friday at the end of the four-day conference called on Assad to “resign immediately” and to hand authority to his vice-president “until the election of a transitional council”. The decision to cut the internet on Friday appears also to have backfired, irritating Syrians and drawing condemnation from the US. On Saturday, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said: “Syria must understand that attempting to silence its population can’t prevent the transition taking place.” However, despite growing criticism by western governments, they have stopped short of calling on Assad to step down. A draft UN security council resolution has yet to be put to the vote, with opposition coming from China and Russia. Syria Bashar Al-Assad Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Hillary Clinton Nidaa Hassan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …