The mission to nail Osama bin Laden could have gone horribly wrong. That’s why the heart-stopping raid was the “longest 40 minutes of my life,” President Obama revealed in a 60 Minutes interview aired yesterday. Officials “had a sense of when gunfire and explosions took place,” but “we could not…
Continue reading …Egyptian officials warned yesterday that an “iron fist” will enforce national security in the wake of violent clashes between Muslims and Christians in Cairo that left 12 dead and nearly 200 wounded. Some 190 people arrested will face military trials in a special “deterrent” against further violence, and laws will…
Continue reading …Tonight BBC4 will begin repeating this 1976 Doctor Who story. It’s the perfect way to honour to Elisabeth Sladen The recent death of Elisabeth Sladen , best known for her role as Doctor Who’s time travelling companion Sarah Jane Smith, prompted an extraordinary outpouring of grief from her peers and fans young and old. And when it came to asking which story the BBC should repeat in her honour, the candidates seemed endless. Planet of the Spiders, when Sarah Jane first witnessed a regeneration, Pertwee bowing out with the seminal line, “a tear, Sarah Jane?” The bravehearted face-off against Davros in Genesis of the Daleks? Her eerie vulnerability in possession caper Pyramids of Mars? Instead BBC Four will repeat 1976 story The Hand of Fear tonight and tomorrow. The four-parter holds all of those qualities that made Sarah Jane, and the woman who played her, so loved: the heart, the courage and the fragility. But it is of course most notable as being her final appearance in the classic series. The Hand of Fear itself is a classic from the Hammer-inspired period, with the disembodied hand of ancient species Eldrad causing havoc in a nuclear power station, feeding off the radiation to grow back into its true form and attempting a standard enslavement attempt. But it’s also among the strongest examples of its type: given the chance to film in a real nuclear plant (in 1976!), the producers could deliver expensive-looking wideshots, a world away from the wobbly sets of legend. The adventure is notable for the ridiculous Andy Pandy outfit Sarah Jane had to wear, but when she is possessed (as happens rather often), the childish costume, coupled with a dead-eyed Sladen camping it up, declaring that “Eldrad must live!”, means her porcelain face is every bit the killer dolly. It’s vintage Sarah Jane. It seems crazy now, but the original plan had been to kill Sarah Jane off, perhaps as a marker of how iconic the character had become. It was testament to how much affection had developed for Sladen that her request for that not to happen was met. It wouldn’t be fair on the younger children, she reasoned. Neither did she want to be married off, as had happened to her predecessor, Katy Manning’s Jo Grant. This wouldn’t be true to the character, she figured, and her unspoken feelings for the Doctor. So Sarah Jane’s exit feels low-key, but no less powerful. It’s a common criticism of old Doctor Who that the female characters are underwritten tropes who come and go like carousel horses. The worst thing you could say about Sarah Jane’s exit is it maybe feels a little tacked on compared to the epic story arcs that greet companions nowadays. But Baker and Sladen rewrote the scripts themselves to deliver something fitting. Cold from the ice planet, grumpy at being possessed once too often, an exasperated Sarah declares that: “I’m going to pack up my goodies and go home!” Exasperated that the Doctor doesn’t appear to be listening, bungling under the console, she storms off and does just that, demanding to return to south Croydon. While she’s off packing her goodies, the Doctor receives a summons to Gallifrey from the Time Lords, and “realises” that he cannot take a human to his home planet and Sarah must indeed depart. In many ways he’s behaving appallingly. The audience didn’t know at this point whether he was telling the truth (he never cared much for Time Lord custom in the past), or whether he had realised that he’d denied this woman a normal life for too long, and was breaking his own heart to do the right thing. As the domestic turns serious, Sarah’s face cracks, she claims she was only joking to get a rise, but they both know it’s over. As ever with this extraordinary friendship, it’s about what isn’t said. They part with some platitudes about how “travel really does broaden the mind,” and she scuttles off whistling, not imagining for a minute that she won’t see him again for 30 years. A little sad, but striding off into the future whistling. This was Sarah Jane Smith. We discovered the true emotional cost of what happened to Sarah, of the Doctor’s alien misunderstanding of human emotion, when they were reunited in 2006, Sarah having been unable to ever truly move on. We also discovered that rather than south Croydon, he’d actually left her in Aberdeen. Sarah Jane’s story eventually got its happy ending. For Elisabeth Sladen’s rather mournful one, I can’t think of a more suitable tribute. • Doctor Who: Hand of Fear, will be on BBC4 at 7.40 and 8.05pm on Monday 9 May, and again on Tuesday 10 May Doctor Who Television Science fiction Fantasy BBC4 BBC Television industry Dan Martin guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Dominique Strauss-Kahn pictured in €100,000 car, undermining socialist credentials ahead of expected bid for presidency In a country that has never forgiven Nicolas Sarkozy’s love of bling, it wasn’t the brightest idea for the French Socialists’ great presidential hope to be photographed climbing into a €100,000 Porsche car. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund and long-hailed as the only man who can beat Sarkozy, now looks certain to return to France and run for president in 2012. Secret meetings in Paris in recent days have mobilised his future campaign team. But “Porschegate” has created a headache for the man whose greatest challenge is convincing voters that he is not a haughty champagne socialist. From Washington, Strauss-Kahn has spent months trying to convey to the French electorate that he is not the voice of globalised fat cats and highly-paid technocrats but a true leftwing intellectual who can save the French social model. Sliding into a sports car outside his €4m (£3.5m) Paris penthouse with his millionaire wife was a faux pas, even if the vehicle was not his, but belonged to an adviser who works for one of France’s richest men. Sarkozy’s entourage could not hide their glee. So many Porsche jokes flew around the Socialist party that Ségolène Royal, a rival of Strauss-Kahn, ordered her supporters not to crack sports-car gags online. Things were made worse for Strauss-Kahn, as France on Monday marked 30 years since François Mitterrand’s 1981 election victory. Mitterrand is modern France’s only Socialist president; his sphinx-like public self-restraint went under the slogan La force tranquile (calm strength). Strauss-Kahn was quickly dubbed La Porsche tranquile . Strauss-Kahn – or DSK has he is known in France – has remained silent over his presidential ambitions owing to the impartiality of his IMF job. But his lieutenants in Paris said over weekend that he will declare his intentions on 28 June, the start of the Socialists’ race to chose a candidate. Polls continue to show him far ahead of Sarkozy. The latest survey for LH2 found Strauss-Kahn would take 23% of the vote followed by the extreme right politician Marine Le Pen (17%) and Sarkozy (16%). Not only would DSK beat Sarkozy, the incumbent would be eliminated in the first round. “To walk away now looks weak,” said a diplomat who knows Strauss-Kahn but wanted to remain anonymous. Jean-Jacques Urvoas, one of DSK’s close supporters, said he was “convinced” his man would run. But even advisers acknowledge that a return to Paris would not be easy. A former finance minister and economics professor, Strauss-Kahn will land in the middle of a party fighting over a primary race to nominate its candidate. His attributes – a presidential demeanour, experience of global politics, understanding of finance – are also weaknesses. He has been criticised for being haughty and arrogant, and worst of all “free-market” and not truly leftwing. Despite being regarded as the architect of the 35-hour week, a cause celebre of the French left, Strauss-Kahn is seen as to the right of his party. “He’s not a socialist,” said Roland Dumas, a former foreign minister in the Mitterrand government. The Socialists chose Royal over Strauss-Kahn to run in the last presidential election in 2007. He now faces another rival, her former partner François Hollande. The former Socialist party leader has emerged as a surprise challenger by positioning himself as a man of the people against DSK’s man of the establishment. In a poll this week, Hollande was seen as the Socialist who most resembled Mitterrand. The primary race will begin in June and end in the autumn. Strauss-Kahn’s greatest weapon may proved to be his third wife, Anne Sinclair, France’s answer to the Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman. She has helped neutralise his moneyed image by preparing a book about her art-dealer grandfather, suggesting the couple’s wealth comes from her inheritance rather than her husband. Sinclair has also set out to neutralise Strauss-Kahn’s troubled image as, what the French press politely call, “the great seducer”. In 2006, when he was last preparing to run for president, she told L’Express she was “rather proud” of his reputation, saying: “It’s important for a politician to be able to seduce.” Sinclair has remained silent over his brief affair with a senior IMF colleague. In 2008, an IMF investigation cleared him of harassment and favouritism over the affair while deeming it a “serious error of judgment”. When Porschegate erupted and the right took advantage, the MP Pierre Moscovici, a DSK lieutenant, warned against a campaign of “stink bombs”. It was interpreted not only as a warning against jibes about Strauss-Kahn’s wealth but also to silence rumours that the Sarkozy camp could go rummaging through his private life to catch him out during an election campaign. Olivier Ferrand, who is head of the thinktank Terra Nova and is close to Strauss-Kahn, said the Socialist party primary would work in DSK’s favour, giving him a “legitimacy” as the left’s true candidate if he won. The Socialist party, which could be dented by anti-globalisation candidates on the hard left, wants to avoid a repeat of the “political aberration” of April 2002 when an array of leftwing candidates split the vote and the Socialists were knocked out of in the first round by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National. France Nicolas Sarkozy Europe Angelique Chrisafis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Twitter claims of intimate photos of socialite and Top Gear host are untrue and upsetting, says Khan Jemima Khan described weekend rumours that she has taken out a gagging order preventing “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson being published as a “bloody nightmare”. The socialite was among a number of celebrities alleged to have taken out privacy injunctions to stop potentially embarrassing details being made public. A Twitter account claiming to expose the celebrities has attracted about 30,000 followers since its first message on Sunday afternoon. Khan said the rumours were ” untrue and upsetting “, and added on Monday: “I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I’m getting vile hate tweets.” Khan has consistently denied having obtained a gagging order. On Monday, Mark Stephens, a senior media lawyer at Finers Stephens Innocent, told the Guardian: “This is discriminatory justice: not one single woman has sought or obtained a superinjunction.” Stephens added that the Twitter user behind the allegations “should expect a knock on the door within the next 48 hours” from solicitors representing the stars. “If it is false, it is libellous; if it is true, it is contemptuous,” he said. The lawyer added that anybody acting for the celebrities could attempt to force Twitter to hand over information about the person behind the account. “Twitter can reveal the user who dialled up to the connection at that time,” he told the Guardian. “The technical trail is indelible – it has the fingerprints of the miscreant all over it. They should expect a knock at the door in the next 48 hours and they should take their toothbrush to court, because they can expect to spend a very long time in Pentonville [prison].” Privacy injunctions – and the high-profile figures alleged to have obtained them – have been thrown into the spotlight in recent weeks as MPs warn of a new privacy law created by judges, rather than parliament. The use of Twitter and other internet sites to publicise the alleged injunctions has made the high court gagging orders “increasingly untenable,” Stephens said on Monday. “We’re in Spycatcher territory here. Eventually, the House of Lords will be forced to accept that the purpose of an injunction has been removed so remove it – as I’m sure they will on this occasion.” Twitter had not returned a request to comment at the time of publication. On Sunday, a Twitter spokesman said the company “strive[s] not to remove tweets on the basis of their content,” but that it would remove “illegal tweets and spam”. Keith Arrowsmith, the head of intellectual property and media at Ralli solicitors, told the Guardian that superinjunctions – where even the existence of a gagging order cannot be reported – are rendered ineffective without an international “supercourt” to implement them. “Anything the government says about privacy law is now nonsense, because they can only tweak UK law.” More details soon … • To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”. • To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook . Privacy & the media Media law Press freedom Newspapers & magazines Newspapers Superinjunctions Twitter Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A little-known Elizabethan lyric, this week’s poem is an elegant, complex meditation on evanescence I discovered this week’s poem in a glorious anthology, Elizabethan Lyrics, edited by Norman Ault in 1925 . I’d like to say a bit about the anthology first, because it’s such an achievement. Ault’s aim was to challenge the conventional claim about Elizabethan poetry that “After Wyatt and Surrey, nothing; then Sidney and the giants.” The major figures receive duly generous space, of course, but around them swirls a garland of minor but exquisite works, some by Anon, many by long-forgotten names. And, having mined the printed poetry collections, dramatic works, songbooks and manuscripts of the period, Ault arranges all the poems, as far as possible, in chronological order. This means that the poems of the productive major figures are not clumped in the usual way, but scattered across the volume, allowing individual developments, influences and shifts of fashion to be traced. Ault’s cornucopia of an anthology demonstrates that “the giants” were of their time as well as above it; feeding, and fed by, its remarkably fertile soil. The author of this week’s poem, “A Palinode,” is represented only by this single composition (dated 1600) – but what a complex and lovely piece it is. Edmund Bolton was born c.1575 and died c.1633. It seems he was an eccentric sort of character: a Catholic, he held a court post under James I, only to fall out of favour on the accession of Charles I and end his days imprisoned for debt. The palinode is not a strict poetic form: the term simply means a retraction. Bolton, however, raises retraction to an art. His poem is shaped as two sonnets, each rather different in rhyme-scheme, and certainly not straightforward mirror-images of statement and retraction. The sonnets are ingeniously linked by argument and images, the latter arranged in different patterns and symmetries. Bolton might be shaking a kaleidoscope or choreographing a very elaborate minuet. He begins with some pleasant but fairly conventional imagery. Notice how the key verbs of the first four lines (“wither”, “fade”, “vanish”, “melt”) are taken up by the fifth, but set in reverse order, more palindrome than palinode. The sixth line repeats the images of the first four in their original order (“primrose”, “sunlit fountains”, “bubble”, “snow”) but the “primrose” now becomes the “rose”, the “sunlit fountains” are simply, and rather magically, “the shine.” And in line seven we see why. Bolton has evolved a further metaphor: the rose, shine, bubble and snow are now attributes “Of praise, pomp, glory, joy –”. If you’re feeling faintly dazzled, put on your sunglasses; Bolton hasn’t finished. A final melancholy scene reprises the natural emblems, with further beautifully evocative adjectives, and asserts the Biblical lesson. The human treasures we “up-lay” also “wither, vanish, fade, and melt away”. Those verbs do not, of course, denote a logical progress, or “vanish” would need to come last. They simply denote various kinds of evanescence. The second sonnet begins with the four key images, again in reverse order. First, there’s the snow, now attached to an expansive conceit that indicts the over-ambitious hills whose nakedness its melting has exposed. The bubble sails away and wreaks havoc – a shipwreck, no less. Perhaps the repetition of the word “dalliance” should alert us to an erotic subtext? At this point, the plot thickens, the wordplay intensifies. The sun has melted the snow, and perhaps we half expect a chain of reactions now, along the lines of “The House that Jack Built.” But that’s not what happens. The sun restores negative to positive, colours the bubble, makes the primrose grow. Bolton can only be building to another retraction. He is, but he expresses it subtly, concluding his bravura display with a rhetorical question rather than a statement. The final couplet unites the two quartets of concrete and abstract nouns. Evanescence wins, but evanescence itself is temporary. Flowers fade, but grow again, and so on. Bolton’s “A Palinode” reminds me of Louis MacNeice’s “Snow” (it’s possible, of course, that MacNeice knew the Palinode, and sourced his snow and roses there). Bolton, too, sets disparate images together and somehow suggests that, even if life is mere shine and bubble, there is constant wonder in “the drunkenness of things being various”. The poem creates an impression not of pendulum-like assertion and retraction, but of circularity. What goes around comes around, and vice versa. Bolton puts it far more memorably. A Palinode As withereth the primrose by the river, As fadeth summer’s sun from gliding fountains, As vanisheth the light-blown bubble ever, As melteth snow upon the mossy mountains: So melts, so vanishes, so fades, so withers The rose, the shine, the bubble and the snow Of praise, pomp, glory, joy – which short life gathers – Fair praise, vain pomp, sweet glory, brittle joy. The withered primrose by the mourning river, The faded summer’s sun from weeping fountains, The light-blown bubble, vanishéd for ever, The molten snow upon the naked mountains, Are emblems that the treasures we up-lay Soon wither, vanish, fade and melt away. For as the snow, whose lawn did overspread The ambitious hills, which giant-like did threat To pierce the heaven with their aspiring head, Naked and bare doth leave their craggy seat; Whenas the bubble, which did empty fly The dalliance of the undiscernéd wind, On whose calm rolling waves it did rely, Hath shipwreck made, where it did dalliance find; And when the sunshine, which dissolved the snow, Coloured the bubble with a pleasant vary, And made the rathe and timely primrose grow, Swarth clouds withdrawn (which longer time do tarry) – Oh, what is praise, pomp, glory, joy, but so As shine by fountains, bubbles, flowers or snow? Poetry Carol Rumens guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …• Today’s agenda • Timeline: NHS reforms • NHS reforms: who are the key players? • NHS reform jargon explained • What are the key issues? 12.29pm: Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, has been out touring the studios to say the coalition has to realise the health and social care bill is “a bad bill”. He was backed, albeit in an unrelated interview, by Spectator editor Fraser Nelson, who said he’d be “delighted if this bill was withdrawn”. Labour’s frontbench spokeswoman Emily Thornberry (above), who in the last election won her seat partly by fighting against a local hospital closure, told the BBC that it was worth noting that the Department of Health’s response to criticism by family doctors was to say the bill was “going to get the market to work in favour of patients”. Thornberry noted: A third of the bill will create a new monster called Monitor … to “drive competition into the heart of the NHS’. Once you let that genie out of the bottle you can never put it back again. Meanwhile over at Channel 4, London GP Dr Jonathon Tomlinson argues that the NHS will be gobbled up by private companies. As Adrian Fawcett, CEO of the largest private hospital group in the UK – General Healthcare Group (GHG) – said: “We are entering a new, exciting era, driven by the forthcoming healthcare reform that will ultimately change, to our benefit, the landscape in which we operate.” I can imagine the future for my patients. Because of the cuts, several unprofitable departments in the local hospital will have closed. The services will hopefully be available elsewhere, but my patients will be forced to travel to unfamiliar and inconvenient places. They will be “allowed” to pay extra to jump queues for treatment, to have side-rooms in hospital or additional care. Those services that remain free will have long waiting lists and will be severely restricted, for example physiotherapy or psychotherapy will be limited to a handful of sessions with a junior practitioner. Simple procedures can be performed more efficiently and profitably than complex care, so that care for the elderly, home care, psychiatry, and treatment for addiction will be hit hardest because market incentives will divert resources towards the most profitable work. My job as coordinator of my patients’ care will be made impossible because of the huge array of different companies involved in looking after my patients. 12.05pm: The union of British doctors has just sent us their briefing paper for MPs ahead of today’s opposition debate. Essentially, the British Medical Association (BMA) seems to be saying that they’ll support Lansley’s bill, but only if all of its key demands are taken out. The letter reads: The bill brings into stark relief a number of grave concerns about the way the government wants to change the NHS, and the BMA believes that it requires significant amendment to prevent these concerns becoming reality. There remain considerable gaps, which must be addressed to ensure proper accountability, to prevent unacceptable variation and to ensure appropriate national oversight of key issues such as education, training and workforce. Here are a few of the BMA’s suggested changes: • Challenging the role of the health regulator: “Monitor’s primary role is not to promote competition but is to protect and promote high quality, comprehensive, integrated healthcare services.” • Maintaining the role of the secretary of state as having “ultimate overall responsibility” for the health service, with continued national oversight of medical education and training. • Challenging timetable to get rid of PCTs and make hospitals achieve foundation status. The BMA says that the timetable should remain flexible to prevent “artificially rigid” timetables undermining patient care. • The BMA also calls for “strong safeguards” to be put in place to ensure that patient confidentiality is not undermined by the Information Revolution. The head of the BMA, Hamish Meldrum, has already spoken out against the proposed reforms on this blog . 11.56am: Paul Corrigan, Tony Blair’s former health adviser, writes here about the planned health reforms. The killer paragraphs are here: On the ground there are already significant changes happening for patients. Last Thursday I received my first email advert from a private medical insurance company that was selling to me based clearly upon the impact of the Government NHS reforms. A firm providing users with an overall analysis of all private medical insurance, your health, your choice, beat that quote. Their offer recognised the return of waiting lists to the NHS, something that had become a thing of the past: “With this type of insurance you are able to avoid NHS waiting lists and secure treatment as quickly as possible.” Those selling private medical insurance recognise the anxiety that people on NHS waiting lists feel. They recognise that waiting lists have increased over the last year and that therefore they have an opportunity to sell to people on those lists. The government have withdrawn the necessity for the NHS to reduce waiting times and by doing so have renewed a market for private medical insurance that had been diminished by the success of the 18-week target. Up until this time last year I thought the NHS had won this issue. But in one short year the basket case that is NHS reform has increased waiting lists and reopened this market. 11.34am: Andrew George (left), the Lib Dem MP for St Ives, has sent a press release to the blog headlined: NHS reform: Better start afresh says Liberal Democrat rebel leader It’s true to say that George has been hostile to the coalition’s proposed reforms since they were first floated. But he is raising the stakes again today calling for a stop rather than a pause in the reforms. We have a chance to allow the coalition to mature now that it’s passed its first anniversary. We should work together where we agree; seek compromise where we don’t; and where comprise cannot be reached agree to take unresolved matters to parliament to decide. We should adopt “listening” as a theme for government, not as grudging concession when things start falling apart. The bill itself should be stopped rather than paused. Any policy which undermines the NHS ethos through marketisation, fragments services which need to be integrated and which hands executive power to a narrow group of clinicians who are reluctant to take on such responsibilities anyway is destined to fail. Any attempt to remove the duty on government to maintain a comprehensive NHS, as this bill does, should be vigorously opposed too. To use the language of the NHS chief exec – Sir David Nicholson – you should be able to see this government U-turn “from outer space”. If not then we should start again. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to turn the debate around since my lone voice protest 10 months ago. Saving the NHS is more important than saving a few egos in the coalition. Will anyone follow the rebel leader? 11.07am: With Labour and the Tories trading blows over health cuts, Randeep Ramesh has been digging around in some of the international data on health. A couple of things stand out: 1. According to the IMF: “The projections suggest that the outlook is grim in the United States, but also in Europe, where the fiscal challenge posed by health spending is sometimes underestimated.” IMF projected increase in public health spending in advanced economies, 2011-30, per cent of GDP: 2. Our GPs, according to the OECD, the rich world’s thinktank, are among the best paid in the world – see graph below. The truth is that about 40% of the government’s projected £20bn of savings comes from cutting staff costs – and that means taking on doctors over pay. While GPs are no doubt sincere in their attacks over the detrimental pro-competition aspects of the health bill, there is a question over whether doctors’ opposition is rooted in self-interest. 10.40am: How are health cuts affecting patients right now? In this audio interview , Rowenna Davis speaks to Linda Reason, the head of health and adult care at Barking and Dagenham council, and Anne Bristow, the director of adult and community services, to find out. In this interview, the council members explain how decisions are being taken “behind closed doors”. Senior cabinet members are only being told about spending cuts the night before they are due to be announced. Already they say that walk-in centres have been closed and access to GPs is being denied. A campaign to save services has also been launched, with almost 1,000 signatures collected so far. _ 10.12am: The Daily Telegraph’s political editor was briefed over the weekend that Downing Street has sent over his own health adviser to the Department of Health to “sell the reforms” . Sean Worth, who is currently David Cameron’s health adviser in Downing Street, will make the short journey across Whitehall and act as a close adviser to Mr Lansley. I am indebted to Andy Cowper , who points out that long ago health experts had singled out Worth as a safe pair of hands. Worth is a labour economist by training, and was behind the Tories’ voluntary insurance proposals to fund long-term care for the elderly. Henry Featherstone, formerly of Policy Exchange and now in PR, wrote this profile of Worth for the HSJ 100 . Featherstone presciently wrote that Worth is “politically astute and dedicated to market ideology”. Worth “will be relied on to push through reform if the DH stumbles”, she said. 10.00am: PoliticsHome (paywall) has been following former Liberal Democrat MP and practising doctor Evan Harris on Radio 5 Live. My colleague Andrew Sparrow over at the Politics blog emails with what Harris said: We have two conferences a year, in September and in March, and in March we identified democratically and clearly those bits of the bill that we didn’t like so yes you could say the Liberal Democrats formally didn’t reject until March a bill that wasn’t launched in January but there wasn’t any opportunity between January and March for us to identify what parts; we didn’t have the processes in place. 9.50am: Our health correspondent Denis Campbell just sent us his thoughts on the Royal College of GPs’ comments today. Here he questions the future of the health secretary at a time when many are describing the health bill as a “poll tax in an NHS uniform”: The Royal College of GPs’ submission to the government’s NHS “listening exercise” could not be more timely. Nick Clegg told Andrew Marr yesterday – bluntly, not in the usual political code – that the Liberal Democrats wouldn’t wear the health and social care bill unless it underwent major changes. Today GPs’ leaders are saying essentially the same thing. Significantly, the deputy prime minister yesterday said that “no bill is better than a bad one”. Given the chance the RGP would probably rather see the entire bill scrapped and the government start again from scratch in its approach to NHS reform. Interestingly, both the Lib Dems and the RCGPs – especially the latter – are pressing for changes to some of the bill’s real fundamentals, especially the planned ultra-intensification of competition in England’s NHS. That’s the element of health secretary Andrew Lansley’s plans that has caused the most trouble politically for the government; the fear, justified or not, that “any willing provider” and other elements of marketisation will see the NHS privatised. Every passing day makes Lansley’s hold on his job appear more and more tenuous. The fact that he remains convinced that his bill needs only minor changes shows how unsuited he is to playing a central role in the coalition’s post-”listening exercise” efforts to belatedly win hearts and minds in this most delicate of areas, the NHS. The bigger the Cameron/Clegg-agreed U-turn ultimately is, the worse his chances of survival. Increasingly he is in office but not in power. That is a real shame for a man who, whatever his failings, friends say is so genuinely, passionately committed to his vision of transforming the NHS for the best possible reasons. Can anyone think of such radical proposals from a cabinet minister in recent memory that have been so poorly explained, and so signally failed to gain consent and then had to undergo this actually extraordinary two-month “pause”? No wonder some critics see it as the poll tax in an NHS uniform. 9.43am: Here is today’s media round-up. The health reforms are dominating the news this morning, and we’ll be following up these stories throughout the day … • This morning a new report from the Royal College of GPs warned that the NHS could “unravel” if the health secretary’s reforms went ahead , as covered by the BBC . The college want the government to step back from introducing market forces into the NHS. Most important perhaps for patients is that family doctors won’t be able to charge the sick for coming into surgery. That commissioners or providers should not be able to charge patients for healthcare services that are currently provided free by the NHS or are recommended by Nice. • According to our colleagues over at the Politics blog , Conservatives aren’t happy about Nick Clegg’s comments over the weekend, when the deputy prime minister positioned himself against the reforms. • Last night the health secretary Andrew Lansley released a statement saying that new analysis of Labour’s spending plans shows that they would cut NHS budgets by £28bn over the next four years. The editor of the Spectator magazine, Fraser Nelson, sounds disappointed , saying he’s “singing someone else’s song”. • On the Today programme this morning, Norman Lamb, Nick Clegg’s point man in parliament, and John Redwood, the Tory right’s ideologue-in-chief, went head to head. Lamb, his party’s former spokesperson on health, said changes to the bill “shouldn’t be regarded as concessions to placate Lib Dems”. But Lamb did warn that US-style privatisation of healthcare would be a “disaster” and that there was a “concern” that the reform “elevates competition above other really important principles”. Redwood said he “loves the NHS” and accused the Lib Dem’s deputy leader Simon Hughes of “not understanding the NHS at all”. “These are coalition proposals that the Liberal Democrats contributed very strongly to.” Nick Robinson gave a great intro: describing the rise and fall of Andrew Lansley, Tory health secretary, in the eyes of the professionals and how an Orange Book Clegg advocated a European-style health system, where people paid insurance premiums rather than tax – and accurately described the NHS reforms as a contest between Lib Dems and Tories for “the credit” in changing the bill. 8.57am: The health secretary must be anxiously preparing for his appearance in the Commons this afternoon. This weekend Nick Clegg threatened to derail the minister’s plans to shake up the NHS unless they were significantly reformed. Today the Royal College of GPs has warned that the NHS could “unravel” if his health bill goes ahead. We’ll be live-blogging Andrew Lansley’s responses during health questions this afternoon, and a lot more besides. With a focus on cuts to health services, here is today’s star line up: Coming soon: Our health correspondent Denis Campbell gives us his thoughts on the report from the Royal College of GPs out today. 10:30am: Linda Reason, cabinet member for health and adult services in Barking and Dagenham, talks to us about what effects the cuts are having on patients right now. 1-2pm: Nick Seddon, deputy director of the liberal thinktank Reform, will be debating the case for cuts with Barbara McKenna, Unison’s head of health for the east Midlands, and Richard Grimes, who writes on health issues at Torylies . 3pm: We’ll be hearing from another senior Unison member about their meeting with the health secretary, straight after putting their concerns to him this afternoon. Also this afternoon – we’ll be live blogging the health questions as Lansley appears in parliament and covering the Labour opposition day debate. 4-5pm: Gary Walker, former chief executive at United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust who presided over massive efficiency savings who now leads management consultant firm Modern Leader , comes on to tell us how it worked along with head of a health charity facing cuts (name tbc). NHS Health Health policy Randeep Ramesh Rowenna Davis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The tightening suppression of China’s creative voices makes this a good moment to seek them out. Please point us in the right direction Last month’s coup, with Claire Armitstead blasting off to Russia in pursuit of Yuri Gagarin , spread a little stardust over our collection of recommendations , with Dominic H hymning the “sharp, beautful, unforgettable, prose” of Venedikt Yerofeev ‘s Brezhnev-era Inferno, Moscow Stations, GraceAndreacchi saluting Pechorin in Mikhail Lermontov ‘s A Hero of Our Time as “the Russian anti-hero at his Byronic best” and, of course, chak’s reminder of a work I’m sure we’re all familiar with, Alexander Plotkin’s, erm, запретный плод . But this month we’re taking the World literature tour back to its roots, calling up the spirit of Diego’s original invention and returning to the democratic principles on which it was first established by heading to … China. The irony of heading to the world’s mightiest totalitarian regime, which has kept a tight lid on dissent since 1989′s Tiananmen Square protests , on the basis of a vote, is acute. At the opening of the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008, International Pen identified 42 writers and journalists imprisoned by the regime , a situation which appears only to have worsened since, with 10 pages of International Pen’s 2010 caselist taken up with Chinese writers and recent uprisings across the Arab world prompting a new crackdown . All the more reason to celebrate both great writers from the past and those contemporary authors who are bravely creating fine work despite the commercial and political difficulties which surround them . Using the boxes below, we can assemble a list of fiction, non-fiction, poems and plays – whether written by Chinese authors or those looking at the Middle Kingdom from the outside – which can paint a portrait of life in China beyond the reach of any censor’s black marker. I’m off to recommend the excellent Zhu Wen , as well as Bi Feiyu’s brutal novella Moon Opera , filling in the country – that’s China – the title, the author, the translator and some indication of why they’re both so great in the boxes of power down below. But while you’re racking your brains over whether to suggest Li Bai or Wang Wei , remember to keep an eye on the future. After China, where next? Remember to vote for the country of your choice in the comments below. The destination of the World literature is in your hands. Fiction Poetry Richard Lea guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Oscar-nominated actor reportedly frontrunner to star in Quentin Tarantino’s spaghetti western tribute set in days of slavery The storyline to Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained was revealed recently when the screenplay leaked online. Now it appears that Will Smith is emerging as the frontrunner to play the lead role. Django Unchained – the title pays tribute to the 1966 Sergio Corbucci film Django, and is a paean to spaghetti westerns – calls for an actor to play a black slave who escapes from his bonds and becomes a gunslinger. The setting is the deep south, rather than the old west, and the title character will be joined on his mission to free his still-enslaved wife by a German bounty hunter. Austrian actor and new Tarantino favourite, Christoph Waltz, is being lined up to play the latter part following his Oscar-winning turn as a SS colonel in Inglourious Basterds. The Hollywood Reporter says there will also be a role for Tarantino stalwart Samuel L Jackson, that of the manipulative house slave to the villain – plantation owner Monsieur Calvin Candie (Django’s former master). The screenplay calls for a face-off between the two African-American characters. No official offer has yet been made to Smith, and with a script that apparently features extravagant use of the “N” word, it’s a film that could yet prove difficult to cast. Django Unchained reportedly explores the issue of race in typically breezy Tarantino style. The Hollywood Reporter suggests the Oscar-nominated actor has received the script but says it’s unclear at this stage whether he will sign on the dotted line. Inglourious Basterds was Tarantino’s most successful film so far at the global box office, pulling in an impressive $321m (£196m). Teaming up with Smith, one of the top high-earning stars in the world, would make Django Unchained hot property when it arrives in cinemas next year. Tarantino aims to shoot in the autumn, potentially in Louisiana, so a 2012 release date seems possible. Will Smith Quentin Tarantino Action and adventure Ben Child guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …