Former home secretary appeals to Labour voters, saying the Tories have ‘most to lose from a fairer voting system’ Alan Johnson, the former home secretary and Labour grandee, has accused the coalition of hijacking the AV debate to air its “petty tensions”, after a series of high-profile clashes between ministers over next week’s referendum. Johnson told the Guardian that the debate was “bigger than the Liberal Democrats” and appealed to Labour voters to back the alternative vote, claiming that a vote against reform was in effect a vote for the Conservatives. The cabinet will meet for the first time after the Easter recess on Tuesday, with coalition relations at a new low. On Saturday, Vince Cable, the business secretary, appealed to Labour voters to back AV to end Tory domination, and on Sunday Nick Clegg accused David Cameron of being part of “a rightwing clique who want to keep things the way they are”. The row culminated with the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, suggesting he may take legal action against some of the claims made by Tories during their campaign against AV. Johnson told the Guardian: “The issue in this referendum is bigger than the Lib Dems or petty tensions in the coalition. “People don’t care who is going to sue who, but people do want a better politics and what we should be doing is debating just how AV will improve our politics. “The no camp love these squabbles because it does their job for them. What Labour voters need to ask is who wants them to vote no most. It’s the Tories. They are bankrolling the no campaign because they know they have most to lose from a fairer voting system.” Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Lib Dems, has warned against ministers letting AV become the issue that breaks the coalition, suggesting that the Tories could be using the row to distance themselves from their government partners in order to curry favour with disgruntled backbenchers. “Perhaps they will be satisfied by the notion that David Cameron is not rolling over in front of Nick Clegg,” he told the BBC. “Remember, this is a five-year agreement in a five-year parliament. The public would find themselves, I think, pretty cynical, if after a period of 12 months or 15 months, this were all to fall apart. But more to the point, the national interest, in whose name this coalition was forged, would be deeply, deeply damaged.” But the row appears to be rumbling on. Mark Pritchard, the secretary of the Conservative 1922 committee, said: “Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne should stop their whingeing. With each of them presiding over major government departments, they’ve never had it so good. “Their personal and political sacrifices are infinitesimal compared to those made by the hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs each week and many Conservative colleagues who gave up ministerial office for the sake of the coalition.” The Labour leadership sought to stay out of the growing row between the coalition partners – Labour MPs are divided between the yes and no camps – but a source in the leader’s office questioned whether the coalition could continue after such public displays of division. “The key issue is going to be after 5 May: how are they, as a government based on political convenience rather than principle, going to be coherent and functional having been through this,” the source said. “They are going to have to pretend that everything is hunky dory in the rose garden again.” Downing Street sources from both coalition partners said they always expected the AV campaign to become “feisty”, but insisted that they could regroup after the referendum, regardless of the result – as they had done when they formed the coalition after the acrimonious election campaign. The Electoral Commission confirmed there was no law governing claims made during referendum campaigns, meaning that Huhne’s threat of legal action is unlikely to go ahead. On Tuesday the no campaign will seek to prove its cross-party credentials when the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, takes part in telephone campaigning alongside the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett to campaign against AV. Alternative vote Alan Johnson Electoral reform Liberal-Conservative coalition Labour Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Former home secretary appeals to Labour voters, saying the Tories have ‘most to lose from a fairer voting system’ Alan Johnson, the former home secretary and Labour grandee, has accused the coalition of hijacking the AV debate to air its “petty tensions”, after a series of high-profile clashes between ministers over next week’s referendum. Johnson told the Guardian that the debate was “bigger than the Liberal Democrats” and appealed to Labour voters to back the alternative vote, claiming that a vote against reform was in effect a vote for the Conservatives. The cabinet will meet for the first time after the Easter recess on Tuesday, with coalition relations at a new low. On Saturday, Vince Cable, the business secretary, appealed to Labour voters to back AV to end Tory domination, and on Sunday Nick Clegg accused David Cameron of being part of “a rightwing clique who want to keep things the way they are”. The row culminated with the energy secretary, Chris Huhne, suggesting he may take legal action against some of the claims made by Tories during their campaign against AV. Johnson told the Guardian: “The issue in this referendum is bigger than the Lib Dems or petty tensions in the coalition. “People don’t care who is going to sue who, but people do want a better politics and what we should be doing is debating just how AV will improve our politics. “The no camp love these squabbles because it does their job for them. What Labour voters need to ask is who wants them to vote no most. It’s the Tories. They are bankrolling the no campaign because they know they have most to lose from a fairer voting system.” Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Lib Dems, has warned against ministers letting AV become the issue that breaks the coalition, suggesting that the Tories could be using the row to distance themselves from their government partners in order to curry favour with disgruntled backbenchers. “Perhaps they will be satisfied by the notion that David Cameron is not rolling over in front of Nick Clegg,” he told the BBC. “Remember, this is a five-year agreement in a five-year parliament. The public would find themselves, I think, pretty cynical, if after a period of 12 months or 15 months, this were all to fall apart. But more to the point, the national interest, in whose name this coalition was forged, would be deeply, deeply damaged.” But the row appears to be rumbling on. Mark Pritchard, the secretary of the Conservative 1922 committee, said: “Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne should stop their whingeing. With each of them presiding over major government departments, they’ve never had it so good. “Their personal and political sacrifices are infinitesimal compared to those made by the hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs each week and many Conservative colleagues who gave up ministerial office for the sake of the coalition.” The Labour leadership sought to stay out of the growing row between the coalition partners – Labour MPs are divided between the yes and no camps – but a source in the leader’s office questioned whether the coalition could continue after such public displays of division. “The key issue is going to be after 5 May: how are they, as a government based on political convenience rather than principle, going to be coherent and functional having been through this,” the source said. “They are going to have to pretend that everything is hunky dory in the rose garden again.” Downing Street sources from both coalition partners said they always expected the AV campaign to become “feisty”, but insisted that they could regroup after the referendum, regardless of the result – as they had done when they formed the coalition after the acrimonious election campaign. The Electoral Commission confirmed there was no law governing claims made during referendum campaigns, meaning that Huhne’s threat of legal action is unlikely to go ahead. On Tuesday the no campaign will seek to prove its cross-party credentials when the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, takes part in telephone campaigning alongside the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett to campaign against AV. Alternative vote Alan Johnson Electoral reform Liberal-Conservative coalition Labour Polly Curtis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Miraculously, no one was killed by the Friday night tornado that ripped through the St. Louis airport . But that doesn’t make the experience, captured by security cameras and reported by KMOX , any less terrifying. (Hat tip to Gawker for the find.) How is it that—even though 2,700…
Continue reading …Hundreds of prisoners, most of them Taliban fighters, escaped from an Afghanistan prison last night, and so far only 13 have been recaptured. Taliban militants staged the escape by digging a 1,050-foot underground tunnel into Kandahar’s main prison and leading about 475 prisoners out, the AP reports. Al Jazeera…
Continue reading …
Even if Barack Obama had not been born in the US, the birther version of the constitution would’ve excluded John McCain too Barack Obama was born in the United States. But even if he had not been (as the birthers believe), he would still be the legitimate President of the United States. The birther movement (apparently, now led by Donald Trump) argues that article 2, section 1 of the US constitution (“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”) requires that the Barack Obama of their universe (that is, born “abroad”) cannot be the legitimate president. For the birthers, the translation of “natural born citizen’” is simply “those born inside the United States”. To them, anyone born outside the United States is ineligible for the presidency. They are wrong. First, a little disclaimer: the birther attacks are personal to me. I was born in London to an American father and British mother. While I have a great and abiding respect for the UK (my British grandfather was an RAF officer of whom I am incredibly proud), my ultimate allegiance has always belonged to the United States. My father is a former US diplomat and his father was a career US military officer, whose second world war service included Guadalcanal and Okinawa. I believe that my family heritage has earned my right to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. And I believe any cogent reading of the constitution supports me in this belief. While the thinking behind the founding fathers’ adoption of the natural born citizenship clause is not clear, most legal scholars assume that the motivating intention was to prevent (English) royalist infiltration of the US government – an understandable concern at the time. Regardless of that, though, in determining the meaning of the clause, we must consider the developed law. The Naturalisation Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” Just three years after the constitution’s adoption, this would seem to give an early and powerful repudiation of the birther reading of the clause. But it cannot, on its own, clarify the constitution. In Wong Kim v Ark , the US supreme court ruled that a child born in the United States to two US domiciled foreign parents not serving with a foreign government was a natural born citizen. This set the precedent that natural born citizenship could be granted by the principle of “jus soli”, or citizenship from birth in the United States. However, as illustrated by the Naturalisation Act, jus soli cannot account for all Americans. To fill the space of absent court clarification on American citizens born abroad, Congress has provided statutory definition for natural born citizenship. Title 8, section 1401 of the US Title Code provides these definitions to include (among other qualifying citizens) those born abroad to one American parent and one foreign parent, provided the American parent spent five years in the US prior to the child’s birth. The strength of section 1401 is in its clarification of the clause in a logical manner, compatible with the constitution and in a way that can account for American citizens not physically born in the United States. Because the law grants citizenship even to the Obama of the birther universe, the birthers reject section 1401 as unconstitutional. In contrast to the logic of section 1401, the birther reading of the natural born citizenship clause is highly problematic. Put simply, if the only natural born citizens are those born inside the United States, then many “natural’” Americans are left out in the cold. The state department foreign affairs manual (pdf) notes that under the constitution’s 14th amendment, US government installations abroad are not part of the United States. Therefore, according to the birther approach, this would mean, for example, that while a child born inside the United States to foreign tourists or to illegal immigrants is a natural born citizen, John McCain – born on a military base in Panama – is not . The absurdity of such a reading of the constitution is profound. Under the birther approach, foreign service and experience are acts to be punished by deprivation of citizenship rights for the children of servicemen and women and public officials posted overseas. How can we honestly believe that the founding fathers would regard the citizenship of children of those who have served their country abroad as less than that of those residing in the United States? To make this argument as the birthers do is illogical and reflective their distorted and deficient understanding of the US constitution. Barack Obama Donald Trump Tea Party movement Republicans US Congress US constitution and civil liberties John McCain Tom Rogan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Iain Gray launches personal attack and warns disaffected Liberal Democrats to vote against the break-up of the UK The Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray has warned disaffected Liberal Democrats that Alex Salmond is too “downright dangerous” to deserve their support, and is not a “safe option”. Gray has been stung by a series of opinion polls suggesting that the Scottish National party has taken a commanding lead in the race to win the Holyrood election in 10 days, with Alex Salmond set to win a second term as first minister. In a speech intended to reinvigorate Labour’s faltering campaign, Gray admitted that the SNP had “a real chance” of forming the next Scottish government but warned voters they now “stand on the edge” of bringing in a government intent on breaking up the UK. In a message targeting wavering Lib Dem voters, Gray added: “The message on separation is simple: if you don’t want it, don’t vote for it, because Alex Salmond says a second term will give him the moral authority to pursue it.” Gray made a series of personal attacks on Salmond, in a dramatic switch in tactics, claiming the first minister “only cares about his own job, he doesn’t care about yours … he will say anything to anyone to make his vision of independence come true”. After watching their apparent 10-point advantage in the polls evaporate over the past three weeks, stunned Labour officials are openly contemplating defeat on 5 May and some backbench MPs are now directly attacking the handling of the Scottish campaign. Party officials admit that a much larger number of Lib Dem voters and some Tory voters appear to be switching to the SNP in the suburbs and rural areas outside Labour’s core areas in central and west Scotland. Labour’s strategy of focusing their energies on winning 20 target seats has solidified support in those seats but has made the error of ignoring other constituencies and non-core voters. Gray tried to rally Labour activists and campaigners by urging them to attack Salmond’s desire for independence with floating voters and to attack the SNP leader himself. He said Salmond’s pledge to see 100% of Scotland’s electricity generated by renewables by 2020 as “rhetorical fantasy”, and his pledge to deliver a five-year council tax freeze as “not credible”, and his estimated efficiency savings “vague and mysterious”. Labour now estimates that the SNP could win up to 53 or 54 seats, taking constituencies in the Highlands, north-east Scotland and the Borders, in part because some Lib Dem voters want to keep Labour out of power, while Tories may vote tactically for the same reason. Driven by a significant backlash over Nick Clegg’s coalition with David Cameron the polls show the Lib Dem vote has now halved to about 8%, while the Tory vote has also fallen to 12%. “The collapse in Lib Dem support introduces an element of chaos into the election: we can’t pretend that isn’t the case,” said one party official. Labour sources still insist the polls have exaggerated the scale of the SNP’s lead, and believe it will take seats from the SNP and Lib Dems. One senior official said he still believed Labour would win on 5 May, but by a very narrow margin. The polls suggest up to a third of voters are undecided: polling headlines putting the SNP 10 points ahead were based on the opinions of 680 voters. However, the same polls still showed that less than a third of voters support independence, suggesting many voters will disbelieve Gray’s warnings. They also show Salmond remains the most popular leader and most popular choice for first minister. Gray told reporters after his speech that their canvassing showed “a huge number of ‘don’t knows’ and undecideds. So there’s still a lot to play for over the next 10 days”. He added: “What’s happened is that there are very large numbers of Lib Dem and, to a degree, Conservative voters apparently in this poll who look as if they’re either considering shifting to other parties or don’t know who they’re voting for.” They add that some pre-general election polls showed the Clegg and the Lib Dems were beating Labour into third place. Before the 2007 election, the SNP were also 10 points ahead, but only won by one seat over Labour. Alex Salmond Scottish National Party (SNP) Scottish politics Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
From an idea on Twitter to an online event: Wray village highlights rural broadband campaign and benefits of ‘symmetrical’ fast upload to digital future The ‘world’s first’ streaming of a village cricket match took its place in internet folklore today with thousands tuning in to the #twicket. Complete with an appearance from a 15 foot scarecrow and the issuing of yellow cards more usually associated with football, the cricket match from Wray in Lancashire was broadcast across as far afield as America and Australia. Organiser John Popham, who first came up with the plan to highlight the need for faster rural broadband provision just a few week ago, told me: “It worked better than my wildest expectations both in terms of viewers and the technology. The BBC even came along – I think they might be a bit worried!” At its height the match attracted more than 2,300 live viewers – and succeeded in making a local woman who stepped in to be commentator, Brenda Nickle, into an immediate online star with her observations about players as she sipped her Pimms. Popham now hopes to use other live events as part of the campaign to highlight the need for fast upload speeds to enable people to share content more easily. Almost all broadband provision in the UK is “asymmetric” – meaning that download speeds are far greater than upload speeds. Studies in Australia have found that symmetrical upload and download speeds leads to more creativity among users, while asymmetric connections creates a “consumer culture”. The UK government has repeatedly said that it wants the UK to be a leader in content creation, but there is little sign that it has taken in the importance of symmetric broadband in achieving this goal. Future events could well prove more difficult to achieve – Wray was chosen because, thanks to a network installed by Lancaster University, it is one of only three villages in the UK to have a symmetrical community network . “It’s going to be hard to live up to this, to do it again to this standard,” Popham said. The livestream was managed by Birmingham company Aquila which used basic camera equipment (two Sony Z1 cameras and and a DSR 350) with microphones on the boundary and at the commentary. There was also an audio only stream brovided by Radio Youthology with iPhone and Android apps. The hash tag #twicket started trending on Twitter shortly before the end of the match. Broadband Digital Britain Internet Digital Economy Act Sarah Hartley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Suicide at Guantanamo Bay prison was more than just the result of desperation or depression. Prison administrators viewed it as “an act of asymmetric warfare waged against us,” according to new WikiLeaks documents. In the through-the-looking-glass world of Guantanamo, with its indefinite detentions and little hope for release, suicide became…
Continue reading …
Suresh Kalmadi accused of favouring Swiss company when buying equipment for Delhi event Indian officials have arrested the chief organiser of last year’s Commonwealth Games as part of a corruption investigation into the scandal-plagued competition in New Delhi. India had hoped that the Games would help it project the image of a rising superpower, but instead it was embarrassed by corruption allegations, construction delays and cost overruns as the budget ballooned to 700 billion rupees (£9.1bn) from an estimated 18.9 billion rupees. Suresh Kalmadi, the highest-ranking member of the organising committee to be arrested, has been charged with conspiracy for allegedly favouring a Swiss company in the purchase of equipment for timing and scoring events, said a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) spokeswoman, Dharini Mishra. Two other officials on the organising committee – Lalit Bhanot and VK Verma – were arrested earlier in the same case. The CBI claims the government was cheated out of 1.41 billion rupees paid to Swiss Timings Ltd for equipment available from another company for much less. India Commonwealth Games 2010 guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Rigid ticketing policy and high prices spark concerns over empty seats and disappointed fans at London 2012 Olympics Olympic bosses are expecting a last-minute surge for London 2012 tickets ahead of the Tuesday midnight deadline for applications, though organisers have confirmed that this is not the last chance for members of the public to buy tickets. Officials said they were “hugely encouraged” by ticket sales, which have surged ahead of the deadline, with Easter Sunday evening the busiest period so far. But there have been complaints that the rigid ticketing policy will leave many fans disappointed and thousands of seats empty. “Tickets will be made available again,” said a spokesman for the London Olympic Games Organising Committee (Logoc). “But the best opportunity to get one is now, and we’d really encourage anyone who wants one to try now.” Prices range from £20 for the cheapest seats at preliminary events to £750 for the best views of the prestigious 100m final. The most expensive – for the opening ceremony – come in at £2,012. Where demand outstrips supply, organisers will hold a lottery to select applicants at random. Logoc gave no breakdown on Monday, but said it had received applications for all sports from across the UK and as far afield as the Falkland Islands. It said it had promoted the six-week sale as a “marathon not a sprint”. Logoc will be creating an online exchange forum, allowing ticketholders to resell at face value, but any attempt to tout will be liable to prosecution. “It’s not like at Glastonbury where there’s a photograph of the buyer on the ticket, but there is a lot of monitoring by our security and the police to make sure that people aren’t reselling for profit. “It is illegal to resell tickets for profit on sites such as eBay and we will be keeping a close eye on them.” The system has drawn criticism from some private ticketing firms who say it must be opened up to avoid leaving grandstands empty. Seatwave, a ticket exchange website that could potentially profit if 2012 auctions were allowed, demanded Logoc scrap its “confusing” lottery and sell seats on the open market. “There is a growing risk that millions of Olympic fans will not get the chance to attend the games and events they want to,” said Seatwave founder Joe Cohen. “The current ballot system is confusing, unnecessarily burdensome and the restrictions on ticket resale will mean that thousands of tickets will go unused. Let’s not repeat the images of blocks of empty seats we saw in Beijing.” There have also been complaints from some buyers over transparency and cost. Jack Miller, vice-president of the British Athletics Supporters Club, said he was caught unawares by prices “considerably more than Beijing”. “I blinked slightly when it totalled up what it would cost if I got everything I applied for,” he said. Ticket applicants will find out if they have been successful by 24 June. Olympic Games 2012 London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (Locog) Athletics London Barry Neild guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …