More than 50 number-crunchers have written to policymakers asking them to impose levy on City speculators to help poor If the nine economists on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee can never agree, it should be harder than herding cats to round up a thousand practitioners of the dismal science and get them all saying the same thing. But 1,000 eminent number-crunchers from more than 50 countries have written to G20 finance ministers, urging them to slap a tax on City speculators to help the world’s poor. They may not have spotted the credit crunch coming, but academic economists from top universities including Harvard, Cambridge, Kyoto and the Sorbonne now agree that bankers should pay the price. In a letter addressed to policymakers from the G20 countries, the economists urge them to impose a “Robin Hood tax”, which would emulate the English folk hero by robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Signatories include Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University who is an influential adviser to Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations; Dani Rodrik, from Harvard, and Ha-Joon Chang, from Cambridge. Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have also backed the letter. They argue that if a tax were levied on transactions such as currency trading at just 0.05%, it could raise hundreds of billions of dollars to be ploughed into international development and climate change projects. Some of the proceeds could also be retained by governments in the countries where the transactions take place, including the UK, helping to repair the hole in governments’ coffers. “The financial crisis has shown us the dangers of unregulated finance, and the link between the financial sector and society has been broken,” the letter says. “It is time to fix this link and for the financial sector to give something back to society.” It adds that a financial transaction tax is “technically feasible” and “morally right”. The G20 finance ministers are meeting in Washington this week to discuss the state of the world economy on the fringes of the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund. The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is chairing the G20, has commissioned Bill Gates to examine innovative ways to fund development, and France and Germany are known to be keen on the idea of a financial transaction tax. Staff from the Gates Foundation have been shuttling between G20 capitals trying to muster support for a tax, which could be imposed by a small group of countries if worldwide agreement proves impossible. Economics Global economy Tax and spending Economic policy Poverty Heather Stewart guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sidney Harman, the stereo equipment magnate who bought Newsweek for $1 last year, has died at what his family calls the “young age of almost 93.” In a statement posted on the Daily Beast , the family notes that Harman learned he had acute myeloid leukemia one month ago and died…
Continue reading …
Arab world and western ministers issued unanimous call for Gaddafi to step down, saying regime had ‘lost all legitimacy’ Muammar Gaddafi’s regime has “lost all legitimacy” and he must leave power to allow the Libyan people to determine their own future, the international community warned as it boosted support for opposition forces. After three weeks of Nato-led air strikes, Arab and western ministers meeting in Qatar closed ranks to issue a first unanimous call for Gaddafi to step down, boasting that they were “united and firm in their resolve” about the outcome of the crisis – or, at least, more than they were at the London conference late last month. But new signs emerged of disagreements over whether UN resolutions allowed the delivery of weapons to the Libyan rebels, with Qatar pushing hard on this highly sensitive issue. William Hague, the foreign secretary, and Qatar’s prime minister, Hamad bin Jassim, chaired a first session of the Libya “contact group” – comprising an unwieldy 21 countries and six international organisations – to explore ways out of the impasse between regime and opposition. Britain’s latest decision – to supply non-lethal body armour to the rebels – was due to be announced by David Cameron before a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris. Under the plan 1,000 flak jackets from Ministry of Defence stores will be sent to opposition forces. Hague, however, sounded ambiguous about whether weapons could legally be supplied. “We understand the resolutions to mean that the arms embargo applies to the whole of Libya,” the foreign secretary said. “But in certain circumstances it is possible, consistent with those resolutions, to provide people with the means to defend the civilian population.” Other countries, he added, “will interpret the resolution in their own way”. Franco Frattini, Italy’s foreign minister, went further. “Either we make it possible for these people to defend themselves or we withdraw our claims of support,” he said. Hamad admitted that there were differences of interpretation but added: “Qatar will make things available for the Libyan people to defend themselves.” But Belgium insisted it would not countenance any move to arm the rebels. Plans for a “temporary financial mechanism” to channel cash to the Benghazi-based opposition were also discussed. Aid to eastern Libya would need to be consistent with UN sanctions, diplomats warned. But the ability to supply basic services would bolster the position and credibility of the Interim National Council. Disagreements surfaced over an Italian call to use frozen Libyan state assets to help the rebels. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, highlighted the scale of the crisis when he told delegates that up to 3.6 million Libyans could need humanitarian assistance. Hague said that Nato’s “decisive action” had saved thousands of lives. But there were fresh signs of divisions over the military campaign, with the UK and France, which have conducted the bulk of the attack missions, pressing Italy and Belgium to take part in targeting Libyan forces. “We have sent more ground strike aircraft in order to protect civilians,” Hague said. “We do look to other countries to do the same.” The Libyan opposition also urged Nato to do more. “When the Americans were involved the mission was very active and it leant more toward protecting civilians,” said spokesman Mahmoud Shammam. Opposition officials were leaving later for the US to lobby the Obama administration. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato’s secretary general, defended the alliance’s record after its aircraft flew more than 2,000 sorties. But since its mandate was to protect civilians it had to be cautious. “We do our utmost to strike the right balance,” Rasmussen said. Allied strategy remains a combination of military pressure and hope that Gaddafi will suffer further damaging defections. “The aim is very clear,” said France’s foreign minister, Alain Juppé. “We must keep up a strong and robust military pressure to convince Gaddafi there is no way out.” International efforts on Libya shift to Cairo on Thursday when the UN’s Ban joins the Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa, African Union commission chairman Jean Ping and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Lady Ashton. That meeting is expected to discuss a Turkish “roadmap” for peace under which Gaddafi’s forces would withdraw from besieged cities such as Misrata. But that would evidently require the agreement of the government in Tripoli. Libya Middle East Muammar Gaddafi Arab and Middle East unrest William Hague Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Health secretary says sorry to nurses, and expresses his commitment to maintaining a healthy NHS Andrew Lansley coupled an apology to Britain’s nurses for failing to explain his health reforms with an impassioned statement of his commitment to the NHS. Hours after the Royal College of Nursing voted 99% in favour of a motion of no confidence in him at the RCN congress in Liverpool, the health secretary told nurses that he would have voted with them if he thought his plans would undermine the health service. “I did read what was said this morning and the result,” Lansley said shortly before holding a seminar with 60 nurses as part of the government’s “listening exercise” on the health and social care bill. “I’m sorry if what I’m setting out to do hasn’t communicated itself…Listening to the vote this morning, if I’ve not got that message across then I apologise.” The health secretary sought to underline his commitment by making clear that his only ambition in politics is to serve as health secretary. He said he had told the prime minister of this “publicly and privately”. Lansley’s appearance in Liverpool was the most high-profile event since David Cameron joined forces last week with Lansley and Nick Clegg to announce that the health and social care bill is to be put on hold for two months to allow for the listening exercise. Downing Street fears that Lansley’s failure to sell the reforms, which are designed to transfer commissioning powers from Primary Care Trusts to new GP-led consortiums by 2013, is jeopardising years of work in neutralising the NHS as an issue. Clegg must secure major changes to the bill to win over his party, which voted against the reforms at its spring conference last week. Lansley echoed the deputy prime minister’s call for substantive changes after addressing a meeting of charity health workers at Downing Street, hosted by the prime minister, before he travelled to Liverpool. He said: “Of course they’re substantive changes, because otherwise it would be trivial. We’re not here to do a trivial thing, we’re here to get it right.” It is understood that one of the “substantive changes” would be to give nurses places on the new GP-led consortiums. That has been a key demand of the RCN which represents nurses across Britain although the Lansley reforms only apply in England. But there are signs of tensions within the coalition. Clegg believes “substantive” changes means that the government should consider going beyond the framework outlined by Lansley. He said ministers would look to improve the transparency and accountability of the consortiums and would offer assurances that the government is not handing an unfair advantage to private companies bidding for NHS contracts. The deputy prime minister is under pressure from within his party to go much further. Norman Lamb, his senior parliamentary adviser, has threatened to resign unless “clusters” of Primary Care Trusts are maintained and GPs are given the right to opt in to the reforms. Lamb also called for the 2013 deadline to be abandoned. Clegg does not go along with all his demands. But he agrees that greater flexibility should be shown round the deadline. Lansley has not yet agreed to any relaxation in the deadline. He also agrees with Lamb’s call for an “opt-in” approach on the grounds that this would create a two-tier NHS. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, called for the bill to be abandoned as he warned that it would make the NHS subject to EU competition law, possibly leaving hospitals open to “huge fines” of up to 10% of their income. “This is a bill that starts with a wrong-headed ideology and has a whole series of proposals which haven’t been thought through,” he said. The row came as the King’s Fund published a report on patients’ chances of undergoing surgery for common medical conditions in England. It found last year rates of patient admission for routine operations, such as hip and knee replacements, varied wildly between England’s highest and lowest ranked trusts. John Appleby, chief economist at the King’s Fund, said: “This report confirms research over decades, both in the UK and internationally, which has shown persistent and unwarranted variations in use of and access to even the most common surgical procedures. This is unfair to patients and inefficient for the NHS. Remedying this is urgent given the need to improve quality of care while the NHS grapples with the biggest financial challenge in its history.” Health policy Health Andrew Lansley Public sector cuts Public services policy Public finance Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Spokesman says future princess became full member of Church of England in private service at St James’s Palace She probably didn’t need to do it, but when one is about to marry a chap who will one day become Defender of the Faith, it is probably just as well to tick all the boxes: Clarence House has announced that Kate Middleton was confirmed last month by the bishop of London into full membership of the Church of England. Middleton’s confirmation at a private service – she had already been christened into the CofE as a child – serves to dot the Is and cross the Ts of her allegiance to an institution in which she will inevitably spend a lot of time in coming years, especially when Prince William eventually becomes its supreme governor. A royal spokesman said: “Catherine Middleton was confirmed by the bishop of London at a private service at St James’s Palace attended by her family and Prince William. Miss Middleton, who was already baptised, decided to be confirmed as part of her marriage preparations.” It also, perhaps, serves the useful purpose of preventing any unpleasantness in due course over the succession by proving beyond doubt that she does not fall foul of the 1701 Act of Settlement that bars Roman Catholics – though not members of other religions not considered so subversive in the 18th century – from marrying heirs to the throne. Nevertheless, the move left the Church of England’s own spokesmen scratching their heads about the doctrinal implications. “Confirmation is a formal recognition of full membership of the Church of England, but we’re not really a membership organisation,” said one. The Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the bishop of London, the cleric closest to the royal family who will preach at the wedding in a fortnight, also confirmed Prince William, in 1997 at St George’s Chapel, Windsor. Royal wedding Kate Middleton Monarchy Anglicanism Religion Christianity Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Ex-president also formally held in Sharm el-Sheikh hospital under suspicion of corruption The barbed wire fences and forbidding high walls became a horrifyingly familiar sight to those who dared speak out over the past three decades; for many of the thousands who passed through Cairo’s Tora prison complex and were tortured within it, this notorious jail was the ultimate symbol of Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. On Wednesday, as it has done so many times before, Tora received two more prisoners accused of crimes against the state. Their names were Gamal and Alaa Mubarak, sons of the ousted president, and they arrived in the early hours, handcuffed and clad in standard-issue white jumpsuits. Egypt’s remarkable revolution has boasted many poignant moments, but the sight of the all-powerful Mubarak family being led into the top-security cells which once housed their political opponents will count among the most memorable. The incarceration of the Mubarak brothers came as their father, the western-backed dictator whose grip over Egypt seemed only a few months ago to be impregnable, was formally placed in detention at his hospital bed in Sharm el-Sheikh, under suspicion of corruption, fraud and ordering the killing of peaceful protesters. Egyptians have become accustomed to old realities being turned upside down, but as celebrations erupted over the arrest of this former political giant of the Middle East, questions were being raised about what comes next, and how the arrest will affect the volatile landscape of Egyptian politics as the nation shudders towards democracy. Investigators have 15 days to question the 82-year-old and his sons, before prosecutors decide whether to bring charges and force the Mubarak family into the dock. A number of former Mubarak ministers and officials have been through the same process, and in every case a 15-day detention order has been the prelude to the suspect being remanded in custody prior to a formal trial. “I seriously doubt that after all this the Mubaraks will be released,” said Ragia Omran, a human rights lawyer and pro-change activist. “There’s been a lot of anger in the Egyptian street over the demands of the revolution not being met, and the ruling generals have arrested the Mubaraks in an effort to calm the people. To let them go now would be political suicide.” The three men are all due for questioning on Thursday at the prosecutor’s office in Cairo’s Fifth Settlement suburb, though a medical committee will assess Hosni Mubarak first to determine whether he is fit to travel following a reported heart attack. If deemed well enough, the former leader is expected to be transferred to a secure medical facility in the capital. Interrogations are likely to focus on the origin and whereabouts of the Mubarak family’s vast wealth, which has been estimated at anything between $1bn and a wildly improbable $700bn. Last week a document emerged from the office of Egypt’s prosecutor general entitled “request for judicial assistance”, which detailed a series of accusations against the Mubaraks regarding their alleged embezzlement of public money – claims denied by Hosni Mubarak during a TV statement aired on Sunday. The US and other countries have agreed to try to track and freeze Mubarak family assets but legal experts are sceptical of their chances, particularly because of the length of time that elapsed between the president being toppled and Egypt’s interim government formally requesting an asset freeze. Mubarak and his sons will also have to answer questions regarding the violence meted out by the state against unarmed protesters during Egypt’s 18-day uprising, which left up to 800 dead and thousands more injured. Mubarak’s former interior minister, Habib al-Adly, is already on trial for ordering the shooting of civilians during demonstrations, a charge he denies. The arrest of Mubarak has been a key demand of protesters since his fall two months ago. Simmering tensions between revolutionaries and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, a military body that has in effect been ruling Egypt by decree until elections are held later this year, bubbled over last week when military police stormed a rally in Tahrir Square, killing two civilians. Many analysts believe that the latest moves against the Mubarak family are a politicised bid to mollify angry demonstrators, who have recently shifted their attention to the titular head of the military, Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, a long-serving Mubarak-era minister. “In recent days, we’ve seen explicit calls for Tantawi to be removed, and it is clear that for the military that crosses a red line,” said Samer Shehata, assistant professor of Arab politics at Georgetown University. “Tantawi and other members of the supreme council have been clear beneficiaries of the regime and Tantawi himself was a poodle, completely subservient to Mubarak. So this move against the father and the two sons is a response to public anger and it will go some way to quelling the dissatisfaction of the protesters. People want these men interrogated and brought to justice – for reasons of accountability, but also for reasons of mischief-making and counter-revolution.” But despite their jubilation at the Mubaraks’ incarceration, pro-change activists told the Guardian the latest developments had merely emboldened them to keep up the pressure on interim authorities. “I’m sad that this is only happening due to our actions on the street, and not for reasons relating to justice,” said Amr Gharbeia, who was charged with libel under the Mubarak regime. “It demonstrates the needs for us to keep up the pressure on the military council, forcing it to take the kind of action it should be taking if it really considers itself the ‘guardian of the revolution’ and wants to lead us through to elections.” Ahmed Salah, a veteran anti-government campaigner, agreed. “I’ve been jumping around since early morning with this crazy news – but we’re still not allowing ourselves to get comfortable, because this development was only achieved through a lot of pressure and a lot of sacrifices. People were killed by the military before they could see this happen. If we stop now, we could lose everything. How many people must die before this whole regime is taken apart and put in court, and we can achieve our freedom? This is the question that the military council must now answer.” All eyes now will be on the response in Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy has lobbied hard in Cairo and Washington against Mubarak being put on trial. “There continues to be a major regional element to all this; from the very beginning Saudi Arabia – along with Israel – had been pushing for Mubarak to retain power, and then after he fell for him not be charged. They don’t want to see an Arab head of state held accountable in this way, and have issued thinly veiled threats as to what might happen if he is charged. They are a major source of reaction in the region.” Egypt Hosni Mubarak Middle East Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …From Oregon, a lesson in April Fool’s Day pranks, viral videos … and bipartisanship: A group of 12 state lawmakers managed to “Rickroll” their colleagues last year, by slipping the lyrics to Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” into speeches they made on the House floor. Put the clips together,…
Continue reading …It’s that time of year again: People ‘s “Most Beautiful” issue is out Friday, and the magazine names Jennifer Lopez as the world’s most beautiful woman for 2011. In the requisite accompanying interview, Lopez says she’s actually happiest when she’s sans makeup and can “touch my face and rub my…
Continue reading …