Recent Articles

Daily Show: Obama, Fox and Socialism

by Newswire     May 30, 2012 at 8:00 am

Is Obama a socialist? Jon Stewart’s segment from last night is brilliant.

Is Robert Mugabe a UN tourism envoy? NO

by Sunny Hundal     May 29, 2012 at 6:05 pm

There’s been a lot of outrage on Twitter today about Robert Mugabe doing tourism for the UN.

The Guardian’s headline is: Robert Mugabe appointed as UN international envoy for tourism. [update: they've now changed the headline]

I think this is mis-representing the UN position somewhat.

First clue, from the story itself: “UNWTO denied it had appointed Mugabe to any formal position.”

I also checked out the press release by the UNWTO issued (in 2011) when the programme launched – it makes no mention of Mugabe.

On its media site, the UNWTO says: “UNWTO and WTTC will present an Open Letter to Heads of State and Government worldwide, highlighting the importance of Travel and Tourism.”

The open letter doesn’t appoint anyone, especially not Robert Mugabe, to any official position. It merely ends by saying:

In light of this ongoing campaign, I would like to extend an invitation to H.E. ….xxx to join hands with other world leaders, as well as with UNWTO and WTTC, and add his voice to our effort to position Travel and Tourism higher on the global agenda.

In other words, Robert Mugabe got a letter like many other heads of state around the world asking him to promote tourism to create jobs.

You could argue he should be shunned from the UN possibly, but he has definitely not been appointed ‘international envoy’ like the Guardian states.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This has now turned into an international diplomatic spat.

Canada is pulling out of UN tourism body (UNWTO), apparently over Mugabe’s appointment.

But the UNWTO have clarified their position further:

The 155 UNWTO Member States decided, at the 19th Session of the UNWTO General Assembly held in October 2011 in the Republic of Korea, to hold the 20th Session of the UNWTO General Assembly in Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) in 2013.

It was the signing of this agreement, which took place a few days ago, which set off the media frenzy and was interpreted as Mugabe being appointed an ‘ambassador’ or ‘envoy’. He hasn’t.

It is also important, in this context, to note that UNWTO does not have an Ambassadors Programme and that the receiving of the Open Letter implies no legal commitment or official title attribution to the country or the recipient.

The press coverage of this incident has been appallingly bad, with minimal attempt to understand what happened.

Tory MP: profit makes schools poorer

by Sunny Hundal     May 29, 2012 at 5:12 pm

Education secretary Michael Gove today let slip that he wanted schools to be run for-profit.

He told the Leveson inquiry that schools “could” be profit-making and he would deal with that issue “when we come to that bridge”, which may be very soon.

But he had earlier told the BBC’s Andrew Marr:

Nick (Clegg) and I are completely in agreement on this (banning for-profit free schools). It’s not an issue.

The Conservative election manifesto said that we don’t need to have profit at the moment, the Liberal Democrat manifesto said that we don’t need profit at the moment and we don’t.

Nick Clegg ruled out for-profit Free schools too.

But here’s another view on for-profit schools:

JON SOPEL: You’ve said you want to widen the choice to the widest possible extent to the different ways that schools can be provided. Why not say, we’ll have the profit motive. I thought the Conservative Party believed in the profit motive.

NICK GIBB: Yes, but it’s not necessary. The trouble with allowing companies to make a profit from providing schools is that it take money out of the education system, significant sums of money out. We want to make sure that all that money is retained within it and if it were necessary, fine but it’s not necessary…
…
JON SOPEL: Is it that you have a principled objective to profit in schools.

NICK GIBB: No of course not, schools are going to buy stationery, they’re going to buy desks and furniture from private companies, but we don’t think it’s necessary to have private companies adding a mark-up to teachers’ salaries which is the predominant expense within schools, in order to make the system work. We believe it will work without incurring that expense for the tax payer.

That was the Conservative MP Nick Gibb in 2008, then the shadow minister for education. He is now Minister of State for schools.

If Michael Gove pushes for-profit schools anyway, it would be the biggest u-turn of this Coalition government.

(via Mrs Blogs blogs)

Scorched earth and shootings, as the Israeli military stand by

by Guest     May 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm

contribution by Steve Hynd

Scorched earth stretched out before me. To my right the fire was still burning across the hillside spreading through olive trees. To my left all that remained was charred black earth.

All around me, men were moving, unable to rest but also unable to access their land to tackle the fire. All they could do was to stand watching as their livelihoods and land burnt.

An hour earlier, 22 year old Najeh al-Safadi had tried to put out the fire on his land and had been shot in the stomach by the private security staff from the overlooking settlement. At the time of writing it is unknown if he will walk again after the bullet damaged his spine.
continue reading… »

Mixing the science of GM foods with politics will always be messy

by Sunny Hundal     May 29, 2012 at 11:02 am

I’d to return to the rumbling controversy that is the GREENS vs SCIENTISTS showdown, a.k.a. the decision by some Greens and some environmentalists to protest at the GM foods site at Rothahmstead on Sunday.

I wrote a piece for the Guardian that didn’t convince all detractors, and I got some excellent replies I’d like to address.

I said on CIF: “The divide is not between ‘pro-science’ and ‘anti-science’ political parties at all. Rather, politicians and parties will always side with science when it suits their constituency or aligns with their interests.” — Let me elaborate.
continue reading… »

TPA outraged NHS being inclusive of gay parents

by Sunny Hundal     May 29, 2012 at 10:15 am

NHS Scotland, as part of its annual review of literature it distributes to people, decided to make some changes.

In particular, it is replacing the word ‘dad’ with ‘partner’ in its pregnancy handbook.

The 200-page guide, titled Ready Steady Baby, will be changed after they received a complaint that ‘dad’ was discriminating against same-sex couples.

The Daily Mail is outraged this change is being made “for fear of offending gay and lesbian parents”. Predictable.

What’s bizarre is the reaction by the Taxpayers Alliance. Apparently it is a “waste of money” even though such changes are made regularly anyway.

Robert Oxley, from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It’s barmy that the NHS is wasting money reprinting guides because of a single complaint. Becoming a dad isn’t synonymous with one type of couple so it seems ridiculous to worry about changing it.

The NHS has bigger priorities than prescribing how to define who wants to be called dad.

What a tool.

For NHS Scotland it is ‘standard practice’ to review publications on a yearly basis.

A spokesperson told the Mail:

At the time this complaint was received the Ready Steady Baby text had just been through its annual review, changes made and the new edition was printed in December 2011.

The review process identified the need to use language that was more inclusive, particularly in relation to same-sex partnerships.

In other words they’ll change it at the next review without incurring extra costs. Yet the TPA is outraged anyway.

Would Labour be mad to promise an EU referendum?

by Leo Barasi     May 29, 2012 at 9:01 am

Number five on my list of trends to watch this year was Britain’s attitudes to the EU.

In 2011, opinion had swung towards Britain’s staying a member and I guessed the trend would continue as an EU vote became increasingly plausible.

What I didn’t realise was that I was writing at the moment when Britain’s love for Europe was at its peak.
continue reading… »

Labour MP: Newsnight should explain itself

by Sunny Hundal     May 29, 2012 at 12:20 am

Shadow minister Toby Perkins tonight called on BBC Newsnight to explain itself over the film by Allegra Stratton on Shanene Thorpe’s circumstances.

The film was broadcast last Wednesday and Liberal Conspiracy covered the controversy here.

In the interview, Allegra Stratton heavily implied Ms Thorpe was unemployed. The incident deeply distressed her and she took to Twitter to explain why.

Shanene has now launched a campaign calling for an apology from Newsnight, garnering over 7000 signatures in 72 hours.

Watch the interview here.

Very concerned by allegations about @BBCNewsnight programme abt@Nenes_life. Am hoping we’ll hear @BBCAllegra ‘s response asap.

— Toby Perkins (@tobyperkinsmp) May 28, 2012

@Nenes_Life I’m totally against demonising benefit recipients, but having not seen programme will wait for @BBCAllegra response b4 signing.

— Toby Perkins (@tobyperkinsmp) May 28, 2012

The BBC has not yet responded to any complaints.

Louise Mensch: intrusion fine if it’s journalists

by Sunny Hundal     May 28, 2012 at 5:36 pm

Yesterday Conservative MP Louise Mensch was loudly complaining about “intimidation” and “intrusion” by UKuncut activists at Nick Clegg’s street.

Apparently having a peaceful and relaxed street party on someone’s street when they’re out is intimidating.

But she also think press intrusion is fine.

I share some of the worries about where the #Leveson recommendations might end up. Press freedom must be respected.

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 28, 2012

If our choice is between a press that is too intrusive and an over-regulated press, I prefer the former as much the lesser of two evils.

— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) May 28, 2012

So just to clarify – intrusion is fine if the press is doing it, but not fine if members of the public are having a light-hearted, peaceful party on your street.

Victory for disabled on housing benefit

by Guest     May 28, 2012 at 5:08 pm

contribution by Richard Shrubb

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has won a small victory for Housing Benefit claimants at the Supreme Court.

The Commission, which has had severe cutbacks by the current government, has tamed one of the Coalition’s key policies in reducing Welfare spending.

In Burnip vs Birmingham City Council the Court ruled that the severely disabled plaintiff be given Housing Benefit for an extra room, needed for his carers to sleep in overnight.

Under the current rules, Housing Benefit recipients are allowed one bedroom per adult or couple (the rules differ for families).

Single people and couples with more than one bedroom had to find the money to pay for this out of the rest of their income.

Many were facing eviction and hardship due to this situation but the clarification of the rules mean that local authorities must now pay for extra rooms as required by that person’s disability.

In a press release, John Wadham, General Counsel for the EHRC said, “Our intervention in the Burnip case has helped to ensure that all disabled people claiming housing benefit do not face indirect discrimination.

If it was not for the Human Rights Act, disabled people may be more likely fall into rent arrears because they cannot afford the home that meets their needs and then face eviction.”