Tory speeches back on internet archive

Spread the love

[Related to an earlier post about the Conservative Party disallowing access to historical material on its website.]

 The Conservatives have allowed access via an internet archive to a decade of speeches, after criticism over their removal from the party’s website.

The purge erased records of speeches and press releases from 2000 until May 2010, and a file on Conservatives.com instructed sites such as the Internet Archive and Google, which store copies of webpages for posterity, to remove the deleted pages from their databases.

Those instructions have now been amended, and 1,158 saved versions of Conservatives.com dating back to 1999 are available to view on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.

The purge was first reported in Computer Weekly, which noted that among the lost speeches were several where senior party members promised to use the internet to make politicians more accountable.

 

Continue ReadingTory speeches back on internet archive

Apathy? Alienation? How ‘disengaged’ four in ten voters reject ALL parties

Spread the love

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/apathy-alienation-how-disengaged-four-in-ten-voters-reject-all-parties-8940389.html

Four in 10 people are “alienated” from  Britain’s political parties and say they will not consider voting for any of them, according to new research.

Young adults are even more “disengaged”  from the party system, with 46 per cent of under-30s saying “none of the above” when presented with a list of the parties. Although the polling does not mean people are apathetic about politics,  the anti-sleaze watchdog which commissioned it believes the findings pose worrying questions about the future of democracy in Britain.

Surprisingly, the survey suggests public scepticism is not confined to the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats but extends  to the smaller parties likely to win “protest votes”. People were  given the option of choosing the three main parties; the UK Independence Party, the Green Party, the British National Party, Respect, another un-named party; no party or saying “don’t know.”  The survey of 1,900 people was carried out by TNS-BRMB for the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Lord (Paul) Bew, the crossbench peer who chairs the committee, told The Independent today: “One particular cause for concern from the research is the number of people, especially young people, who feel disconnected from the political system and political parties.”

He said the growth in the size of this group over the last 10 years represents a real challenge to politicians, parties, local organisations and community groups to provide the public with a sufficiently attractive and relevant set of options to choose from. However, Lord Bew added: ” Public perception is not static – it can improve in response to events in the public sphere. That requires public office holders to be seen to be demonstrating the seven principle of public life – selflessness, accountability, objectivity, integrity, honesty and leadership.” [7?]

In its summary of the findings, the committee, said that for the 40 per cent “disconnected” or “alienated” from party politics “hold sceptical or deeply sceptical perceptions of standards and do not trust those in public life.” It warned that  “an entrenched political disenchantment…appears to have acquired a growing foothold in the British public” and recommended further research into whether this “harbours the potential for rejection of the system of representative democracy and for democratic norms.”

[It’s clearly actual not potential. Politicos seem scared of revo but can’t bring themselves to admit it or that they’re at fault.]

12.50 This rejection of demockracy seems reasonable on reflection: their experience has shown them that democracy is a sham.

Involvement in Neo-Con invasions against the clearly stated wishes of the population, the expenses scandal, politicians lying to achieve power e.g. the NHS, student fees and the Education Support Allowance, VAT, etc. We have a government that has viciously attacked the NHS without a mandate, etc.

It would be unreasonable to expect support for so-called representative democracy.

1pm There is widespread support for nationalisation of national infrastructure e.g. trains and energy, while this is simply not on  the agenda of Neo-Liberal politicians of the indistinguishable Neo-Liberal parties. People are denied the opportunity to vote for a party that expresses their views and values.

27/11/13 Having received a takedown notice from the Independent newspaper for a different posting, I have reviewed this article which links to an article at the Independent’s website in order to attempt to ensure conformance with copyright laws.

I consider this posting to comply with copyright laws since
a. Only a small portion of the original article has been quoted satisfying the fair use criteria, and / or
b. This posting satisfies the requirements of a derivative work.

Please be assured that this blog is a non-commercial blog (weblog) which does not feature advertising and has not ever produced any income.

dizzy

Continue ReadingApathy? Alienation? How ‘disengaged’ four in ten voters reject ALL parties

Royal Mail privatisation: Goldman Sachs and UBS to be grilled by MPs

Spread the love

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/14/royal-mail-flotation-mps-question-banks

Investment banks to be asked in Commons why sale of asset favoured foreign investors and if float price was set too low

The investment banks tasked with allocating shares in last month’s controversial Royal Mail float face a grilling by MPs over allegations they discriminated against UK pension funds and favoured foreign investors.

Goldman Sachs and UBS led an offer that has been widely criticised for short-changing taxpayers by selling a major government asset on the cheap, after Royal Mail shares immediately soared on the stock exchange and continue to trade at a premium of around 70%.

Those concerns have been exacerbated by the presence of sovereign wealth funds – including Kuwait, Singapore and Abu Dhabi – on the Royal Mail’s share register.

One senior City source, who has worked on major UK privatisations, said: “The Royal Mail was probably a bit cheap, but it is one thing to sell it at a cut-price to UK pension funds … There was a disproportionate amount of shares that went to sovereign wealth funds.”

Senior representatives from Goldmans and UBS will appear in parliament next Wednesday to answer questions from MPs on the business, innovation and skills select committee, alongside peers from JP Morgan, Citibank, Deutsche Bank and stockbroker Panmure Gordon.

The MPs’ concerns over the flotation are echoed by City figures. A top UK fund manager said: “A lot of people were very upset at their allocation, even on day zero before the shares started trading at a premium.

“It may be that the advisers did not take account of the political implications and do as good a job as they could have done.”

A source close to the committee confirmed: “This is something the committee is aware of. It may well come up in the session.”

In the months running up to the privatisation, it is understood that Royal Mail, the government and its advisers were working with a small group of financial institutions in order to get an early idea of how the shares should be priced.

That inner core of investors, which is thought to have largely excluded top UK pension fund managers, ended up with the most sizeable allocations.

Continue ReadingRoyal Mail privatisation: Goldman Sachs and UBS to be grilled by MPs

The realities of outsourcing: court interpreters mean miscarriages of justice

Spread the love

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/joel-sharples/realities-of-outsourcing-court-interpreters-mean-miscarriages-of-justice

Since court interpreting has been outsourced, wages have plummeted, quality of interpreting has dropped to a dangerous level, and the justice system has often ground to a halt. A foretaste of what to expect from outsourced services across the country?

Prior to February 2012 interpreters would be paid a flat rate of £85 for a court hearing, plus £15 an hour for travel time and reimbursement of the travel fare. When Crapita took over they slashed the rates to £16-22 an hour with no payment for travelling or waiting time. Bob described what this means in practice for interpreters. “For example, they might phone up and say, ‘We have a job for an Italian interpreter in central London. There will be about three hours work there.’ There might be, or there might not be, but it will take you an hour to get there from the suburbs, it will cost you £6 to get there and back, and when you get there you might only have an hour’s work.”

In this case, the interpreter could take home just £10 for three hours of their working day after travel expenses are deducted. Bob estimates that interpreters now earn between 25 and 40 percent of their previous rate for a court hearing. “If you’re only there for one hour, less your fare, less your national insurance, less your tax – forget it; it’s a waste of time.” In one particularly extreme example, a Vietnamese interpreter traveled from Newcastle to Sussex – a 560 mile round trip – only for the hearing to be adjourned after eight minutes.

The impact that these changes have had on court proceedings is also concerning. “Normally you would get there early because you need to be available for a conference before the hearing starts – a discussion in private with the lawyer and the client. Now you won’t be paid for that, so what happens is people turn up at 10am when the court starts, not at 9.30am when the conference starts. The lawyer will say to the court, ‘I haven’t had a chance to discuss things with my client because the interpreter wasn’t there,’ and the judge will say ‘All right, we’ll adjourn it for now and you can go down and talk to your client.’”

That’s if the interpreter shows up at court at all. In the first year of the contract over 600 trials were abandoned due to Capita failing to provide an adequate interpreter, and Crapita also received 6,417 complaints about the standard of the service they were providing – over 25 per working day! Bob describes their approach to interpreting as “like selling cabbages: pile ‘em high, sell ’em cheap, and you make more money. But interpreters are not cabbages. You need to be able to stand up to questioning in court. You need to be able to instantly interpret accurately for a long period of time. You need to understand the subtleties and the cultural and linguistic differences between the foreign language and the English language.”

The changes in pay and conditions have led to an exodus of experienced and qualified interpreters from the courts. Bob told me that many of his former colleagues have returned to their country of origin, no longer able to afford life in Britain, while others have turned to walking dogs, babysitting and cleaning in order to pay the bills. Others have found part-time teaching or written translation work, but at a fraction of their former salary.

As a result of this refusal to accept their terms, Capita have been forced to employ people with no experience of interpreting, let alone of working in a high-pressured court environment. A survey of Crapita interpreters conducted by Involvis found that 44.5% had not been asked to undergo any kind of assessment of their interpreting skills before being offered jobs by Capita. In one of the more farcical episodes of this mostly tragic saga one interpreter managed to register her pet rabbit as an interpreter with Applied Language Solutions (the company that was granted the initial contract before being taken over by Capita).

Continue ReadingThe realities of outsourcing: court interpreters mean miscarriages of justice

Theresa May must not further erode Britons’ rights to citizenship

Spread the love

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/14/theresa-may-erode-britons-citizenship-right

Image of UK Home Secretary Theresa May

Theresa May has said she wants to extend her powers to strip citizenship from suspected terrorists, even if doing so renders them stateless. Under current law the home secretary may denaturalise anyone with dual nationality whose UK citizenship is deemed by her to be “not conducive to the public good”. But if May has her way, even British-only nationals will lose their citizenship. The consequences will be profound.

In her first 30 months in office, May deprived 16 Britons of their citizenship, almost all of them on grounds of being linked to terrorist activities. One such ex-Briton is Mahdi Hashi, a Somali-born UK citizen who grew up in Camden, north London, and subsequently became involved in the al-Shabaab group. The home ecretary ordered that he be stripped of citizenship while he was in Somalia, cancelling his passport and right to re-enter Britain, and leaving him vulnerable to rendition to the US. Hashi now languishes in jail in New York on terror charges.

The vast majority of these former citizens were outside the UK at the time, giving the lie to their right to appeal to a UK court, and freeing the home secretary from full scrutiny. Few of them have ever been charged in a British court with any criminal offence. The protections that each and every British citizen should have against arbitrary decision-making and against a life without citizenship have been gradually and deliberately stripped away.

During the dark days of the second world war, when Britain was in mortal danger, only four people were stripped of citizenship. Theresa May has denaturalised more than four times that number of in the last three years alone. Now she wants to increase the state’s power further by consigning British-only citizens she deems undesirable to statelessness. We would do well to note the refugee scholar Hannah Arendt’s observation that one can measure the extent to which authoritarianism has infected a government by the number of denaturalisations it orders. This growing erosion of the security of UK citizenship needs to be reversed.

[It’s important to realise that we are discussing suspects. It is likely that there is little or any evidence against them and that action to deny nationality is essentially arbitrarily applied.]

Continue ReadingTheresa May must not further erode Britons’ rights to citizenship