Monday, 28 November 2011

Miliband deserts strikers as Gove goes on warpath




Striking public sector workers were struggling to receive any support in Westminster today as Ed Miliband branded the action "a failure".
The comment came on the same day as Michael Gove issued a dramatic attack on trade unions, saying their leaders "want" families to be inconvenienced.
"They want mothers to give up a day's work, or pay for expensive childcare, because schools will be closed," the education secretary said.
During a series of questions and answers after his speech, Mr Gove said: "You have only got to look at the words of [Unite leader] Len McCluskey in the Guardian today, consider the conduct of Mark Serwotka [general secretary of the PCS union] throughout this dispute or look at the political record of Mr Andrew Murray, who is a lead official in Unite, to recognise that 'militant' is a badge that fits for all those three."
The comments are a significant change of direction for the government, which had previously tried to maintain a more reasonable, sympathetic stance in its public discussions of the unions.
Public sector workers did not receive any support from Labour either, although the criticism was considerably less aggressive from Mr Miliband.
"Strikes are always a sign of failure but I'm not going to demonise the people who are taking the action," the Labour leader said on a visit to Asda.
"I don't support strikes because they are always a sign of failure."
His remark has raised eyebrows, as they demonstrate a clear divide at the top of the opposition's leadership. Shadow chancellor Ed Balls told the Independent on Sunday that he had "great sympathy" with strikers.
A ComRes poll for the BBC today found 61% of people believe public sector workers are justified in going on strike over changes to their pensions.

Second poll sees Labour lead increase



Another poll has given Labour a substantial increase in their poll lead.
YouGov's poll for the Sunday Times put Ed Miliband's party on 43%, nine points ahead of the Conservatives on 34%.
It follows Ipsos Mori's poll for Reuters released on Thursday, which saw Labour strengthen its lead over the Tories to seven points.
Analysts said they thought the result looked like being an anomaly, but it is not yet clear whether the opposition are profiting from the deepening gloom of the economic situation and uncertainty caused by the eurozone crisis.
The Liberal Democrats continued to struggle, polling 11% in the YouGov poll and 12% in the Ipsos Mori poll.
In their second ever national poll, pollsters Survation raised eyebrows by placing Ukip on 11%, just one point behind the Liberal Democrats and up seven points from the eurosceptic party's showing in their first survey.
Survation has adopted a different methodological approach which may explain the figures.
Its online poll randomised the order in which the top four parties appeared, reducing a suspected bias in favour of the largest parties caused by them appearing at the top of the list.

Charlotte Church: 'They put you through this grinder and it just keeps happening'



Charlotte Church has offered a stark portrait of a life under the media gaze at the Leveson inquiry, saying it was like being put through a "grinder".
The singer and TV presenters described how paparazzi had tried to photograph up her skirt and down her tops when she emerged from cars and how a newspaper had published a story on her father's extramarital affair despite knowing her mother was in hospital following a suicide attempt.
"A lot of this happened to me when I was very young. They put you through this grinder and it just keeps happening," she said.
Ms Church said she felt "horrible" when a newspaper featured a countdown to her 16th birthday, with the innuendo being that she would then be past the age of consent.
She went on to describe how her first boyfriend sold a story about her when she was 17. This took place again when she was 19.
"When I first gave birth to my daughter I wanted to keep it secret for about a week," she told the inquiry.
"It was in the papers within two days. I remember saying to my mum 'it must be you, it must be one of our family'."
The family now believe it was due to phone-hacking.
"I had a big group of girlfriends, but the more stories came out the more people I cut out of my life," she added.
Ms Church was forced to take out personal bodyguards during visits to America following an interview in which she said New York foremen were demeaned by handing out an award for 'best soap opera' during a TV ceremony.
The comment was reported as a dismissal of the men, who had been working during September 11th, as not being proper celebrities.
It was reported in the Murdoch-owned New York Post as 'voice of an angel spews venom', prompting death threats and a barrage of negative publicity.
Ms Church offered an incisive criticism of the argument that newspapers must uncover the truth about the rich and powerful, saying editors of major tabloids satisfy both criteria.
She said: "If they were subject to this then surely their misdeeds are much more within the public interest, being very powerful men in media organisations, than me as a singer."
The inquiry continues.

Bill Clinton: Newt Gingrich Is 'Being Rewarded For Thinking'



Bill Clinton praised Newt Gingrich while explaininghis recent surge in the polls.
"I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking, and people are hungry for ideas that make some sense," Clinton told NewsMax. "He's being rewarded for thinking."
He also praised the candidate's debate performance, though he declined to predict a primary win.
"I still think Romney comes across as strong and forceful and knowledgeable and I thought Perry had a better debate last night, he did much better than he's doing," he said.
The former president's praise is a surprise considering their contentious past. During Clinton's presidency, then-House Speaker Gingrich fought Democrats hard on such issues as Medicare and welfare reform. He also pushed for Clinton's impeachment.
More recently, though, Clinton and his allies have offered positive feedback on the GOP candidate.
"He is brilliant," Dick Morris, a former Clinton campaign strategist, told HuffPost's Sam Stein. "He's a very skilled adversary."
Clinton called Gingrich "creative, flexible, and brimming over with new ideas" in his book and, in September, predicted a comeback for GOP hopeful.

Paul Rieckhoff: Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Of America Founder (The Inspirationals)



NEW YORK -- On Thanksgiving Weekend, there is no group of Americans more deserving of thanks than the country's youngest war veterans.
One of their leaders -- and an expert on the leadership gifts of his own generation -- is 36-year-old Paul Rieckhoff.
With his bald pate, piercing gaze, firm handshake and polite, "yes sir, no sir" demeanor, Rieckhoff still looks and acts like the U.S. Army rifle platoon leader he once was in Baghdad. But that was more than seven years ago, when he was a young Amherst College graduate who had spent time at J.P. Morgan, in the Army Reserves, on 9/11 emergency duty and in advanced platoon leader training in Germany.
Rieckhoff is the executive director of the organization he founded when he came back from Iraq in 2004, when there was not a single group devoted to the newest generation of veterans. They currently number more than 2 million men and women, and yet represent a small and in some ways isolated slice of America.
Today, Rieckhoff's Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has more than 125,000 members, who draw strength and guidance from each other, who join together to demand their due from government, and who aim to show that their generation of veterans has unique strengths and insights that can help rebuild the country they have already served with selfless distinction in dangerous places.
The Huffington Post is publishing a continuing series on innovative and inspiring leaders in all walks of life. They come from beyond Washington and Wall Street, where leaders are supposed to abound but seem to be scarce.
Rieckhoff is one of these Inspirationals. Recently in New York, he presided over the annual anniversary dinner of IAWA, an event that featured stirring stories of sacrifice, recovery and leadership. At the same time, Rieckhoff was busy lobbying Congress -- successfully -- to pass a portion of a jobs bill that would provide tax breaks to employers who hire recently returned veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The day after the gala, Rieckhoff sat down in his Manhattan office with Howard Fineman, AOL Huffington Post Media Group's Editorial Director, to discuss the new generation of veterans and the vivid lessons of leadership Rieckhoff learned with and from them.
You grew up in the Bronx, were a football captain at a small high school in the Hudson River Valley, studied at Amherst College and then got a lucrative job at J.P. Morgan. Why the Army?
I wanted to go somewhere where I could really test myself, something that was going to be really hard, something that would give me real leadership experience. You go to J.P. Morgan, it's a great experience; but that's not leadership, it's management.
What is leadership?
Leadership requires vision. You have to really know where you're going and drive in a direction, and then galvanize people and inspire people and draw strength from other people and draw assets from people. Management is kind of like moving stuff around on a plate. I think sometimes we confuse the two. Keeping the trains running on time is one thing, and that's important, and that's management, but keeping the trains moving forward is leadership. And building a new track and seeing where we're going, that's leadership: having to break the mold and innovate.
Some people think the military is the most bureaucratic and slow-moving place of all.
And it is, in a lot of ways. The thing I fought more than the enemy in Iraq was bureaucracy and stupidity. That's what everybody has to do.
You were a rifle platoon leader in Iraq. What did you learn about leadership?
One thing I learned that I think is most important: you take care of your guys and they take care of you. There's the old saying, "Men before me." If you lose sight of that, it's not just bad for you, it's bad for them, it's bad for the mission, it's bad for everything. And you really learn to depend on other people. There's an old adage in the military, "Adapt, improvise, and overcome." I think we're the innovation generation. You learn to be an innovator. You learn how to be entrepreneurial in a way that is totally dynamic and like nothing else. You have limited resources. You have tremendous stress. You have huge responsibility. The gravity of every decision is enormous. The teamwork is essential. You've got to make things happen. I think that's the fundamental -- that's what happened in World War II, that's what happened in Vietnam. Those guys were trying to make a Jeep work.
And it's not ideological.
It's practical. It's so practical. That's what I think is so fascinating about the role of these guys in government. There's going to be a whole wave of these guys who get into politics. They are practical, and they are country first. They are not ideological, and they don't have a party affiliation. I don't have a party in America right now. And I think a lot of people feel that same way, especially veterans. Our ideological home is somewhere in between, I guess.
And another interesting factor too -- the international dynamic, technology. Technology is the total game changer here. That's what makes everything happen faster in its scale. And what is really exciting is how consistently they're innovating. What we learned in the military, especially in this war, is how to break down the bureaucracy. Whether it was our own military or the Iraqi water system, you had to make stuff happen and break things down in order to get things done. That is important in business, it's important in government more than ever before.
What's your view as to why that's not the case in politics today?
Values. They lost that "men before me" piece. It's also the structure of the political system, where you've got to raise money all the time. I have friends in Congress; you have friends in Congress. You know that they don't have time to read or think. I think it's a combination of the dysfunction of the system and a loss of values and a loss of perspective. They're not taking the long view. They're not working together. They're really not working together in the best interest of all. They're worried about credit instead of accomplishment, and that's the way the system is working but nobody wants to be the first one to break it. A couple of them try, and they get punched in the face. But there's gotta be compromise. There's gotta be coalition-building. I have friends on the left and the right. We sit down and have a beer. The guys in this office are from all parties, all over the place. But we're focused together on one mission, just like we were in Iraq. And I've heard people say to me, "The WWII generation built this country, the Baby Boom Generation f*cked it up, and we've gotta save it. You've got to fix this. Cause otherwise we're screwed."
Was there a moment in Baghdad when you felt your leadership most severely tested?
The hard part about being over there is so much shit happens in one day, that it almost doesn't feel real. We always had to figure out how to make do. For example: Our vehicles sucked. We didn't have vehicles when we first got there, because Turkey blocked the shipments. So our guys found these SUVs that Saddam had hoarded. They were beautiful SUVs. And our guys hotwired them, and they ripped the doors off, and cut holes in the roof. It was like a scene out of "The A-Team," welding torch and the whole deal. There were people in our unit who said, "You can't do that. You can't do that." One of the hardest parts of being in Iraq was that everything was squad-level, platoon-level; some company-level. And that time in the war, most of the battalion and above had never served in combat. So you had a disproportion in combat experience. My squad leaders had, in the first three months, so much combat experience, and the guys running the show had none. So it created this really twisted leadership dynamic where they knew so much more about how to operate than their bosses.
So the commanding officers didn't know the nature of the war?
The weight distribution was so off. A guy named Tommy Sowers just wrote a Ph.D on what he calls nanoleadership. It is the idea that the president can watch the Navy SEALs and that he can manage a very small tiny unit, and how technology drives that. There's tremendous responsibility placed on the individual. I was with two guys out on a checkpoint, two guys who didn't speak Arabic who had heavy weapons, and there'd be hundreds of Iraqis who were pissed off because they didn't get paid. Or there'd be a car bomb. Or a CIA guy would come flying through with no markings. Just the variables that would happen on a constant basis, so the decision-making gets so decentralized. That is where the leadership is really tested.
In the Army, leadership is an acronym: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. You wear it on a dog tag around your neck in basic training. You have conversations in basic training about "what is integrity?" One time someone explained integrity as doing the right thing, even when nobody's looking. So you have to explain to each other, and you have to explain to an 18-year-old who's got $50,000 in cash sitting in front of them because somebody from State dropped it in, and his wife can't pay the mortgage. You've gotta tell that guy, "Hey man, I know what you're thinking, but you've got to leave the money alone." The integrity checks that these guys and gals have to go through are unbelievable.
When you came back to the U.S. in the spring of 2004, was there an organization of any kind for this new generation?
I remember trying to Google "Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans' Groups," and there was nothing. There was one group that basically was a website, but no real group. I was pissed off about Iraq, but I was more pissed off about the way our guys were getting treated. I was pissed off about the disconnect.
So were you basically opposed or deeply skeptical of Iraq?
I thought it was stupid. But the question was: How am I going to make an impact? Am I going to go protest in Tompkins Square Park? Or am I going to take a platoon and try to do the best I can and make a difference? But beyond that, it wasn't just that the war happened. You come home and everybody's watching "American Idol." And I've got guys who are at Walter Reed Hospital right now. And the really interesting part of when I came home was that in Iraq I had seen guys who had lost one, two, part of three limbs and yet there was a question of whether or not there was an insurgency! I went on "Sean Hannity" and argued about whether or not we had body armor. He didn't believe me that we didn't have body armor. He thought I was making it up or was some sort of political operative. I was like, "Dude, we don't have body armor. That's a fact. I'll show you pictures of guys who got shot." So there was an outrage about the fact that we were so disconnected from this country that cared so much about us and threw us into the cauldron with ridiculous levels of support. Not only did we not have the public's support behind us, we didn't have body armor. We didn't have vehicles. We couldn't get ammo. This is the most powerful military in the world and we can't get ammo? They blew past cities, and then we had to go back into them later. We pulled out of Fallujah and then went back into Fallujah.
I know you did some work with Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and made television and radio appearances, but decided not to go into politics.
No, politically, I didn't have a home. So me and this other guy who had been kind of in the Kerry campaign orbit, we said "F*ck it, we're going to start our own thing." We had a basic website that was PaulRieckhoff.com, and it became Operation Truth.
Our first tagline was "We were there." That was it. It was on our T-shirts. It was to give voice to the troops. Everything from the real story of the insurgency to what is the National Guard was a question back then. It was just a platform for vets to speak the truth. It was a very flat page, kind of a message board. What really started to happen was the galvanizing of the community around a gathering place.

Sunday, 27 November 2011

1 / 11 backnext View All 2012 ELECTION Top 10 People Really, Truly, Honestly Not Running for President



Even after weeks of fevered divination and his  Sermon on the Mount at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in September, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie isn’t running for President. His past statements were definitive even for the realm of politics, where a denial is sometimes just the first flirtatious glance of the courting process. “Short of suicide, I don’t really know what I’d have to do to convince you people that I’m not running,” he told reporters last November, one of countless abnegations he’s issued in the last year. “I’m not running.” Perhaps his  drawn-out announcement on Tuesday that “now is not my time” will buy him a few weeks of respite from rabid reporters and dissatisfied donors eager to see him run.

Libya's Lessons



Moammar Gaddafi's death makes for an interesting punctuation mark in the ever-evolving U.S. approach to war. The key choice: should it be an exclamation point ("We got him! And not a single American died!) or a question mark ("Did we just get lucky? Is this a template for how the U.S. should wage future wars?").
We shouldn't over-learn whatever lessons there are to be gleaned by Gaddafi's demise and the joyful crowds gathering in Tripoli and other Libyan cities. But neither should we be shy about exploring what they might be.
When Operation Odyssey Dawn began seven months ago Wednesday -- with the U.S. taking the lead, its B-1 and B-2 bombers attacking Libyan targets from bases inside the U.S. -- it marked a humanitarian response to Gaddafi's threat to kill rebels in the city of Benghazi like "rats". After two weeks, the U.S. handed off the mission -- renamed Operation Unified Protector -- to NATO, which, in fits and starts, ground down Gaddafi's forces.
Finally -- after the allies insisted they were not targeting the Libyan strongman -- NATO air power apparently played a key role in his capture, wounding and subsequent death Thursday. Alliance warplanes reportedly attacked a convoy in which he was fleeing his hometown of Sirte.
While the campaigns launched by President George W. Bush continue -- vigorously in Afghanistan, winding down in Iraq -- President Obama seems to have split the difference in Libya.
He moved out only with United Nations approval, and an invitation from the Arab League. He let Europe take the lead, and vowed not to put a single U.S. combat boot on Libyan soil. "It is undeniable that the NATO campaign prevented a massacre and contributed mightily to Gaddafi's undoing," said Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the foreign relations committee, "without deploying boots on the ground or suffering a single American fatality."
Obama's military efforts in Pakistan, Yemen and Uganda also show a lighter touch than the get-tough approach brandished by Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Part of it, of course, is due to the passage of time; there's little doubt Obama would have taken down the Taliban inside Afghanistan if he had been in office on September 11, 2001. But that conflict, as well as the troubled Iraq war, have reminded Americans and their leaders once again about the usefulness of military force. It's good for whacking someone -- punishment, vengeance -- but far less helpful when it comes to remaking a foreign land.
That realization -- if it takes root -- has major implications for the future size and shape of the U.S. military. The U.S. armed forces and the government that oversees it are at a crossroads. With budget cuts inevitable, they can choose either to fight to keep everything the U.S. military now has -- in terms of materiel, manpower and missions -- or they can recalibrate their goals.
The U.S. can continue to field a large, land-based Army (never mind the Marines), and keep it in reserve like a holstered gun. Potential foes -- we mean you, Pyongyang -- will know we have the wherewithal to deal with them on the ground.
But history offers important clues here: the last land war we cleanly won was the European theater in World War II -- nearly 70 years ago. Since then, U.S. victories in land wars  -- Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan -- have been elusive (the first Gulf War lasted less than 100 hours on the ground; air power did all the heavy lifting). So after the exclamation point generated by Gaddafi's death, the nation is left with a question mark: why keep a big and costly land army hanging around if all it does is encourage the nation to engage in wars it has little chance of winning?