Laura J's profileThe Talking PointPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
May 26 David Cameron pledges radical political reform
Conservative leader David Cameron (Image © PA) What’s happening? Conservative leader David Cameron has promised a radical reform of the political system to restore public faith in British democracy in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal. Writing in the Guardian, he declared he would trim back the powers of the prime minister and government and give MPs more influence over legislation. Cameron’s proposals to decentralise power would prompt the biggest change in the way Britain is governed in the modern era. What are people saying? “I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power,” Cameron wrote. “From the state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from Whitehall to communities. From the EU to Britain; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy. Through decentralisation, transparency and accountability we must take power away from the political elite and hand it to the man and woman in the street.” Why should we give a damn? Cameron said a Tory government would:
Your thoughts?
Share It
May 21 Gurkhas granted right to live in Britain
(Joanna Lumley with Gurkha VC veterans Lachhiman Gurong (left) and Tul Bahador Pun/Image © John Stillwell/PA)
What’s happening?
Gurkhas have been granted the right to live in Britain in a dramatic u-turn by the government. About 36,000 Nepalese soldiers who left the British Army brigade before 1997 had previously been refused citizenship. Ministers were forced to rethink following the government’s humiliating defeat in the Commons last month. Veterans will now be given the same settlement rights as Commonwealth soldiers who fought on behalf of the UK.
What are people saying?
In a statement to the Commons at 12:15pm today, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said all Gurkhas who retired before 1997 and served more than four years would be able to bring their spouses and children with them to Britain. There will be no time limit on the policy and resources will be made available to the UK Borders Agency. "I'm delighted we have now been able to agree new settlement rights that all of those who have served us so well rightly deserve," she said. Gordon Brown previously said he had a “great deal of sympathy and support” for veterans. “I believe it is possible for us to honour our commitment to the Gurkhas and to do so in a way that protects the public finances,” he said during Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday.
Why should we give a damn?
The original policy was “blatantly discriminatory,” said Labour MP Martin Salter, who chaired a group of MPs calling for Gurkhas’ rights. In an interview with BBC News, he said the campaign had “encapsulated the British sense of fair play.” Joanna Lumley spearheaded the campaign, famously cornering Immigration Minister Phil Woolas in a TV studio after veterans’ applications were rejected. Speaking after today's announcement, she said: "This is a day for celebration. A great injustice has been righted." The actress also paid tribute to Gordon Brown: "a brave man who has made a brave decision on the bravest of the brave."
Your thoughts?
Gurkha factfile:
Share It
May 19 Speaker Michael Martin quits "to maintain unity"
(Image © PA)
What’s happening?
Michael Martin has resigned as Speaker of the House of Commons over the MPs’ expenses scandal – the most high-profile victim of the crisis and the first speaker to be forced from office in more than 300 years. Twenty-three MPs signed a motion calling for him to step down for his role in trying to keep parliamentary expenses secret. When campaigners first tried to uncover details under the freedom of information act, the Commons Commission – of which Martin was chair – fought the case in the high court. It eventually lost and agreed to publish details later this year. When the Daily Telegraph published leaked claims, however, Martin drew further criticism by calling for a police investigation.
What are people saying?
Addressing the House of Commons at 2:30pm today, Martin spoke only briefly to confirm he would stand down on June 21 “in order that unity can be maintained” in the House. After the announcement, Tory MP Douglas Carswell told BBC News: “The key is that the next speaker owes their position to the legislature as a whole. There is a duty to create a House of Commons that works. Changing the speaker is the beginning of a far-reaching process of reform.” Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell, a close ally of Martin, said: “He paid a heavy price for trying to be an establishment figure when the establishment was corrupt.” Angus Robertson, leader of the SNP in Westminster, reiterated calls for a general election. “This is a much bigger problem than one person,” he said. Harriet Harman, leader of the House, described the decision as “an act of great generosity to the House of Commons that MPs from all parties will respect.”
Why should we give a damn?
Some say Martin’s departure will herald the beginning of the end of the current crisis gripping Westminster; others say the issue of how to restore public faith in politics is yet to be resolved. Blogger Guido Fawkes describes Martin as “one of the most outrageous examples of personal enrichment at the public’s expense while pretending to be a public servant.” Guardian political commentator Michael White disagrees: “It is wrong to blame him for the decay of parliament; he has been a symptom, not the cause.” Either way, the move is expected to pave the way for a radical reform of parliament. Senior Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell told the Press Association: “I can tell you the Cabinet... will approve a series of reforms which will place the House of Commons in the hands of independent regulators rather than the House itself. The nature of the role of the speaker will change. There will no longer be a speaker who is in charge as chief executive. He will be procedural and ceremonial.”
Will that be enough to clean up Westminster? Your thoughts...
Share It
April 23 Brown’s future post-budget: “defeat or humiliating defeat” MSN Money's post-Budget poll shows voters were unimpressed
Yesterday’s Budget won’t save the Labour government at the next general election, political analysts say. Pollsters on both sides of the aisle gave dire predictions, ranging from manageable defeat to humiliating defeat, for the party after yesterday’s bad-news Budget. If Labour can’t convince voters it has a grip on the recession in the coming months, the analysts say, it risks being “completely wiped out” at the polls.
Andrew Cooper, founder and strategic director of polling firm Populus, is a leading interpreter of political opinion. I asked him whether Chancellor Alistair Darling’s plans could help the government survive. “The short answer is no,” he said. “Voters are profoundly sceptical and won’t be swayed by what he has said. They’ll want to wait and see what happens.”
‘They give one and take two’ is a phrase he frequently hears in focus groups. “Although it sounds as though people are going to be better off, they actually end up worse off.” To make matters worse, this year’s Budget was delivered during a global recession and it is that recession, Andrew says, that will decide the government’s fate.
Wiped out
“In the weeks and months to come, the concern will be does it feel like the chancellor’s announcements are working?” he told me. “If yes, Labour may experience a manageable defeat. If not, they could be completely wiped out.
“For example, there was a blip bump for Labour immediately after the collapse of the Lehmann Brothers last autumn. The government sensed terrible things were happening all over the world and seemed to have a plan. By December, the polls suggested a general election would have produced a hung parliament and Labour would have had the biggest majority.
“Now, the polls indicate Labour would only have a majority of 40 to 50, when what they need is a converted majority of 50 to 100 or more. If they can’t persuade voters they’ve got a grip, they risk being wiped out completely.”
Economic populism
The Budget did, however, offer clues to Labour’s general election strategy. Increasing taxes on high earners is an attempt to define Labour as the party of the masses, rather than the privileged few – a philosophy put forward by legendary pollster Stan Greenberg after he joined Labour’s ranks in 1995 (Tony Blair wasn’t convinced by the political power of economic populism at the time; Gordon Brown was).
Will voters buy it? Elizabeth Truss, deputy director of right-of-centre think tank Reform, doesn’t think so. “(Labour) have failed to address voters’ concerns about the high level of debt and public spending,” she told me. “Many voters are having to cut back on their own household budgets. They want to see the public sector do the same.”
Darling must change direction in November’s Pre-Budget Report if the government is to avoid a debilitating defeat, she said. “He needs to address the deficit and reduce spending in the key departments. How well Labour does in the next general election depends on whether the government continues on this course of overspending or decides to make the difficult decision and rein it in.”
What did you think of the Budget? Did it win your vote, or will you be backing someone else at the general election?
April 08 Video shows G20 police push man to groundWhat’s happening?
An investigation into the death of a man at last week’s G20 protests has been launched by the City of London police, whose own officers were involved. Video footage published in today’s Guardian shows 47-year-old Ian Tomlinson being pushed to the ground from behind by a police officer moments before suffering a fatal heart attack. Tomlinson, a newspaper seller, was on his way home from work and had not been involved in the protests.
What are people saying?
In an official statement on the night of Tomlinson’s death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any contact with officers. Today, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said: “The images that have now been released raise obvious concerns and it is absolutely right and proper that there is a full investigation into this matter, which the Met will fully support.” The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which examines serious incidents and allegations of misconduct, is overseeing the investigation, but has not yet launched its own inquiry.
Why should we give a damn?
Police investigations into fatal incidents came under scrutiny after the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot by officers in 2005. An IPCC inquiry revealed serious failings in the Met’s handling of critical information. Did the police learn anything from de Menezes? No, says Guardian columnist Duncan Campbell, who suggests their tactics for dealing with demonstrations are "dangerously wrong." Lawyers are now calling for a criminal investigation into Tomlinson’s death. “If there are allegations that the death was caused or contributed to by unlawful actions of the police, then a police investigation would not be satisfactory,” Harriet Wistrich of Birnberg Peirce, the solicitors who represented the family of de Menezes, told The Guardian. “The IPCC should clearly run its own independent investigation which could lead to a referral of the case to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to bring a criminal prosecution against the officers. If there is evidence of an assault, even if there is evidence to suggest there was a lawful defence to the assault, then it has got to be referred to the CPS.” Your thoughts? March 30 Porn claim reignites MPs' expenses row
(Image © PA)
What’s happening?
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, a seasoned crusader against the sex industry, has apologised after mistakenly claiming the cost of two pornographic movies on her parliamentary expenses. The pay-per-view films were watched by her husband, Richard Timney, at the family home while Smith was away. The humiliating revelation not only threatens to undermine her authority, but has called into fresh question exactly what MPs should be claiming for at taxpayers’ expense.
What are people saying?
Conservative leader David Cameron described the incident as “deeply embarrassing”, but stopped short of calling for Smith’s resignation (to do so would invite closer scrutiny of the Tories’ own expense claims). Prime Minister Gordon Brown rose to Smith’s defence in a Downing Street press conference: “The Home Secretary is doing a great job and I do not think this issue should be allowed to detract from everything she is doing to ensure we protect the public and keep our neighbourhoods safe.”
Why should we give a damn? British taxpayers are becoming increasingly angry at the secrecy surrounding MPs’ expenses. In recent years, several MPs have fallen foul of Whitehall’s sleaze watchdogs for alleged expense-fiddling. Tory MP Derek Conway was suspended from the Commons in 2008 for paying his son too much from parliamentary allowances and the ‘John Lewis List’ caused a public outcry when it was released under the Freedom of Information Act. Only last week Brown ordered the Committee on Standards in Public Life to launch a review of the whole system of parliamentary pay and allowances, but it’s unlikely to report before the general election. Cameron today urged the prime minister to speed up the review, due to start in September, calling for “complete transparency” in relation to claims made by MPs.
Your thoughts?
P.S. On a slightly less serious note, which films do you think Smith’s husband was watching? Tongue-in-cheek title suggestions welcomed (but please remember this is a family-friendly news blog!)... March 24 Executions almost doubled in 2008 - Amnesty
(Image © DAVE MARTIN/AP/PA Photos)
What’s happening?
The number of people sentenced to death worldwide almost doubled last year, according to a new report by human rights group Amnesty International. Between January and December 2008, at least 2,390 people were executed by 25 countries, up from 1,252 in 2007. “There is no clear answer as to why the numbers have gone up,” Amnesty spokesman Neil Durkin told me. “The problem is China. It was responsible for 72% of all executions, but classifies all information about capital punishment as a state secret.” The good news, says Amnesty, is that only one in four countries still retain capital punishment, “which shows we are moving closer to a death-penalty free world. The bad news is that judicial killings are still being carried out at an average rate of seven per day.”
What are people saying?
In the report, Amnesty International Secretary General Irene Khan called for the death penalty to be universally abolished. “The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,” she said. “Beheadings, electrocutions, hangings, lethal injections, shootings and stonings have no place in the 21st century. Capital punishment is not just an act, but a legalised process of physical and psychological terror that culminates in people being killed by the state. It must be brought to an end.”
Why should we give a damn?
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty “because it is a violation of two fundamental human rights, as laid down in Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to life and the right not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.” But the enormity of certain crimes, such as the murder of five Ipswich prostitues by “Suffolk Strangler” Steve Wright, inevitably prompts calls for capital punishment to be returned to our statute books. In a poll by the Sun, 99% of 95,000 readers said Britain needs a death penalty. In recent decades, however, restoration has been consistently voted down with big majorities in Parliament. The British government believes whole life sentences, as handed down to Wright, remain the ultimate sanction.
Your thoughts?
March 17 Higher tuition fees: pricing students out of education? (Image © PA)
What’s happening?
Many universities in England and Wales want to raise tuition fees from their current capped level of £3,500 to as much as £20,000 per year to help cover costs – a move that could prompt students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, to abandon higher education in droves, according to new research.
What are people saying?
In one study, more than 50% of university heads, speaking anonymously, told the BBC they want students to pay at least £5,000 a year, or for there to be no upper limit on fees. A separate report commissioned by Universities UK said students would begin to turn their backs on higher education if annual fees were raised to £7,000, but wouldn’t react if they were raised to £5,000. The National Union of Students (NUS) warned annual fees of £7,000 would saddle graduates in 2016 with debts of £32,000 – more than double the average total debt predicted by Universities UK for graduates in 2011.
Why should we give a damn?
In 1997, when Sir Ron Dearing’s landmark report into the future of education concluded students would have to help pay university costs, undergraduates took to the streets in 14 cities to protest that fees would deter young people from low-income families from going to university. Today’s findings have renewed the debate about how to maintain the nation’s higher education standards just five years after tuition fees sparked one of the biggest backbench rebellions faced by the Labour government. NUS president Wes Streeting told the BBC: "In the context of the current recession, it is extremely arrogant for university vice chancellors to be fantasising about charging their students even higher fees and plunging them into over £32,000 of debt." The Tories have dropped their opposition, but accuse the government – which has yet to comment – of delaying its review of the system. Backbench rebels, however, are already mobilising: MP Paul Farelly warned the government would ignore the risks “at its peril”.
Your thoughts?
P.S. Apologies for the prolonged absence. Went on annual leave, but forgot to tell you beforehand. Senior moment... February 25 MPs online: the dawn of direct democracy?
(Image © PA)
What's happening?
MPs are increasingly using social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook to keep constituents informed, but failing to engage them in two-way conversation. That’s according to a new report, ‘MPs online’, by the Hansard Society. Independent political researchers studied how 168 MPs use digital media to connect with their constituents – and it seems they’re doing plenty of talking, but very little listening.
What are people saying?
Speaking at its launch, Dr Andy Williamson, of Hansard, said: “MPs aren’t good users of technology – most use it in despatch mode, with no interaction or feedback. Their current grade would be a D.” Labour’s Tom Harris, the first minister to blog his own sacking when he was fired from Gordon Brown’s frontbenches last year, agreed. He blogs not to interact with voters, but to voice his opinions and prove politicians are “kind of normal” – interested in Dr Who and karaoke.
Why should we give a damn?
If MPs learn to use innovative technology in innovative ways, rather than as the online equivalent of shoving leaflets through letterboxes, the impact on politics “will be absolutely revolutionary,” said Tory MP Douglas Carswell (who admits he doesn’t update his own Twitter feed – his wife does it for him). Barack Obama led by example during the US elections, deploying social media tools to garner and engage voters. He now has 325,872 followers on Twitter. By listening – and, more importantly, responding – to constituents, online MPs could bring about a new era of direct democracy, giving us unprecedented input into how our country is run. Or could it?
Your thoughts? February 11 Should ecstasy be downgraded?
(Image © PA)
What’s happening?
Ecstasy, the drug synonymous with Britain’s dance club culture, should be downgraded from class A to class B, the government’s drug advisers will say today in a long-awaited report into the associated health risks. That would put ecstasy in the same category as cannabis, but the government says it will ignore the advice – as it did when it upgraded cannabis last month.
What are people saying? Professor David Nutt, head of the Home Office’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), wrote in January’s Journal of Psychopharmacology that taking ecstasy is “no more dangerous than riding a horse” or other risky activities. In response, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith yesterday accused him of trivialising the dangers of drugs and a Home Office spokesman told ITN: “Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably; there is no such thing as a 'safe dose'. The government firmly believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug.” Deaths linked to the drug have trebled since the 1990s - from 10 per year to 30.
Why should we give a damn?
Professor Nutt has defended his comments, telling the Daily Telegraph: “The point was to get people to understand that drug harm can be equal to harms in other parts of life.” The critical question, he says, is “why society tolerates – indeed encourages – certain forms of potentially harmful behaviour but not others, such as drug use.” In other words, if pursuits such as motorcycling, horse riding and alcohol kill more people than illicit drugs, why aren’t we banning those instead?
Your thoughts?
Share It
February 03 Why Britain struggles with snow
(Image © Dominic Lipinski/PA)
As snow storms continue to sweep Britain, one question lingers: why has the wintry weather caused so much disruption? If countries where it snows 180 days a year can cope, why does Britain always seem to struggle?
The blizzards that closed schools and brought transport to a grinding halt yesterday weren’t entirely unexpected. As early as last Thursday, the Met Office warned the weekend would herald the return of bitter conditions. A statement on the Met Office website said: “This coming weekend will see the return of colder weather across the UK with the increasing chance of snow in some areas. At this stage, eastern parts of the country are expected to see the heaviest of any snow with some disruption possible.”
Public accusations The authorities charged with keeping the country running knew what was coming, but come Monday morning, about 20% of the nation’s workforce couldn’t get to work. Trains, tubes and buses were cancelled across the capital. Some people accused the authorities of not being prepared.
“We’re appalled,” Stephen Alambritis, a spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses, a trade group in the capital, told Bloomberg reporters. “We need to have a discussion about our infrastructure and why it can’t operate in weather like this.” Chris Roberts, who walked part of the way from his home in east London to a job interview in the city because the London Underground was suspended, said: “Transport for London could’ve been better prepared.”
John Biggs, a member of the city’s legislative assembly, called for an investigation of the bus and train breakdown. In an e-mailed statement, he said London Mayor Boris Johnson may have been “caught napping.”
Official response
The authorities have responded to the criticism by saying extreme weather events are so rare in this country that the cost of preparing for them can’t be justified. Put simply, taxpayers' money is needed to pay for more pressing things.
London Mayor Boris Johnson said the rarity of heavy snowfalls in the British capital didn’t make it worthwhile to invest taxpayers' money in snowploughs. "We have done pretty well in what are extraordinary circumstances," he told BBC London news. "This is the right kind of snow; it's just the wrong kind of quantities. I have never seen anything like it." Transport for London is the city agency that runs the buses and underground trains. Spokesman Steve Taylor echoed the mayor's comments and told me the real question was one of spending priorities. “The snow between Saturday and Monday was pretty extreme for London,” he said. “We prepared for it as much as we could, gritting roads and de-icing rails, but the sheer weight of the snow was too much.”
Comparing London with Moscow, he said, is essentially unfair. “Moscow can cope because it happens every week," he said. "They have huge fleets of vehicles keeping the roads and rails clear. So, it’s really a question of investment and where you put it. We don’t perform as strongly because the money is needed elsewhere.”
The Department of Transport agreed. "This is the worst snowfall we’ve seen in 18 years," a spokesman told me. "It’s true that some other countries have a greater capability to respond to conditions of this kind, but they experience them on a regular basis – year in, year out. We see them once a decade at most."
The government’s minister for London, Tony McNulty, said in a Bloomberg TV interview: “If we organised our entire public services around the one-off chance that there might be heavy snowfall, a number of groups would attack us for what would be such a waste of money.”
Your thoughts?
Share It
January 26 New cannabis laws create "dual justice system"
(Image © PA)
What’s happening?
The reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B comes into effect today amid claims the new laws send out “mixed messages”. The government introduced tougher penalties because of concerns that strong strains of the drug, such as skunk, can cause mental health problems. Under the new ‘three strikes’ system, a warning will be followed by an £80 spot fine. Only after a third offence will people face arrest and up to five years in prison.
What are people saying?
Legal experts have warned the new penalty system is fundamentally unfair – and could even cause a surge in cannabis use. “It’s a dual justice system,” John Fassenfelt, deputy chair of the Magistrates’ Association, told the BBC. “If you smoke or take another Class B drug you’ll be brought to court, if you take cannabis you’ll be given a fine. Where’s the justice in that?”
Why should we give a damn?
The government reversed David Blunkett’s decision to downgrade cannabis because of “real public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use,” despite expert advice that it should remain Class C. Although mental health charities welcomed the move, others claim it will do little to deter users. Danny Kushlick, of the drugs policy think tank Transform, said: “Nobody is going to be put off smoking cannabis by the decision to reclassify it. It’s a decision that has been taken for political reasons.”
Your thoughts?
Share It
January 22 Is the credit crunch fuelling a crime wave?
What’s happening?
The number of robberies involving knives increased by 18% in England and Wales between July and September last year, according to figures released today by the Home Office – the first official sign that the recession is fuelling a violent crime wave.
What are people saying?
The Tories insist there is a link between rising theft and the credit crunch. “These statistics show yet another harsh consequence of Gordon Brown’s economic downturn,” Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said in a statement released to the press. But Home Secretary Jacqui Smith denied that it was inevitable. “It has been the case in the past when we have had previous recessions that it has had an impact on crime,” she told Sky News. “That is why we started working last summer to make sure we could be on the front foot to prevent that from happening. I do not think these things are inevitable, there are things you can do about it.”
Why should we give a damn?
The 18% rise in street robberies involving knives is “a truly alarming statistic”, writes Guardian home affairs editor Alan Travis – not least because it comes despite government efforts to reduce knife crime in 10 notorious hotspots. But it is the smaller rise in burglaries, fraud and forgeries that will set alarm bells ringing in the Home Office, writes Times home affairs correspondent Richard Ford, because they “suggest that overall crime could soon start to head upwards dramatically – with highly damaging consequences for a government heading towards a general election.”
Do you feel safe on our streets? Is the credit crunch really causing a crime wave? Share It
January 21 President Obama's speech: the verdicts
(Image courtesy of Ron Edmonds/AP/PA Photos)
The world’s leading political commentators have begun returning their verdicts on President Barack Obama’s inaugural address. The speech issued a stern warning that challenging times lie ahead; called for responsibility on the part of every American and drew a definitive line under the Bush administration.
Naomi Wolf, feminist, author and former political consultant to the Clinton administration, applauds the lack of “fake optimism” and notes three things Obama did impressively. “Firstly, he sounded a note of our dire circumstances that was in line with a reality that many have been in denial about. That is technically brilliant, because he's inheriting a mess, and he's telling people, ‘We’re not going to dig ourselves out of this easily.’ But also, ‘Don't blame me for it all.’” Secondly, he reasserted the rule of law – with George W Bush sitting right behind him. And thirdly, “most amazingly,” the new president reached out to the Muslim world: “For Obama to say, ‘I’m not going to demonise you’ – that is extraordinarily stabilising,” she writes in the Guardian.
In around 20 minutes, thunders the New York Times’ opinion-editorial, Obama “swept away eight years of President George Bush’s false choices and failed policies and promised to recommit to America’s most cherished ideals.” Noting the speech lacked the soaring rhetoric of John F Kennedy’s, the paper nonetheless argues “it left no doubt how Mr Obama sees the nation’s problems and how he intends to fix them and, unlike Mr Bush, the necessary sacrifices he will ask of all Americans.”
Not everyone was quite so overwhelmed. Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for George Bush, told Fox News the speech was a literary let-down: “The surprising thing about this speech was that in this extraordinary moment, the speech was actually quite ordinary from a literary perspective. There were too many 'raging storms' and 'gathering clouds' and other things that any writer could consider cliché. And I don't understand given Obama's literary ear in so many past speeches how some of these things got through into an inaugural address."
Gerard Baker, US editor of the Times, bemoans the lack of memorable phrases. Obama’s language, he writes, was “decidedly 19th century” – a self-conscious attempt to echo the words of his hero, Abraham Lincoln.
But that, argues Jonathan Atler in Newsweek, is missing the point. Or, rather, two points. “First, this is Obama's style. Neither his famous Philadelphia speech on race nor his acceptance speech in Denver contained sound bites. He loathes them, and thinks the media's obsession with one-liners undermines sustained argument. Second, it can take time for a line to penetrate. FDR's ‘the only thing we have to fear is fear itself’ was on the inside pages of most accounts of his speech. The same for Dr. King's ‘I have a dream’ line. So something may emerge from this speech that is hard to predict before it sinks in further.”
Here's the text of Obama's speech in full. What's your verdict?
Watch some highlights:
Also on MSN:
Share It
January 20 President Obama: the day has come7:15pm: your verdicts Did Obama's speech hit the right note with you? Share your thoughts in the comments section. I'll be back tomorrow with more analysis. G'night. 6:30pm: the new semantics? Back to the instant verdicts: Conservative author S E Cupp told Fox News: "This was a great speech. President Barack Obama hit every centrist note — strength in our defense, but with restraint. Pride in country, but with humility. Help for the poor, but not for the lazy. Great challenges, but tremendous optimism for the future. Peace for the willing, opposition against the unwilling. He spoke respectfully and sincerely to both sides of the aisle. There is no doubt in my mind (nor was there ever) that Barack Obama will govern from the center. And this is very good news." In the Daily Mail, commentator Liz Jones writes that, at times, Obama almost had the "cadence and emotion" of Dr Martin Luther King: "This wasn’t a speech that dodged any issues, and parts of it will be difficult to swallow for many Americans, especially the super rich and the famous ones. I think his sombre words will herald the end of the silly celebrity culture, the ridiculous consumer culture, that Americans have lapped up for so long." Political blogger Michael Tomasky, writing in the Guardian, says he was surprised by how "rooted in the moment" the speech was. "Obama chose to speak in specific terms – one might even say programmatic ones – about the dire present moment and his plans for how to get out of it... A few of the lines were so on-message that they would have worked well in a closing statement during a presidential debate." Elsewhere, a tag cloud of words used by Obama during his address reveals that 'nation' dominated, followed - apparently in equal quantity - by 'America', 'people', 'world', 'work' and 'today'. Words such as 'God', 'patriot', 'danger' and 'defence' were used only sparingly - a deliberate reversal of his predecessor's preferred rhetoric? It certainly seems to emphasise the difference between the two presidents' priorities.
5:45pm: The post-speech analysis begins The most important part of today's spectacle was Obama's speech, delivered immediately after he became the new US president. Commentators across the world are now poring over the full text, analysing every syllable. What were the main messages? Was there any subtext? Is it comparable to the inaugural speeches of any previous presidents? Obama's main message - that the US needs to pick itself up, dust itself off and reclaim its position of leadership - was a direct jab at the many failings of the Bush administration. Some commentators are comparing the speech to the one given by John F Kennedy, who also inherited a country that had been united by fear. * Quick aside: Dubyah has left the building (well, the Hill), heading for Andrews Air Force base and then onto the former First Family's new home in Texas. Cheers in the MSN newsroom... 5:05pm: Barack Obama is now president of the United States
Here comes the man of the hour, his hand on Lincoln's bible... And he stammered! Stumbled on his words. "I will execute faithfully... faithfully execute... (smiles all round) " BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Obama speaks: he's thanking George Bush for his cooperation. "Every so often, the oath is taken in rising storms and gathering clouds.. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood." Lost homes, failing schools, dependence on foreign energy - these are the indicators of crisis, he's saying. "No less profound is the sagging of confidence in our country..." The challenges will be many, "but know this, America - they WILL BE MET... On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances, the worn-out dogmas, that for too long have strangled our (government)... All are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness..." He's paying homage to the ancestors of today's generations of Americans. "They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions... Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin the work of rebuilding America." Science will be "restored to its rightful place" in the new administration, he's saying - core to solving some of the most pressing issues facing humanity today, such as global warming and energy production. "All this we can do; all this we will do." Not a square inch of ground on Capitol Hill that isn't covered by human beings, listening intently. No sign of any notes or autocue - can't imagine Dubyah pulling off a lengthy speech quite so eloquently. "We reject the choice between our safety and our ideals" - a return to the rule of law, even in the face of terrorism. "We are ready to lead once more." Cheers. Fascism and Communism were faced down with sturdy convictions, not just tanks, he's saying. "The lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" - his tone is overwhelmingly pluralist, one of working together to defeat common foes such as climate change and energy shortages. "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility." Now he's reciting Washington's own words - those of carrying forward freedom and delivering it safely into his people's hands." This is a man who means business - and will be sitting in the Oval office tomorrow morning with a pile of enormous problems waiting in his in-tray. The biggest ovation came when he referenced the fact that 60 years ago, a man of colour would have struggled to get a seat in a restaurant - and certainly wouldn't have been standing on Capitol Hill accepting the US presidency. 5pm: theme by John Williams Joe Biden is now vice president of the United States. Legendary Hollywood composer John Williams, he of Star Wars fame, penned the piece of music that will usher Obama onto the stage. It's a sweeping, orchestral version of Lord of the Dance. Not bad. It's now noon in DC. The inauguration is running slightly behind schedule - a rare thing indeed. Everyone's on their feet. 4:45pm: Barack Obama takes the stage It's a cliche, but the applause that greets him is thunderous. This is the dream that Martin Luther King spoke about four decades ago. Silence falls for a second before the soon-to-be-president and his VP, Joe Biden, are introduced. "The world is watching as our great democracy engages in this peaceful transition of power..." Ballots are more powerful than bullets, the speaker is saying: hear, hear. This just in from our blogger in DC: "Eerie silence as crowd awaits swearing in. Dubya appears to chants of 'na na na na na na na na hey hey hey goodbye' and boos." 4:35pm: George W gets less-than-enthusiastic greeting Barely cracking a smile, the outgoing president has just taken his place to watch the inauguration of his successor. Muted boos from the crowd when his arrival was announced, the BBC's man-on-the-spot is reporting. Just spotted this on Twitter, from tanyaslonik: "Show some respect, people. No booing today! No shoes, either." Why no shoes? It's six below freezing in DC... And here comes Obama, looking every inch the statesman. The volume on the TV has been cranked right up here in the newsroom - my colleagues have downed tools are peering over the tops of their monitors like meerkats. Excitement levels almost as high as they were on election night. The horns are blowing: the ceremony is officially underway... 4:20pm, inauguration day: With less than an hour left of the Bush presidency, the global chatter about the handover of the White House has reached deafening levels. Twitter, the comversation platform of choice for Democrats during the elections, is again playing host to millions of Obama devotees. Here are a few snippets from the conversation: katofawesome: Now for the moment we've all been waiting for. I can feel it, the time is coming. :D linlori: A huge day in history and neither of my girls are old enough to understand what's going on. Sharoney: Long shot of the Mall. A sea of happy humanity. No exaggeration. None at all. caseymorell: Hillary looks pissed... Elaine, who's blogging live for us from DC, just caught a glimpse of George Bush senior - leaning heavily on his wife's shoulder and looking none-too-steady on his feet. Here's what she told me: "Just saw Bush senior on screen hobbling with cane. Cheers ripple through crowd as Gore, then Carter then Clintons come into view." Any minute now... 2:30pm, inauguration day: What's happening: It's been a long time coming, but change is finally here: today, at about 5pm GMT, Barack Obama will make history when he puts his hand on Abraham Lincoln's bible on the steps of the US Capitol and takes the oath of office, officially becoming the 44th president of the United States. What people are saying: More than a million people are braving the crush in Washington DC to witness the moment firsthand - including our Campaign Tales blogger, Elaine Monaghan, who's covering the event live for us. Here's her latest dispatch: "Finally made it into the city, nearly three hours after leaving home. Entertained during hour-long train ride that usually takes 10 minutes by beautiful gospel singing - Amazing grace, Lean on me, and endless chants of "yes we can" and "amen". Train absolutely jammed full, but as it edges along the track, there is not a single gloomy face: amazing atmosphere of joyfulness. As we arrive in the city, crowds are streaming towards the mall, the odd armoured personnel carrier is in view and people are handing out maps and stickers. It's absolutely bitterly cold, below freezing, unusual for washington, but no one seems to mind..." Why we should give a damn: The global conversation is overwhelmingly optimistic: the BBC World Service polled 17 nations and 15 of them said the majority of their population believe Obama's presidency will lead to improved relations between the US and the rest of the world. What do you think? Does Obama's inauguration herald a brave new world? I'll be live blogging throught the day and we'll be bringing you full coverage in our Obama inauguration special. Thanks for keeping me company. Also on MSN: Campaign Tales: live blog from Washington DC President Barack Obama: inauguration special Goodbye, Bush: a fond(-ish) farewell
Share It
January 19 Ken Clarke's comeback 'could divide voters' What's happening?
Former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke is making a dramatic return to the Tory frontbench. It’s all part of David Cameron’s reshuffle of his shadow cabinet as he beefs up his attack on the economic crisis in readiness for a general election.
What are people saying?
In a statement released to the press, the Conservative heavyweight – who will be compete directly with Labour’s Lord Mandelson – said he was “delighted” to be returning to frontline politics and wants to help Britain tackle “the gravest economic crisis I have known in my lifetime”.
Why should we give a damn?
His return could divide voters, according to liberal thinktank, CentreForum. Director Julian Astle told MSN: “Some will remember him as the chancellor who sorted out the public finances, turning the deficits of 1993 and 1994 into the surpluses inherited by Labour in 1999 and 2000, but many others will remember the price of Ken’s austerity – the leaking school buildings and the overstretched hospitals.” Mandelson has welcomed the appointment of a fellow pro-European, however, which could reinvigorate the campaign to get Britain into the single currency. Sunder Katwala, spokesman for the left-of-centre Fabian Society thinktank, blogged: “I am sure the Tory party’s instincts will remain strongly Eurosceptic, but Clarke’s portfolio will make him something of a balancing voice in the detail of policy and politics.” What do you think?
Share It
January 12 Prince Harry condemned for 'racist' remark What's happening?
Like grandfather, like grandson: Prince Harry is following in the footsteps of his gaffe-prone grandfather, Prince Philip, by putting his foot firmly in his mouth – again. Harry is under fire from political and religious groups for referring to an Asian army colleague as a ‘Paki’. Video footage of the remark, shot in 2006, was published online last week by the News of the World. The word is a derogatory term for an immigrant or descendant of an immigrant from Pakistan and the young royal’s remark has provoked widespread condemnation.
What are people saying?
Harry has since apologised, insisting no malice was intended. David Cameron, the first senior politician to comment, stressed the importance of “rooting out” such attitudes in Britain’s “great institutions”, but said no further disciplinary action was needed – a sentiment echoed by Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg. The Muslim Council of Britain, a moderate group, said the Prince had done the right thing by saying sorry: “In the big scheme of things, there are more important issues that we should be discussing, not least the carnage in Gaza,” a spokesman told Reuters. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, an independent body set up to help eliminate discrimination, told MSN: "These appear to be disturbing allegations and we will be asking the MoD to see the evidence, share that evidence with us and their plans for dealing with it. We will then consider what further action might be necessary."
Why should we give a damn?
What constitutes an offensive word is now the subject of reinvigorated debate. If terms such as ‘Brit’ and ‘Aussie’ are acceptable, why is ‘Paki’ not? Because, argues Murad Ahmed in the Times, the term comes from a different era, when it was used by racists to communicate violence and intimidation. Harry’s latest misdemeanour (since 2004, the son of the heir to the throne has traded blows with a paparazzi photographer and been criticised for wearing a Swastika to a friend’s fancy dress party) has also called into question the merits of a hereditary monarchy: are we expecting too much of boys from a broken home, forced into unsuitable boarding schools and “living their lives under a media microscope”, asks Guardian columnist Peter Preston.
Your thoughts? Share It
November 05 George W Bush addresses Americaby Laura Snook, senior news editor
3:25pm:
George W Bush, the soon-to-be ex-president of the United States, has just spoken outside the White House about Senator Obama and Joe Biden's "impressive victory" and promised the complete cooperation of his administration as Obama makes the transition to commander-in-chief.
He described McCain's campaign as "determined" and said the American people would always be grateful for the lifetime of service he had given to the country. "No matter how they cast their ballots, all Americans can be proud of the history that was made yesterday," he said.
"Across the country, citizens voted in large numbers. They showed a watching workd the vitality of America's democracy and the strides we have made toward a more perfect union.
"They chose a president whose journey represents a triumph of the American story: a testament to hard work, optimism and faith in the enduring promise of our nation." He described the moment as "especially uplifting" and acknowledged that a period of change was about to be embarked on in Washington as control of the White House was relinquished to the Democrats for the first time in eight years.
But, he said, there are some things that will not change: "The United States government will stay vigilant in meeting its most important responsibility: protecting the American people."
The reins, however, won't be handed over immediately: Bush still has 75 days left in office, although he pledged to keep the president elect "fully informed" during his final months at the White House. On January 20, Laura and George will return to Texas "with treasured memories of our time here; with profound gratitude for the honour of serving this amazing country."
Obama's arrival at the White House will be a "stirring moment," he said. He's already invited Barack and Michelle to visit him at the White House, a way of trying to involve his successor in the existing administration - a symbolic gesture and one which Obama may try to resist, knowing that full power will soon be his, former White House adviser Dr Stephen Hess is telling the BBC.
And W's off - without even the slightest trace of a smile, disappearing hastily back indoors. An eloquent statement.
What did you make of it?
Some memorable moments from Obama's night...By Ed Holden, MSN Channel Editor It's been a long but unforgettable night. A score of 350 electoral college votes is the tally recognised as a landslide in the US election. And Obama's vast haul of 338 surely comes close although the TV monitors seem to be withholding the phrase as the election coverage wraps up on all the major networks. Let's look back at some key moments from the evening (UK Times). 1.00am: Pennsylvania for Obama McCain's strategy of gunning against Obama's Pennsylvania polling advantage in the final weeks of his campaign were immediately proved to be a mistake. There were at least two hours before a final result. But it was already astonishingly difficult for McCain to win. Obama could now afford to lose key swing states including Ohio and Florida and still walk to The White House. 2.18am: Ohio for Obama The images of the enormous crowd in Chicago's Grant Park were perhaps the most stirring as Fox and CBS called key swing state Ohio for Obama. The Illinois Senator had a foot in The Oval office at this point. 2.43: Near-Certainty for Obama Crowds are curiously quiet in Grant Park as Obama reaches 207 of the 270 electoral votes required. But California is a certain 55 votes - that left him only needing to win Hawaii and Oregon which were both certainties. He appeared to be going way over the 270 at this point. 3.11am: Cool as you like News arrived that Obama 'has just finished dinner' with his family and was, in his own time, about to make his way to a Chicago hotel before moving on to Grant Park. Not to be rushed, Obama takes his time over the new first family's meal - the guy is just WAY too cool. 3.50am: The crowds gather As the certainty of victory set in among Barack supporters, crowds grew outside The White House as well as in the enormous swell in CHicago awaiting Obama's victory speech. Taxis beeped their horns in Times Square where the atmosphere was reported as being 'just like new year'. A tearful Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey are faces in the Grant Park crowd. 4.08am: President-Elect Obama The party is officially started as California pushes Obama over the brink.
4.17am: McCain's graceful concession It's sad for John McCain that perhaps the most memorable speech of his campaign will be this concession speech. "We have argued our differences, and he has prevailed... These are difficult times for our country and I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face. I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him but in offering our new president our goodwill." It was fantastically graceful, demonstrating the energy and the bullishness of the McCain character. Perhaps our favourite moment was when he forcefully quietened the boos of his supporters at the mention of Obama's name - like a schoolmaster hushing a class of disobedient kids. 5.04am: Puppy! Obama's historic speech marks the moment that will define the evening. But, in the MSN offices at least, one of the biggest cheers goes up when Obama thanks his family and promises his daughters a new puppy to take to The White House. Awwwww... maybe they'll call it Hillary. 5.05am: The Great Speaker A historic speech followed as an awed crowd failed to hold back the tears. The man is certain to go down in history as one of the greatest speakers. Here are some of our favourite quotes from the speech. “We will put our hands on the arc of history and bend it once more towards a better day.” "I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. This election was not hatched in the halls of the white house." "This is your victory. I know you didn’t do this just to win an election. You didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the challenges ahead." "The road ahead will be long. The climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or one term. But we will get there together." "Our stories are singular but our destiny is shared. A new dawn of American leadership is at hand." |
|
|
