Archive for April, 2010

Tories ruin debt relief Bill


2010
04.28

On Friday, David Cameron’s MPs ruined the chances of a Private Member’s Bill on debt relief banning “vulture funds” passing. The three Conservative MPs, Christopher Chope, Andrew Robathan and Simon Burns – two of them Tory front benchers – then refused to admit which one had objected to the Bill.

Tories-ruin-debt-relief-billLeft Foot Forward is joining the Jubilee Debt Campaign in calling on Mr Cameron to come clean on whether this important Bill was stopped on his instructions. The Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill aimed to stop secretive off-shore investment funds from profiteering out of third world debt.

These “vulture funds” buy up the debts of poor countries, often at a fraction of their face value, and pursue them through the international courts, in many instances despite agreements by the UK and others to give the country debt relief. In one such case last year, Liberia lost a £13m case in London against two vulture funds – meaning that debt relief provided by UK taxpayers amongst others was taken away from reducing poverty into the pocket of tax havens.

If the Bill had passed, it would have help tackle this problem by protecting the existing debts of the 40 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) which are eligible for relief under the internationally-agreed HIPC initiative. It would have prevented creditors holding these debts from recovering in excess of the rate of relief expected from all creditors under the initiative, and provided an incentive for debtors to co-operate in settling these debts on terms consistent with the Initiative.

The Tories had raised objections to the Bill from the start, in stark contrast to its unequivocal backing by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. On 27 February the Jubilee Debt Campaign reported that Conservative Treasury spokesman David Gauke had admitted to “outstanding concerns” and said his party “would not support the measure being rushed through the House”.

Tory politicians appeared to be prepared to make people in developing countries pay for the past actions of corrupt leaders. Christopher Chope MP argued in the debate on this bill that:

“For such countries that are essentially corrupt, we seem, in effect, to be saying that we should indulge that corruption by writing off these debts, even when they have been incurred as a result of commercial transactions.”

MEP Roger Helmer, meanwhile, was busy arguing that “debt relief can do more harm than good” on Conservative Home, claiming that, as a result of the Bill:

“British taxpayers will pick up the costs for the developing world’s continued reliance on aid.”

He obviously prefers that British taxpayers money be siphoned off instead by investment funds in the Caribbean. Then, just a day before it was being tabled, Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, tried to introduce an amendment to the Bill which would have prevented the bill reaching its third reading.

After it was pointed out that his objection (that the Bill should not apply to past judgements) had been agreed at committee stage, his objection was withdrawn. With Baroness Quinn agreeing to take it through the Houses of Lords, it seemed as if the Bill was set to pass before the general election.

At the very last minute on Friday, however, three Tory MPs were seen to huddle together on the benches before one shouted the word “object!” – which, under parliamentary procedure, effectively stopped the bill passing.

As The Guardian reported this morning, debt campaigners have reacted in fury and disbelief to the killing of the Bill. Sally Keeble MP accused the Conservatives of “duplicity” by pretending to back the legislation and then sabotaging it at the last minute:

“This action today gives the lie to the Tories’ pretence of supporting international development. This bill was a small, but significant step in helping the most impoverished countries deal with their debts. It also protected British taxpayers’ money.

“The Tories obviously think that developing countries are good enough to use as tax havens from which to get funding. But they are not prepared to protect the poorest developing countries from the most blatant profiteering.”

David Cameron has important questions to answer. He must own up if one of his team was responsible for scuppering this bill. Was it his deputy chief whip Andrew Robotham MP, the whip Simon Burns MP, or the chair of the bill committee, Christopher Chope? Was the bill stopped on his instructions? Will the Conservatives commit to re-introduce this bill within 12 months of the new Parliament if Mr Cameron forms a government?

International development secretary, Douglas Alexander, has sent a letter to the Tory leader demanding an explanation, which you can sign at http://www.globalpovertypromise.com/letter

You can also join the Jubilee Debt Campaign’s call to Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling to make extra time for the Bill and to guarantee to re-introduce the legislation if their party wins the General Election.

Tories ruin debt relief Bill from Left Foot Forward

Selling coaching to corporates?


2010
04.27

In particular the best questions to ask, ways to explain what you do quickly, how best to explain how it’s different from training.

I’ve had some success but always keen to share ideas with people who are more experienced than me.

I specialise in the creative industry and it’s still relatively new and not easily understood or explained.

Any advice or pointers would be hugely appreciated

thanks

Melissa Kidd

http://www.coachingcreatives.co.uk

Selling coaching to corporates? from

The A-Z of freelance training: Part 5


2010
04.26

In the final part of her excellent series on freelance training, Sharon Gaskin tackles the trickier end of the alphabet: from V to Z.

read more

The A-Z of freelance training: Part 5 from

SNP in new smear row


2010
04.25

The Scottish National Party are at the centre of another smear row, centring on the recent death of 18-year-old Labour party member Danus McKinlay. Mr McKinlay was a close friend of Steven Purcell, Labour’s rising star, who earlier this month stepped down as leader of Glasgow city council as a result of exhaustion and stress.

Danus-McKinlayResponding to his death, Alan Clayton, listed as a political contact in the constituency office of SNP enterprise, energy and tourism minister Jim Mather, used an email newsletter sent under the auspicious of the Media Watch campaign he helps to run to allege that McKinlay had collapsed as a result of crack cocaine use. This was despite their being no evidence of such drug use, with an underlying health condition believed to have been the cause.

Clayton wrote of Danus’s death:

“Eighteen-year-olds just do not drop dead in the street without good reason. Was MacKinlay [sic] being supplied with crack cocaine? It is a quite massively expensive addiction and well beyond the financial means of an apprentice. Was someone giving it to him and if so whom?

Responding to the SNP smear, a spokesman for Mr McKinlay’s family said:

“Everyone is distraught. They don’t understand why a man they’ve never heard of would hurt them. They want to grieve in peace.”

Clayton’s comments came less than a week after he sparked fury over a false rumour that the former Labour leader at Glasgow council, Steven Purcell, was dying of a “lethal viral infection”. It was dubbed by Glasgow Labour MP John Robertson as “outrageous”. In another example of SNP smears, last year, an aide to education secretary Mike Russell, Mark MacLachlan, was forced to quit over using a blog to make false attacks and allegations over the sex lives and behaviour of leading opposition figures.

Reacting to the latest developments, Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said:

“There is something rotten at the heart of the SNP and Alex Salmond cannot wash his hands of it any longer. If he stays silent and does nothing, he is condoning it. The SNP should take disciplinary action against any member who spreads this sort of material and the first minister should personally apologise to the family of Danus McKinlay.”

Annabel Goldie, leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, also expressed her concerns:

Smearing other political parties is unfortunately a part of SNP politics, but smearing the McKinlay family’s dead son is repugnant and unacceptable. Alan Clayton is not just an ordinary SNP member. he is at the heart of the party, works closely with a minister and has links to Cabinet secretaries.”

In response, the SNP have launched disciplinary proceedings against Clayton headed by the party’s national secretary and disciplinary committee. A spokesman for the party said:

“The committee has powers to discipline ordinary members of the SNP after examination of their conduct. Although the party has no control over his e-mails, Mr Clayton has also been asked to apologise to the family concerned for any distress he may have caused them.

“The national secretary does not consider speculation over the tragic death of an 18-year-old a suitable matter for public comment.”

Clayton has since apologised, adding:

“There are no allegations but the question had to be asked.”

It has often been discussed just how influential the virtual election campaign will be this year, through blogs and social networking sites. Whilst such online resources prove an invaluable opportunity to discuss and debate issues in a full and frank manner, with influence should come responsibility. The bottom line should be to refrain from the sorts of personal attacks that cause unnceccasruy hurt to people and the sorts of lurid rumours and allegations that have long stigmatised the blogosphere in particular.

Clayton’s shocking comments were not only wrong and whole inappropriate, but were an affront to the true spirit and purpose of political blogging.

SNP in new smear row from Left Foot Forward

Osborne’s hypocrisy on financial regulation


2010
04.18

George Osborne today pens a joint op ed in the Financial Times with Columbia University economics professor Jeffrey Sachs. After a series of letters last month from senior economists on the case for slower fiscal consolidation, the article attempts to make the case for faster action on the deficit but has been attacked for attacking “straw men“.  It also exposes Osborne’s hypocrisy on financial regulation.

In the FT, Osborne and Sachs write:

In the recent duel of macro-economists, one camp has called for early budget consolidation, followed by further measures over five years. We agree. Others want more fiscal stimulus, delaying deficit reduction. We believe delaying the start of deficit reduction would put long-term recovery at risk. Such an approach misjudges politics, financial markets, and underlying economic realities.

Blaming our predicament on financial markets, as some in the second camp do, ignores the awkward truth that governments have enabled, if not enthusiastically promoted, recklessness, through chronic deficits and lax financial regulation.

But before the crash, George Osborne believed there was too much not too little financial regulation. For example, at a Chamber of Commerce event in April 2006, Osborne said:

“Regulation too inhibits enterprise. For example, speak to any business in financial services – from the largest investment bank to smallest independent financial adviser and the threat of future regulation from Whitehall and Brussels is now their number one concern.”

Meanwhile, in August 2007 – as subprime mortgage backed securities started causing a worldwide credit crunch – David Cameron endorsed a report by John Redwood outlining plans to cut £14 billion in in red tape and regulation for UK businesses. According to the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Redwood’s plan outlined that:

“A vast range of regulations on the financial services industry should either be abolished or watered down, including money-laundering restrictions affecting banks and building societies. Mr Redwood’s group also sees “no need to continue” to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk.

A recent report by Madano – which analysed the background of parliamentary candidates primarily from the Conservative party – found, according to the Times, that, “The number of candidates running this year with experience in finance has doubled to 10 per cent from the 1997 intake of MPs.”

Mr Osborne is on one side of a legitimate economic debate about the speed of deficit consolidation. But he has no right to make political capital out of financial regulation.

Osborne’s hypocrisy on financial regulation from Left Foot Forward

Net closes in on BNP Euro & UK expenses fiddles


2010
04.15

The British National Party’s lack of transparency over their accounts and expenses has landed them in hot water with both the British and European authorities. Having failed to submit their accounts on time to the electoral commission, the BNP are refusing to publish details of their European expenses.

Nick-Griffin-Andrew-BronsThe Telegraph reports the failure of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to give any details of how they spend more than half-a-million pounds of expenses, made up of a €50,424 (£45,382) annual general expenditure allowance, €4,148 (£3,733) annual travel allowance and a €210,480 (£189,432) a year staffing allowancethis despite not having “any staffers accredited to work” in Brussels or Strasbourg according to the European parliament.

On Griffin’s official MEP website, on the completely blank “Accounts & Expenses” page, it says only:

“All accounts and expenses will be published on this page for complete transparency as soon as they become available.”

While Brons responds to the Telegraph by claiming, repeatedly, that there is “no obligation” for him to justify his expenses to anyone, despite having campaigned for election on an anti-sleaze platform, criticising the established parties for having their “snouts in the trough”. Brons wrote:

“…The amounts received in both subsistence and travel are on public record and I am not under any obligation to make any other returnI have not been asked to make any return but I have the exact figures if I am asked to do so…There is no obligation for me to make any other returnThere is no requirement to make any other return…”

Domestically, Left Foot Forward has learnt that the Electoral Commission have placed the BNP “under review” over their failure to submit their accounts on time, initially reported by Left Foot Forward in January. A spokesman today said:

They’re a case under review. This is not yet a full-blown investigation, this is the last stage before an investigation. If they are to be fully investigated, this will be announced.”

Net closes in on BNP Euro & UK expenses fiddles from Left Foot Forward

Interactive Training Software


2010
04.10

I am looking for interactive training software which will be used off-line.  I will be loading my own training material onto the software.  It should be simple for users as some are not full computer literate. 

Ideally it should have a facility to score assessments electronically.

There are a vast number of different pieces of software on the web – I am hoping someone could recommend software that they have previously used or heard of.

Any help or assistance is most appreciated

Kind regards,

Des

 

 

Interactive Training Software from

TEAM BUILDING


2010
04.03

I have been asked to provide a team building exercise for up to 40 people.  The exercise will need to be completed inside and take around an hour and 15 minutes, inculding setup, undertaking the activity and debrief.  There is also limited funding available!!  Has anybody got any suggestions?

TEAM BUILDING from

Best Places to Advertise Public Courses?


2010
04.01

I’d appreciate any member views on the best places to advertise public courses (covering NLP, sales, facilitation, creativity, conflict resolution etc).

Ideally, I’d be interested to know why you are suggesting the places you are, and what experience you’ve had of advertising your own courses with them. (Cost versus number of booked courses per month etc.)

Many thanks.

Best regards,

David

Best Places to Advertise Public Courses? from