Privacy Policy for coalitionofparties.blogspot.com
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at muhaltof@gmail.com.
At coalitionofparties.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by coalitionofparties.blogspot.com and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, coalitionofparties.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
coalitionofparties.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on coalitionofparties.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to coalitionofparties.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on coalitionofparties.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
coalitionofparties.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. coalitionofparties.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Coalition urges parties to support female refugees
Shanaaz Gokool, with Amnesty International, says Canada has a responsibility to help women stay safe.
The group "No one is illegal" is rallying in support of a woman who is in Canada illegally but wants to be accepted into the country as a refugee. The woman is afraid to return to her ex-husband in Mexico, the group says.
Meanwhile, a women's coalition group spoke to reporters earlier in the day about asking federal parties to speak out on how they would use Canada's immigration system to help protect women.
"The state, we feel, has a responsibility for women's human rights," said Shanaaz Gokool with Amnesty International. "They must respect, protect and fulfill. The state has a responsibility, whether abuses are committed by the state or non-state actors."
They say they've heard from the NDP and Green parties but have yet to hear from the Conservatives or the Liberals.
"Canada needs to not only make commitments internationally, we need to honour them here at home," said Ann Dector, with the YWCA. "We're here today to say that more is required. Women are being deported to unsafe situations without adequate hearings or sufficient recourse to legal counsel and other support."
Fernando Lugo - Who he is and what he can do for Paraguay
Officials in the Paraguayan capital Asuncion announced that polling stations closed at 4pm on Sunday with the results standing at 40.7% for the Patriotic Alliance for Change, 30.7% for Blanca Ovelar of the Colorado Party, 22% for former Army chief Lino Oviedo's right-wing National Ethical Citizen's Union Party, and minority parties awaiting their results.
A self-confessed "Bishop of the Poor," Fernando Armindo Lugo Méndez is a former Roman Catholic priest of 30 years. He will be sworn in as President 31 years to the day of his ordination, which he had to renounce on January 11th 2005 before he could, in his own words, collaborate in "the search for solutions to the country's problems."
He is the nephew of Epifanio Méndez Fleitas - the leading opponent of Stroessner's dictatorship which forced Lugo's three brothers into exile. From 1977 until 1982 he was a Missionary in Ecuador during which time he worked with the indigenous communities where it is said Ecuador's President Rafael Correa maintained close contacts with the church's progressive-inclined "Theology of Liberation" tendency.
As his tag "Bishop of the Poor" suggests Lugo's intentions are to create a new government for the people. Regarding the US, he has expressed the desire to have good relations with Washington, although he is opposed to the authorisation of military presence that his predecessor had allowed. In May of 2006, urged on by Former President and staunch American ally Nicanor Duarte Frutos, the Paraguayan Congress authorised immunity for US troops to operate joint military exercises in the country. The official excuse given for US military presence is that the area where Paraguay borders Argentina and Brazil (otherwise known as the Triple Frontier Area) is supposed to be a centre for Islamic terrorist activities. However it is clear that the US wants to reinforce its direct military presence in this region of the world shaken by revolutionary movements. Their need to have military bases in the region has increased after Ecuador's president Correa announced that his country would not renew the concession for the US military base in Manta. Furthermore, the proposed location for this base would put US soldiers close to a country in revolutionary turmoil: Bolivia.
Duarte, though not going to the effort to block it, did make the effort to smear Lugo's Presidential Candidacy by calling into question the legality of his political pursuits. Article 235 of the Paraguayan Constitution forbids ministers of any religious denomination to hold elective office. However this was not fully in Lugo's own control; he had requested to Pope Benedict XVI that he be defrocked in order to run for office, but this request was denied him and instead he was suspended. The Vatican has said that it did not want to accept his request because priesthood "is a lifetime commitment that goes beyond human determination to end it."
Other sources note that the suspension could be based upon Lugo's embrace of Liberation Theology which is frowned upon by the Vatican for its "Marxist influences," and his support of invasions of large landholdings by landless families. It was clear that neither the Paraguayan ruling class nor the Vatican were happy with Lugo and, like in the case of Lopez Obrador in Mexico, wanted to stop him before he could run.
Although some of his policies will be a much needed step in the progressive direction - such as agricultural reforms and reassertion of national sovereignty over energy utilities,‑ Lugo has been keen to play down the image that he is part of the popular left characterised by Hugo Chavez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, although so far his reasoning has been far from substantial.
He dismissed Chavez's Government for its "lack of pluralism," but fails to see the dangers inherent in his own coalition which is shared amongst Socialists, Christian Democrats, and certain sections of the centre-right. This is bound to lead to conflicts between the interests of the masses of poor peasants and workers who voted for Lugo expecting fundamental change and those political parties of the ruling class which joined Lugo's Patriotic Alliance for Change (APC) in the hope of getting a share of power. These sections are represented by Lugo's vicepresidential candidate Federico Franco, from the Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico. He sought to reassure big business by distancing himself from a "Chavez-style government" and adding that, "Our government will bring the country into a globalised world, into the World market".
The contradictions between left and right within Lugo's coalition could already be seen during the campaign. While peasant organizations declared themselves in a state of emergency and vowed to fight against any attempt to steal election victory from Lugo, the centre and centre-right parties within the APC even refused to participate in the 15,000 strong rally that Lugo organized in the capital Asunción last year before the election campaign began.
Lugo knows that there are contradictions. During the campaign he declared that: "I am the result of the clamour for change of the people, and now I have the support of a coalition of parties and organisations. But it is the rank and file that supports me, the people, who want change in Paraguay, not an agreement between elites".
Lugo himself also displayed some of the contradictions inherent to reformist and Social-Democratic movements when explaining his desire to adopt the style of Chile's President Michelle Bachelet - "[Bachelet's] Government has not ceased to be Socialist just because it signed a free trade agreement with the United States." This statement should be found unpalatable by those who want to see a real Socialist economy throughout Latin America. The signing of a Free Trade Agreement with the US would only worsen a situation where, in Lugo's own words, "the small group of 500 families who live with a first-world standard of living while the great majority live in a poverty that borders on misery". Since Paraguay is the fourth largest exporter of soybean in the world and the subject of a renegotiation deal with Brazil and Argentina over two hydro-electric projects, it is necessary to adopt a real Socialist economy to secure what is best for the country and its people, and not remain at the servitude of the conglomerates. It was part of Lugo's campaign promise to engage in talks with the Paraguayan-Brazilian company Itaipú, to rearrange a treaty which was signed in secret by the company and the military dictatorship in 1973. Paraguay uses only a small portion of the energy it produces, and since sales to third party countries is prohibited, it must demit its remaining product back to the Brazilian state electricity corporation, Eletrobrás. Paraguay pays the corporation for this transaction and the corporation compensates Paraguay a far smaller sum than it makes from the resale of the energy. The Brazilian capitalists have only been able to get away with this through scandalous deals with corrupt Paraguayan elites, but Lugo has threatened them both with amendments. As things are the treaty is scheduled to expire in 2023.
On the question of backgrounds in further response to his feelings towards Chavez, Lugo has stated that "Chavez is a military man and I have a religious background," which spurred on former mayor of Asuncion Rafael Filizzola to state "we cannot classify him [Lugo] by normal political means because his whole background is not in politics but in the church." Despite the fact that 90% of the Paraguayan population are Catholic, it is a must that (Socialist) politics inform a leader of the necessary changes which need to be implemented, not religion outright. It must be an imperative to avoid religiously informed policies such as the blanket ban on abortion which was the measure taken by Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega. Currently it is prohibited to perform abortions in Paraguay unless the mother's life is in danger.
Regardless of his statements or intentions, the election of Lugo represents even if in a distorted way, the deep-seated will for change amongst the Paraguayan workers and poor peasants. In the last few years there have been a number of mass movements of workers and peasants, including a general strike and blockade of the parliament which forced MPs to reverse all privatisation plans, in 2002. Lugo's promises of land reform (in a country where 70% of agricultural land is in the hands of 1.7% of landowners), jobs for all, and the use of the country's resources (hydro-power, oil and others) in the benefit of the majority, if maintained, can only bring him into conflict with the ruling class and the parties in his own coalition. But in order to attain this strong elements of empty reformism and nonsense conservatism must be rooted out, otherwise all the excitement may amount to nothing. If on the other hand he chooses to conciliate or even betray those who have deposited so many hopes in him, then the movement of the masses will find another expression. Lugo will be judged by his actions. Meanwhile the workers and peasants must be ready to fight for the demands in the streets, as these will not be conceded by the ruling class without a struggle.
The situation in Latin America is one of increased class battles. Conditions are ripe for a bold challenge of the capitalist system and the building of a Socialist economic structure.
Coalition policies: a fresh start, but tough choices are kicked into the long grass
The coalition has not clearly defined policy on more than 20 issues, promising instead to take a position at some point.
Mr Cameron and his Lib Dem deputy, Nick Clegg, hailed the agreement as a historic act of “partnership”. The Prime Minister told reporters it was “churlish” to focus on the number of issues where the coalition had deferred decisions.
“It’s the shortage of commissions rather than the amount of them that Her Majesty’s press corps should be focusing on,” he said. “There are so many commitments that are solid, bankable, deliverable.”
There will be commissions on issues including whether to split banks’ retail and investment arms; whether to devolve more power to Scotland; and how to fund care for the elderly.
The Tories promised to scrap the Human Rights Act, a law that the Lib Dems have defended. The coalition text confirmed that the issue would be reviewed, as would Tory plans to assert the supremacy of Parliament over the European Union.
Other issues put under review included: local government finance; public sector pensions; reform of the House of Lords; rights to flexible working; control orders for terrorist suspects; and sentencing in English courts.
Before the publication of yesterday’s document, some Tories were unhappy at the initial compromises Mr Cameron had made to secure his coalition with Mr Clegg’s party.
The Prime Minister accepted that some members of his party would be unhappy about certain details of the deal, but he insisted that it would be welcomed overall because it would deliver “strong and stable government”.
“Of course, people will be disappointed that some policies have had to be discarded,” he said. “It’s not just about day-to-day events, it’s about a shared vision.”
The final coalition text, The Coalition: our programme for government, confirmed that another of the Tories’ tax-cutting promises had been sacrificed to secure the Lib Dem deal.
The manifesto promise to cut stamp duty for first-time buyers has been dropped for an independent review of thresholds.
Mr Cameron shifted his position on several other issues important to Right-wing Tories, including shelving promises to cut inheritance tax and give tax breaks to married couples, and proposing increases in capital gains tax.
What follows is a summary of the 31 policies covered by the 32-page document.
David Blunkett says Lib Dems acting like 'every harlot in history'
The Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough MP warned against a Lib-Lab pact on Tuesday after the two parties began formal talks on a potential governing alliance.
Mr Blunkett told the Today programme such a union would be regarded as a "coalition of the defeated" by the electorate and lead to annihilation of both parties at the next election.
"I don't like what is taking place at all," Mr Blunkett said.
"I don't believe it will bring stability, I believe it will lead to a lack of legitimacy, and I think the British people will feel that we have not heard what they said to us, which, in the tragedy of 91 of my colleagues losing their seats, was that we didn't have their full confidence.
"If we continue not listening then we will lose very badly at any subsequent general election.
"That would be even worse than a situation where we have a minority government in which we check what they do, whilst acting responsibly in the interests of the nation.
"Can you trust the Liberal Democrats? They are behaving like every harlot in history."
Mr Blunkett added: "A coalition of the defeated cobbled together, uncertain whether it can carry anything night by night, people, as they did when I first came to Parliament, dying on average about once every three months because of the nature of the sittings, and a then general election on the back of that - you don't have to be involved in politics to see what that would do to the Labour party and its vote."
One of Mr Blunkett's predecessors as home secretary John Reid, who stood down as an MP before last week's election, was equally gloomy on the prospects of a Lib-Lab pact.
Mr Reid predicted a coalition government would lead to the "mutually assured destruction" of both parties.
What to expect from Britain’s new coalition government
Environment policy didn't break the surface during the U.K. election campaign. How will it fare in a coalition of parties at opposite ends of the political spectrum?
Amongst the many surprises of the recent British election campaign was the near absence of environment from the parties' campaigns and the first ever prime-ministerial debates. Does it mean the British care less about the environment than in previous years? Apparently not: The share of the green vote held up and the Green Party won its first-ever seat in the British Parliament (Caroline Lucas, leader of the party and long time member of the European Parliament, taking Brighton from Labor).
But with the parties fairly close to each other on much of environment policy, there were more points to be scored by talking about social policy (we are bracing ourselves for Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's "Big Society," whatever that means) and, of course, dealing with the deficit, where we are up there with European basket cases like Greece, Spain, and Portugal.
Having torn lumps out of each other for months on these and other issues, our identikit party leaders now find themselves round the table in Britain's first true coalition government in 65 years -- with the Conservative Party in charge along with the minority-partner Liberal Democrats. I'll spare you the constitutional niceties of how that came about; suffice to say that political commentators, having had to speculate wildly for several days about what the outcome of the election might be, now find themselves, along with the new government, in largely uncharted waters. In a cabinet of 23, Lib Dems hold five posts, including the responsibility for energy and climate change, which has gone to Chris Huhne, millionaire businessman and one-time contestant for the leadership of the Lib Dems.
This appointment throws into sharp relief the strategic and tactical questions this coalition raises for the future program of the government, not least on environmental policy. Despite substantial areas of common ground -- on the need to cut emissions, boost renewable-energy generation, and create a "green bank" for investment in cleantech, for example -- the Lib Dems have long been opposed to new nuclear reactors to replace Britain's aging nuclear fleet, whilst the Conservatives see nuclear as the mainstay of both emissions reduction and future energy security in the U.K.
This issue is such a clear divide that in the formal agreement about the coalition, the issue is dealt with directly, with a bizarre result. The government (i.e., Huhne) will bring forward a "national planning statement" that will give permission for new nuclear plants to be built, but then Lib Dems (including Huhne) would be allowed to abstain from the vote bringing it into force. This in effect means that the Conservatives can push it through on their own, whilst the Lib Dems have (just about) a path of dignity in opposing it and allowing it. What Green supporters who voted Lib Dem for their anti-nuclear stance will make of this is anyone's guess.
In any case, both parties are agreed that there should be no public money for nuclear power, and since no nuclear power plant has been built, ever, without such subsidy, it will be interesting to see if any of the utility companies that were lining up to build the new capacity will still find it so appealing. Lib Dems are presumably hoping not.
Elsewhere the picture seems a bit clearer, and generally positive for the environment. Campaigners are elated at the scrapping of Labor's plans for a third runway at Heathrow. The coalition agreement makes positive noises about a new high-speed rail network -- though it's hard to see how that will be paid for any time soon. Though there's no new target on the proportion of energy from renewables, investment in marine power and anaerobic digestion gets a mention, as does a smart grid to link it all up, smart meters to make us all more frugal in using it, and other measures to boost energy efficiency in the home. And along with the promise of public investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and a floor price for carbon comes an undertaking to prevent new coal-fired power without sufficient CCS to meet a demanding emissions standard.
Some cynics have suggested that Lib Dems have been given jobs that are either so marginal to the conservative project that they don't matter, or that require them to dip their hands in the blood of "dealing with the deficit" and so alienate their supporter base. A more nuanced view is that the coalition has enabled Cameron to do what he could not have done with a majority, giving him a reason to be more positive about the environment and Europe and move his party further onto the center ground. If he succeeds in finally decontaminating the Tory brand in this way, they argue, he will have laid the foundation for successive conservative governments for many years to come.
Whatever the motivation, the new team have started with a bang. On Friday, Cameron announced that government will cut its own emissions by 10 percent in the next 12 months. Speaking to staff at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, he said, "I want this to be the greenest government ever." Meanwhile, Huhne took up the reins at DECC, promising to put energy security "at the heart of the U.K.'s national security strategy" and to "fundamentally change how we supply and use energy in Britain." Amen to that.
Stage set for Czech coalition government
While the Social Democrats won 22.1 percent of the vote in the weekend election, their major rival -- the center-right Civic Democratic Party -- won 20.2 percent, the election agency said.
The percentages translate to 57 seats for the Social Democrats in the 200-seat lower house of the parliament and 51 seats for the Civic Democratic Party, Czech Television reported.
However, several other smaller and newer parties also captured a number of seats and all of them are right-leaning -- making it likely they may align with the Civic Democrats to form the next government.
Paroubek said Saturday he would resign within 10 days, official broadcaster Radio Prague said.
The party, Paroubek said, will need to examine why the final results were at odds with pre-election opinion polls, which predicted that it would emerge as a clear winner.
In the 2006 elections, Paroubek's party won 32 percent of the votes.
Voters went to the polls on Friday and Saturday to elect a parliament that will replace the caretaker government that has been in charge since last year. They chose from 25 parties.
The government of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, of the Civic Democrats, lost a confidence vote in March 2009, forcing him and his Cabinet to resign.
This year, the economic crisis in Europe loomed large in voters' minds.
The right-leaning parties told voters the country could face a fate similar to nearly-bankrupt Greece if it did not curb spending.
The Social Democrats also campaigned for reduced spending, but said they would seek tax hikes for the wealthy to fund social programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)