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.
Opposition Parties Agree To Form Coalition Government
The Tory coalition
The right has long thought that shadow Cabinet is unbalanced. They point out that there are only about three pro-European wets left in the parliamentary party but that they are all in the shadow Cabinet. The view of several people on the right that I have spoken to today is that if there are to be three Lib Dems in the Cabinet then it must be MPs from the left of the party who make way for them, otherwise things would become even more unbalanced.
We might well be getting ahead of ourselves here, there are still many obstacles to a Tory Lib Dem deal. But this is a sign of how the Tory party would have to be managed much more like a coalition than it currently is if the Tories did end up sharing power with the Lib Dems.
New governor general has a presidential look
As governor general, David Johnston could well find himself having to decide which party or coalition of parties is most likely to secure the confidence of the House of Commons after an indecisive election.
The method of his selection and the reason he was chosen are the basis of this claim that he may be the first move toward a future presidential style of government in Canada.
It has been revealed that the Prime Minister’s Office had set up an unprecedented advisory panel to choose the next governor general with the fundamental mandate of finding someone who could “serve without partisanship.”
This advisory committee engaged in extensive consultations across the country before giving the Prime Minister the panel’s confidential recommendations. Some of the key members of the committee were beyond any doubt non-partisan. They included Sheila-Marie Cook, who has been secretary and deputy to Governor General Michaëlle Jean; Kevin MacLeod, the Senate’s Usher of the Black Rod, who is also the personal attendant and messenger of the Queen in Right of Canada; Christopher McCreery, the private secretary to the lieutenant governor of Nova Scotia, and historian Jacques Monet.
This advisory committee decided not to recommend well known figures from the arts or sports or anyone affiliated with any political party. Some previous governors general had been closely affiliated with one or other of the two main federal parties, such as Jeanne Sauvé, who was a former Liberal cabinet minister, appointed in 1984 by Pierre Trudeau, and Ray Hnatyshyn, a former Conservative cabinet minister, appointed in 1990 by Brian Mulroney.
A similar appointment by Prime Minister Stephen Harper of a former political colleague, such as former Reform party leader Preston Manning for example, would have been highly controversial given the key roles that the 28th governor general may have to play in what are likely to be successive minority governments in the coming months and years.
We have already had a taste of the political challenges that Johnston will face with the nationwide controversy over the prorogation granted by Jean in December of 2008 at the request of the Prime Minister in an attempt to avoid a vote of confidence.
The future use of the reserve powers of the governor general in a similar situation, or following a narrow election result in deciding which party or coalition of parties is most likely to have the confidence of the House of Commons, will be just about the most important power of any single individual or institution in the Canadian democratic constitutional order.
Because of the presence of the Bloc Québécois and a fragmented opposition on the left of the spectrum, this may be the most challenging political era of minority governments in Canadian history. The governor general’s non-partisan credentials must be beyond reproach if we are to avoid delegitimizing the office.
In addition, either the existing legal and constitutional expertise or one that could be quickly acquired with credibility would be an essential aspect of any future governor general in an era of minority governments. In both respects, Johnston’s qualifications are almost unrivalled. For that reason, he is an excellent choice.
However, these essential prerequisites move the office away from primarily ceremonial roles that previous office-holders so ably performed. Such ceremonial roles could be performed by leaders from the arts, journalism or sports communities. The new constitutional mediator and referee duties of the 28th governor general may well presage the emergence of a quasi-presidential Queen’s representative in Canada.
The growing realization that the office-holder has such great reserve powers may give rise to demands by Canadians that the selection of future governors general be broadened beyond the prime minister to be the ultimate decision-maker.
As in other countries where similar constitutional powers are exercised, such as the president of the Czech Republic, who is indirectly elected by the country’s parliament, the future may well see demands for a much broader group of both federal and provincial elected members and eminent Canadians forming a national assembly to propose the selection of all future governors general. This is a model used in Germany.
While the links with the monarchy could continue, this move toward a quasi-presidential governor general is not only essential in an era of minority governments, but also a step toward an overdue maturing of Canadian democracy.
What is the Difference Between Fascism and Nazism?
The newly elected parliament in Italy was hardly capable of ruling the government considering the existence of three major parties including the Socialists, Liberals, and Popolari. There was no effective coalition, therefore parties squabbled on the need for a revolution, thus alarming the conservatives. Classes were not, in a sense, being represented, which led to class warfare and violence. Mussolini recognized the need to represent the middle class industrialists, and he switched from leftist to rightist politics to represent the industrialists. Mussolini believed that anticommunist activity using force might bring him what he initially sought during the free elections.
On the other hand, parliamentary democracy in the form of the Weimer Republic was already failing in Germany; therefore it was a smooth transition for Hitler into power. The Weimer Republic had no outstanding political leaders, however in 1925, Paul von Hindenburg was elected president. The republic was plagued with problems including the issue of inflation which was causing social repercussions. Economically, the losses due to the depression paved the way for social discontent and extremist parties.
In Fascist Italy, the squadristi was let loose to attack the Socialist offices and newspapers. Prime Minister Giovanni Gioletti had initially believed that the fascists could crush socialism temporarily and then be dismissed. However, the prime minister underestimated Mussolini. With the support of the government coalition, he gained respect and a free hand with his violent squadristi. Since his party was made up of veterans and students that sought unrestrained violence, as this was what they were used to after World War I, they took great pride in administering terrorist acts upon non-fascists. In 1926, all anti-fascist parties were outlawed, which mimicked Nazi Germany under Hitler.
The Nazis used brute force and ruthless acts to gain total control over Germany. Although violence was on the rise, Nazism started to take shape and become more appealing to the masses during party rallies that embraced a more religious nationalism and a mutual respect for the decision maker, Adolf Hitler. The ideal was that the means of production, citizenships, marriage, and extramarital relationships were accepted, so long as the individuals recognized their master. This form of racism was lacking in Fascist Italy, in fact, the Fascists were not all violent towards small businesses or the petty bourgeois, even offering protection from the upper-class bourgeoisie. Both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany initially had instruments of terror and repression in the form of violent groups including the SS in Germany and the OVRA in Italy. However, the Fascists were never as repressive or as savage as the Nazis.
Mussolini groomed his young students for militarization, thus forming the Youth Fascists. Their day included marching drills and calisthenics, summer camps, and competitions. The activities were meant to teach discipline and training for war, however many of the young teenagers detested the training and simply refused to attend on a regular basis. Mussolini believed he was creating a better Italian that respected traditional social attitudes. The training of these young Italians was more so for national pride, and therefore, this differed significantly from Hitler Youth (Hitler Jugend) who were treated as a superior race. This race of anti-Semitic soldiers was secretly being trained for the annihilation of all individuals that didn’t support the Fuhrer, therefore all of their energies and strength they owed to the Fuhrer.
In the case of 20th century Fascism and Nazism, the outlook on the status of the state is what really set them apart slightly. Fascism stressed a collective outlook on the success of the nation and the devotion of the citizens towards their countrymen. Nazi Germany, although during that time the economy was hoisted after the impact of the Great Depression, became a nation that stressed a superior race that excluded all those not in favor of the Fuhrer. Thus, this separation of the citizens, and their loss of rights as human beings, led to one of the most notorious blood baths in history.
Leeds council: coalitions, deals and the balance of power
leeds civic hall Which coalition of parties is going to gain control of Leeds council following Thursday's local election?
It may still be unclear who's going to be running the country in a hung parliament following Thursday's general election - but the uncertainty has been echoed in Leeds on a council level this weekend.
As Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg spent the weekend in talks with David Cameron's Conservative Party over the possibility of forming a coalition government, there will have been many hours of crunch talks in Leeds this weekend, too.
The local elections saw Labour gain four seats in Leeds - but the council was still under no overall control from any political party.
Labour have been left with 48 seats, two short of the magical 50 mark that would give them overall control. The Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Morley Borough Independents coalition - assuming they decide to stay as a coalition - would have 49 seats on the 99-seat council.
Pro-EU parties win Serbian elections, face difficult coalition talks
The coalition of parties headlined by president Boris Tadić' Democratic party (DS), won the Serbian parliamentary election on May 11, according to the preliminary data released by the country's election body RIK, but faces difficult talks to form the new government.
The coalition, which ran under the name For a European Serbia, won 38.75 per cent, RIK said, having counted 97.8 per cent of all ballots. That would give it 102 MPs in the 250-seat assembly.
DS would have little problem co-opting the small Liberal Democrat party (LDP), which won 14 seats, despite earlier vote count results showing it was below the five per cent threshold to enter parliament, but even then it would be 10 MPs short of a majority in parliament.
The result of the pro-Western parties, however, was evenly matched by Tadić' two main rivals, the Radicals (SRS) and the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) of outgoing prime minister Vojislav Kostunica, who won 77 and 30 seats, respectively.
Kostunica shares SRS's position for closer ties with Russia and rebuffing the advances of the European Union unless the bloc treats Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia and it was disagreement with Tadić and the DS over the Kosovo issue that prompted the prime minister to resign in March and call the snap polls.
SRS leader Tomislav Nikolic said his party would seek talks with the DSS on the evening of election day, with DSS spokesman Andreja Mladenović confirming on May 12 that negotiations between the two parties have already started, as quoted by Tanjug news agency.
Either side would need the backing of the Socialist party (SPS), founded by the late Slobodan Milosevic, which emerged as the unexpected kingmaker after winning 20 seats in parliament, to form the new cabinet.
"The SPS will decide who puts together the new cabinet," analyst Slobodan Antonić said, as quoted by B92. SPS's negotiating position was "tricky, since their voters are closer to the DSS-NS coalition and the Radicals", although the party "could stand to gain more" if it joined the DS coalition.
SPS leader Ivica Dačić has said that all those seeking to form a coalition after the elections could count on the Socialists, as long as they advocated territorial integrity and social justice, B92 reported.
Tadić has already claimed victory on behalf of the pro-Western coalition, saying that it would form the next government. The coalition would "lead the country to the EU and fight to preserve Kosovo," Tadić told reporters at his party headquarters. "These are the two goals that the new government and I as president will work for."
The result was welcomed across the EU, which has made its support for Tadić clear by offering pre-membership and visa facilitation deals in the weeks before the vote. "The European Commission has received the first results of the elections, and welcomes the success of reformist forces that share European values," EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said in a statement, quoted by B92.
The sentiment was echoed by the Slovenian presidency of the EU, with foreign minister Dimitrij Rupel telling Reuters: "Serbia's pro-European forces have won, which was our aim in the EU. It looks as if Tadić's Democrats will have a significant role, which pleases me greatly."
"The Serbian electorate has clearly shown that it is committed to Europe. The people of Serbia have chosen a prosperous future in the Western community," the US embassy in Belgrade said in a statement.
Despite opposition from the UN, voting went on in Kosovo, without any major incidents being reported, B92 said. Local residents, however, only voted in the municipal elections, but not the parliamentary ones.
"Those `local elections', their outcomes, and the Serbian municipal institutions for which they purported to elect representatives are all without legal standing or effect in Kosovo. Illegal elections cannot have legal consequences," Joachim Rücker, special envoy of the UN secretary general, said in a statement.
The coalition, which ran under the name For a European Serbia, won 38.75 per cent, RIK said, having counted 97.8 per cent of all ballots. That would give it 102 MPs in the 250-seat assembly.
DS would have little problem co-opting the small Liberal Democrat party (LDP), which won 14 seats, despite earlier vote count results showing it was below the five per cent threshold to enter parliament, but even then it would be 10 MPs short of a majority in parliament.
The result of the pro-Western parties, however, was evenly matched by Tadić' two main rivals, the Radicals (SRS) and the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) of outgoing prime minister Vojislav Kostunica, who won 77 and 30 seats, respectively.
Kostunica shares SRS's position for closer ties with Russia and rebuffing the advances of the European Union unless the bloc treats Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia and it was disagreement with Tadić and the DS over the Kosovo issue that prompted the prime minister to resign in March and call the snap polls.
SRS leader Tomislav Nikolic said his party would seek talks with the DSS on the evening of election day, with DSS spokesman Andreja Mladenović confirming on May 12 that negotiations between the two parties have already started, as quoted by Tanjug news agency.
Either side would need the backing of the Socialist party (SPS), founded by the late Slobodan Milosevic, which emerged as the unexpected kingmaker after winning 20 seats in parliament, to form the new cabinet.
"The SPS will decide who puts together the new cabinet," analyst Slobodan Antonić said, as quoted by B92. SPS's negotiating position was "tricky, since their voters are closer to the DSS-NS coalition and the Radicals", although the party "could stand to gain more" if it joined the DS coalition.
SPS leader Ivica Dačić has said that all those seeking to form a coalition after the elections could count on the Socialists, as long as they advocated territorial integrity and social justice, B92 reported.
Tadić has already claimed victory on behalf of the pro-Western coalition, saying that it would form the next government. The coalition would "lead the country to the EU and fight to preserve Kosovo," Tadić told reporters at his party headquarters. "These are the two goals that the new government and I as president will work for."
The result was welcomed across the EU, which has made its support for Tadić clear by offering pre-membership and visa facilitation deals in the weeks before the vote. "The European Commission has received the first results of the elections, and welcomes the success of reformist forces that share European values," EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn said in a statement, quoted by B92.
The sentiment was echoed by the Slovenian presidency of the EU, with foreign minister Dimitrij Rupel telling Reuters: "Serbia's pro-European forces have won, which was our aim in the EU. It looks as if Tadić's Democrats will have a significant role, which pleases me greatly."
"The Serbian electorate has clearly shown that it is committed to Europe. The people of Serbia have chosen a prosperous future in the Western community," the US embassy in Belgrade said in a statement.
Despite opposition from the UN, voting went on in Kosovo, without any major incidents being reported, B92 said. Local residents, however, only voted in the municipal elections, but not the parliamentary ones.
"Those `local elections', their outcomes, and the Serbian municipal institutions for which they purported to elect representatives are all without legal standing or effect in Kosovo. Illegal elections cannot have legal consequences," Joachim Rücker, special envoy of the UN secretary general, said in a statement.
WHEN I BECOME PRESIDENT-MAO
If tomorrow you assumed power, how would your government deal with the issue of corruption?
I believe the best way to deal with corruption is through personal example. You can set up an Anti-Corruption Court, you can appoint an Inspector General of Government, you can have an auditor general, you can even involve the intelligence community, but if you are perceived as corrupt at the top, no one is going to change their ways.
So, three things are required to tackle corruption; leading from the front through personal example, ruthless measures against well known thieves, and the society frowning upon and shunning those in possession of ill-gotten wealth. As long as we praise thieves, thieving will be considered normal. And that has undermined the reputation of politicians.
Politics is now seen as an avenue for eating, not an avenue for leadership. Personal example is the key in fighting corruption. As we say, you cannot preach water and drink wine; you must walk the talk. I have said before that the fish rots from the head. The rot in the society needs major surgery. As president, I would tackle corruption ruthlessly, as opposed to what Museveni is doing which is similar to treating a cancer using Vaseline. The cancer has got to be cut out.
There seems to be a breakdown of public infrastructure in spite of the large amounts of money pumped in, how differently could the sector be handled?The NRM government has been trying to undermine what was done in the past simply because they don’t want to acknowledge that the UPC government ever did anything good. But the public works department saved us a lot of money. It had employees who maintained specific sections of the road by making sure that no road was neglected. We would revive the public works department.
We will also invest in the railway because it would take away the burden from the roads so that they are largely for light loads. We would also empower local governments with equipment so that most of the work is done by government employees as opposed to private contractors who charge several times more than the normal cost of the road. We would revise the procurement process so that it is tighter. We would disclose the amount the government is willing to spend to eliminate competition based on pricing.
The breakdown of the infrastructure is partly to blame for the congestion within the city, but how can it be decongested?Actually, we believe in another capital city. I think Kampala should be a commercial city and we build a new administrative city. Nigeria has done it, Tanzania has done it, and Brazil did it decades ago. A government led by the DP would definitely consult and come up with a new political capital. As for the congestion in Kampala, there are only three things to be done.
We have got to ensure that we have bigger roads and that means enforcing building regulations. It is not too difficult to enforce building regulations. Our government would go into a joint venture to provide public transportation. For those who don’t want to use passenger service vehicles, the licence fee would go higher. That will help deal with how many taxis or boda-bodas we have, particularly for the central business district. If you are operating there, the cost of the licence will determine whether you really get involved in that kind of business.
UTODA can be a Uganda government joint venture where government can guarantee huge loans for them to bring in buses. We also need to create some parks within the city and we should have at least 15 bus terminals in the area around Kampala with clearly demarcated bus stops, and that means we must get the expertise needed to plan a public transportation system. We will also enforce the traffic court. Right now our city is a free for all.
How do you rate the health sector?
Our health is in a shambles; that is why those who can afford it go abroad. Most Ugandans know that our health system was better in the decades past than now. Those days Mulago was a world class hospital. I still believe the government can transform Mulago into a world-class hospital and we can transform other health centres into modern facilities.
There has got to be a combination of public and private health services. We would procure modern medical equipment. The reason why people go to India and other places is because in Uganda we don’t have the basic equipment. There is a long queue in Mulago for those who want examination by endoscopy. Basic diagnostic machines are not available.
Secondly, we would increase the pay for health workers, probably anything up to Shs 3 million and more. Our policy would be to stem the brain drain. They need houses, good working conditions, assurance that they need to keep their body and souls within Uganda. We would also have to invest in training specialists. Uganda needs a younger team of specialists.
New diseases and epidemics are breaking out in Uganda. We must be able to invest in that kind of specialisation, and also in research. Our government would publish a patient bill of rights. A patient needs to know that when I go to a hospital these are my rights and no one can put a discount on them. We would have strategic partnerships in the region.
Why can’t East African countries invest in a health facility where heart surgeries and other complicated surgeries can be done? We can bring those specialists from Indian and we have a hospital within the region. There is no reason why we should not have a facility in our region where people can have these advanced medical examinations and treatments that would save our people the expenses of going abroad. I also believe that the health budget is too low.
We have got to increase the health budget so that essential drugs are available, but above all, our government would invest more in preventive healthcare. We still don’t have the financial muscle to do all the things we would want to do. There are simple things that citizens have to do; drinking boiled water, sleeping under a mosquito net, using pit latrines, basic sanitation. And also, health is not about hospitals and medicines. We would make sure that our approach to public health is holistic.
If you don’t provide clean water to the people, there is no way they are going to be healthy, if they are too poor, their diet is going to be predominantly starch; then they end up with diabetes. We would revive the public health sector.
There must be vigorous enforcement of the public health laws. We would also protect our citizens from being victims of dumping. Most of the drugs that come into the country are fit for disposal. Uganda is used as a dumping ground. For a country at the level of economic growth of Uganda, prevention would make economic sense.
We need to protect our citizens from quacks; we need supervision of health workers, an army of public health inspectors to ensure that people know that they have a responsibility to the public. I think the government has left the citizens at the mercy of private clinic owners. The government must ensure that it is present in the health sector. It is not enough to claim that people are buying drugs or training a few doctors. What the citizens want is that those who mistreat citizens pay a price.
You have been known to be critical of UPE and USE introduced by the NRM government, how differently would you approach them?
By having an education system that is not equitable, we are developing two Ugandas; the Uganda of the rich and one of the poor. It was actually good for government to offer universal education and a level of access in secondary education. But access isn’t enough, we also need quality. The world is very competitive. Many of the kids who go to UPE schools are doomed to 3rd rate education.
The only ones that escape are the lucky ones that get a sponsor. The education in the university depends on grades. You cannot get good grades unless you go to the good schools. That means the poor are being marginalised. I believe that by only concentrating on access as opposed to quality, the government is just giving the poor some painkiller, not a cure.
In my view, our kids go to school so that they can learn social skills, how to take care of their bodies, to figure out solutions to problems that are going to confront them in their lives, so as to deepen their faith. In other words, we need a holistic education system. We cannot just have an education system that is exam centred. The education system should not just be about printing certificates.
We would review the education system completely. What is required is that government should upgrade the schools around the country; that teachers have houses. Our teachers should also be well paid. The low pay for teachers has turned them into laughing stocks. I believe we have got to make UPE schools suitable for anybody. Right now anybody who has got a bit of money is scared of taking his kid to a UPE school.
Another issue that is co-joined with education is employment, or the lack of it. Is this a problem in Uganda and if so, how can it be tackled?
Uganda needs to concentrate on polytechnic education. There are many people clad in neckties and suits with clipboards chasing very few jobs. The Ugandan economy creates less than 20,000 jobs every year yet more than 50,000 people graduate every year. So, we are only meeting 40% of the job needs and the figures are cumulative.
What we need now is to tap into the global economy by having information and call centres the way India is doing, so that we can give international jobs locally. Secondly, we need an education system to equip our people with skills to make something, whether chairs or candles, or table clothes; you have something to sell and that means all you need to do is get a buyer.
But if all you can do is to say that you can do anything when asked, then it is a disaster. It is important, in my view, that our universities be linked to the job market, diversify our education system, teach people trade that equips them with means to make something that they can sell, tap into global trends using technology, harness the power of the internet to create opportunities for our people. We also need to consider the need for relevance.
We need to invest in sciences. There will never be a shortage of opportunities for those who are skilled in computer, mechanical, or even civil engineering. We need to train more doctors and look after them. We need to interest our people in fields like agriculture.
People must know that you can get rich through organic farming, green houses, you can tap into international markets. In the next election, the question of employment is going to be very crucial. A problem like unemployment requires innovation, that is why we are proposing that our government would invest in sectors that are modern; science and technology, computers, call centres and tour guides.
Public infrastructure also offers opportunities for jobs every time we have highways and dams being built, school and hospital projects. All those are opportunities for jobs. We must make sure that there is a hub where Ugandans can get information on job opportunities. It is possible we can create 100,000 jobs every year.
One of the avenues the NRM has used to create jobs for its cadres is through balkanisation, will your government reverse the process?
As a general policy we don’t need new districts because that has not improved service delivery. Our challenge is to strengthen sub-counties so that they can give us access to services that districts can give. The districts have now become a lounge for job seekers. I am not an apologist of these new districts. My view would be to build stronger sub-county governments.
The discovery of oil is another issue that is proving to be contentious, how can it be handled to avoid conflict?
Uganda, as the cliché goes, is gifted by nature but, we are cursed with corrupt leaders. The question, as we go into 2011, is who would you trust with Uganda’s oil wealth? To manage oil wealth requires a government which is not tainted with corruption. If we elect NRM, then we know our oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds shared between a clique, which is in charge of government and probably some foreign interests.
The ordinary citizens may not benefit. But what would we do with the oil? I don’t know what is going to happen in Southern Sudan, but if it is independent, then it is possible for Uganda to collaborate with Southern Sudan to have one oil refinery in Uganda to refine the oil in Sudan and the one we are to extract.
So, it would require some cross-border collaboration. Secondly, we will also ensure that we get involved in some retail business because cash flow is very important. Countries like Venezuela are benefiting from having petrol stations in North and South America. I have proposed before that Uganda could consider acquiring the outlets of Shell.
Other people think that government should not be in that kind of business but I believe you can have efficiently run parastatals like National Water and Sewarage Corporation. Thirdly, this oil doesn’t belong only to those who are alive today, but also the unborn. It is our duty to create a future fund where the money from oil can be kept so that even those who will be born when there is no more oil flowing will benefit from the oil money.
It works in Norway. We would offer better stewardship for oil than any other government on account of our fight against corruption. So the challenge is of good stewardship and this means that you must know that this is a public asset, not private.
And finally, federalism and Buganda issues which have become a hot potato in our politics. Have your views changed on federalism?
Not at all, I belong to DP and since 1961 it has supported federalism. You could call it democratic federalism; there is no contradiction between being strongly republican and also being strongly decentralised. There is no overwhelming reason why our government shouldn’t support federalism.
Implementing federalism would also reduce this winner-take-all mentality. It would reduce the life and death struggle for power which we currently witness in Uganda. It would also make the sharing of national wealth equitable. Right now, local governments receive 20% of the national budget. Under federalism the figure would increase, giving the local government more say in prioritisation and allocation of public resources.
I also believe that the struggle for power would reduce because if power is at the local level, the struggle to capture Kampala would be less fierce because there would be power at these levels. DP will hold a national conference to discuss this matter and then the question will be put to a national referendum so that it is settled once and for all.
How will your government improve the wellbeing of its citizens?
First of all, we would guarantee a minimum budget of agriculture at 10%. That is not too big; it is actually what was agreed on in Maputo. In Uganda, the agriculture budget is being cut very frequently yet it employs over 70% of our people. I think that is where most of our money should go. Secondly, we would create what we call a citizens’ empowerment fund to support small and medium size enterprises.
Thirdly, we shall not be shy to lock out foreigners from retail trade. Our government would invite investors in wholesale trade, retail trade would be exclusively for citizens. I think it is important that we have a policy that protects certain sectors. We also believe that we should project our strength by negotiating on issues of trade.
We should be able to export some of our organic fruits to these foreign markets and make sure we project our strengths. Our government would strengthen our ability to bargain because much as we are weak, we are not as weak as we think. It is only that we haven’t known our strength. We can negotiate as a block, either as East Africa or Africa.
In short, our agenda for fighting poverty would be promoting exports, investing in agriculture to support small and medium enterprises, opening more retail avenues for our people, and also re-tooling our people. We will also revive cooperatives. We believe cooperatives allowed access to markets to even the people in the villages. We would also need to open a farmers’ bank. The cooperative bank was shut down so farmers need to contend with these loan sharks.
Monday, August 16, 2010
view the location of this item Try right-wing coalition, Dutch parties tell queen
The leaders of the four parties which won the most seats in Wednesday’s Dutch general election were received by Queen Beatrix today. They advised her on how to proceed in the formation of a government coalition. They spoke to the press afterwards.
Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigration Freedom Party which almost tripled its seats in parliament, told the queen he wants talks aimed at his party’s inclusion in government. He would like to serve in a coalition with the free-market liberal VVD which won the most seats in parliament, and with the Christian Democrats who had their number of MPs cut by almost half.Right turn
Liberal party VVD leader Mark Rutte, as leader of the largest party, told the queen that he would prefer an exploratory phase with someone from the VVD mediating between the parties. He emphasised that an attempt should be made to include the Freedom Party in the coalition, because it was a major election winner.
Mr Rutte expressed some concerns about Freedom Party MP Hero Brinkman's loyalty to his party, and warned that a potential split within the party would make it less suitable as a coalition candidate. Mr Wilders was quick to give assurances that Mr Brinkman "is and will be a member of the Freedom Party, which will prove a stable partner in government".
Christian Democrats needed
Like Mr Wilders, Mr Rutte also sees the defeated Christian Democrats as viable coalition partners. He points out that they have a strong governmental tradition and a realistic approach to the budget. "Moreover, they've got the support of 1.3 million voters."
The Labour Party won the second biggest number of MPs but its leader, Job Cohen, says that joining a cabinet with the free-market liberal VVD "is not, at this juncture, the most likely option" given the differences in outlook between the two parties. A coalition combining Labour, the VVD and the left-of-centre democrat party D66 would need the support of the Green Left party to secure a majority in parliament.
Queen appoints
Queen Beatrix is speaking to the remaining party leaders in the course of Friday. They head the ten parties whose MPs make up the rest of the new Lower House.
After Dutch elections, it is the head of state who decides on the initial steps to be taken in the process of forming a new government coalition. Once the queen has executed her constitutional duty of appointing a new prime minister, she moves away from the political stage. However, Queen Beatrix is known to take a keen and active interest in national politics.
OMG COALITION OMG
That being said, I’m not somersaulting onto the coalition bandwagon. This is a situation Canada shouldn’t be in in the first place. We shouldn’t have a Prime Minister well under half the population supports, or a smattering of left-wing parties that can’t get their act together. But my biggest reservation has to do with this mythical creature “the coalition government.” Having many questions about it, I clicked the helpful link on the CBC’s webpage that promised to explain how a coalition government worked. And this is the thing- the article was an interview with a Political Science professor who studies Canadian politics for a living, and his answer to every question was a well-worded “I don’t know.” How will it affect us? We don’t know. Who will lead the party? We don’t know. What exactly is a coalition government? We don’t even know that. This is what scares me. Maybe now the coalition sounds like a great idea, but what if it does gain a majority and has to lead the country? Is the Liberal party going to end up absorbicoalition-leadersng the NDP? What about the policies the parties disagree on, like the war in Afghanistan, or the privatization of health care?
So there’s a rally tonight supporting the coalition government and I’m not going. I will put my vote behind it, if that’s what it comes down to, but it’s just not something I want to wave signs and chant about. I’m not on the bandwagon, but I’ll be there to fix a wagon wheel or give a push if you need me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)