Brown has asked an agency to put his name forward for engagements in the Middle East and Asia, Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator was quoted as saying by the Independent. ]]>
Brown has asked an agency to put his name forward for engagements in the Middle East and Asia, Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator was quoted as saying by the Independent.
Brown is also working on a book – “The Financial Crisis” – due to be published soon, and has expressed a desire to pursue charitable work and focus on development issues.
Nelson wrote on a blog that a source of the former prime minister said Brown has approached a speaking agency to represent him.
“It appears he is also trying to build up a large nest egg of his own: in the world of public speaking, with six-figure fees,” Nelson wrote.
Anyone wanting to hire the former prime minister would have to provide five-star hotel accommodation, a first-class and three business-class seats on a plane, Nelson said.
A spokesman for Brown, however, said he was, at the moment, focussed on his book.
“Gordon has, of course, invitations to speak from around the world and a range of institutions. But he is focused on his constituency work and completing his book on the financial crisis,” the spokesman said.
]]>Anyone wishing to hire the 59-year-old will also have to pay for five-star hotel accommodation, a first-class seat plus three in business class for members of his entourage.
According to reports, Brown’s wife Sarah will also present awards at the events for an additional 12,800 pounds.
A spokesman for the former Prime Minister refused to deny the claims.
“Gordon is focused on his constituency work and completing his book on the financial crisis,” The Sun quoted the spokesman, as saying.
The 64,000 pounds fee is far less than that commanded by former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Major.
Blair was reportedly paid 180,000 pounds for a half-hour speech in the Philippines. He has also accumulated private wealth of over 20 million pounds since leaving office in June 2007. (ANI)
]]>Robertson said that cricket relationships between the two countries are not possible with Peter Chingoka as the president of Zimbabwe Cricket. Chingoka is a key aide of Mugabe. ]]>
Robertson said that cricket relationships between the two countries are not possible with Peter Chingoka as the president of Zimbabwe Cricket. Chingoka is a key aide of Mugabe.
“The problem is simple. Zimbabwe cricket is headed by a man who sits on the European Union banned list and he sits on that list for good reasons. As long as he is in charge of Zimbabwe Cricket it is extremely difficult for them to be fully integrated into the global cricketing community.
“Officially, government advice remains we discourage teams from playing. England will be discouraged from travelling over there and it is difficult for them to come here while their chairman remains on the banned list. It is very difficult to welcome a team here if the chairman cannot get a visa to enter this country,” The Daily Telegraph quoted Robertson as saying.
This stance of the coalition government is very similar to that taken by former prime minister Gordon Brown during the last days of the Labour government.
Chingoka he is denied entry into Britain and this has forced the International Cricket Council (ICC) to move its annual general meeting in June to Singapore. The Zimbabwe team voluntarily pulled out of the 2009 World Twenty20 once it became clear they too would not be given British visas.
But in the last six months, there have been several changes in Zimbabwe Cricket. England coach Andy Flower has urged the MCC’s world cricket committee to send a fact-finding mission there and his brother Grant is now involved in the national set up.
Andy’s predecessor as Zimbabwe captain Alistair Campbell was appointed chairman of selectors last October and stated the board’s aim to resume playing Test cricket within two years. Former England batsman and Surrey coach Alan Butcher is now Zimbabwe’s coach.
]]>Communities and Local Government (CLG) became the first department to disclose a list of all expenditure on goods and services above 500 pounds.
Sky News quoted Local Government Minister Bob Neill as saying that: ‘It seems quite literally the Government Offices for the Regions were taking the taxpayer for a ride. They were living it up at the taxpayer’s expense whilst thousands of households were struggling to make ends meet.
‘Splashing out six-figure sums on pollsters appears to be another one of Labour’s vanity projects. It’s unforgivable that a culture of excess was allowed to flourish for so long,’ he added.
The 1,900 items of expenditure disclosed by the central CLG department for 2009-10 total 314 million pounds.
There was a 16 million pounds bill for marketing, advertising, promotion and events, while 635,000 pounds went on taxis and chauffeur driven cars, and nearly 310,000 pounds on catering and food.
The department’s quangos accounted for another 337 million pounds. One entry for the Government Offices for the Regions – which are being abolished by the coalition – was 1,673 to pounds Stress Angels, a company that offers on-site corporate massage.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister David Cameron said making Whitehall more transparent would help safeguard taxpayers’ money.
‘If civil servants and if ministers and MPs know that the public are going to see how money is spent, it will make them think twice before spending it on something stupid like a massage chair or whatever else,’ Cameron, said. (ANI)
]]>There are five contenders for the Labour crown.
According to The Telegraph, Miliband was named as the best leader of the party by 17 per cent, with Diane Abbott, the Left-wing backbencher, in second place on 10 per cent.
Ed Miliband, the shadow energy secretary and brother of the former foreign secretary, was third with seven per cent.
The remaining candidates, Ed Balls, the shadow education secretary, and Andy Burnham, former health secretary, were each named as favourite by six per cent of voters.
Miliband was also picked as favourite by Labour supporters, many of whom will take part in the leadership election.
He was backed by 29 per cent, with Balls second on 13 per cent and Ed Miliband third on 12 per cent, according to the survey by YouGov for the Sunday Times.
In the second poll, a survey by business leaders carried out by Com Res, 51 per cent named David Miliband as the candidate who would pose the greatest threat to the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government if he was elected leader.
Ed Miliband was in second place with 21 per cent, followed by Balls on 15 per cent, Abbott on eight per cent and Burnham five per cent.
The older Mr Miliband is now the clear front-runner in the contest, having secured nominations from 109 constituency Labour parties, compared to 84 for his brother.
Burnham has 21, Abbott 14 and Balls nine.
Members of Labour’s electoral college begin voting next month in the contest to replace Gordon Brown as leader, with the result announced at the party’s annual conference in September.(ANI)
]]>]]>
The unprecedented public exposure of the India-Pakistan rift after the ministerial-level talks in Islamabad was a disaster waiting to happen.
A similar, though more muted, incident happened during Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir’s press conference in New Delhi earlier when the latter mockingly described New Delhi’s charges against Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed as “literature”.
The reason why the two sparring neighbours have reached some kind of a deadlock is that the “core” issues in their respective views allow no room for retreat. When Kashmir was the central subject during mutual discussions, India’s ploy was to try to sideline it by broadening the ambit of relationships to include cultural exchanges, trade, tourism, etc. Although Pakistan tried to steer the topic back to Kashmir, it could hardly display “suppressed anger”, as Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was accused of showing last Friday, if it failed in its endeavour.
However, ever since “terror” became the core issue for India, Pakistan has been almost constantly on the back foot. First, it is a subject which places it in the dock where world public opinion is concerned because, as the former British prime minister, Gordon Brown, said, 75 per cent of all terrorist attacks worldwide originate in Pakistan.
As a result, Pakistan cannot try to circumvent the issue as India earlier tried to do with Kashmir. This inability cannot but lead to the building up of frustration within the Pakistani establishment, which causes the kind of accusatory verbal outbursts at the joint press conference.
Secondly, Pakistan is uneasy with the fact that terror has not only diverted the attention of the international community from Kashmir, but there is little chance of a change in the situation because the jehadis are not about to renounce their violent creed. The issue will, therefore, remain “live” in the foreseeable future and continue to relegate Kashmir, which Pakistan regarded as its trump card, to the background.
However, the third and undoubtedly the most important reason why the Pakistani leaders are not at ease while dealing with India is the shadowy presence of the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the army behind their chairs. The report that General Ashfaq Kayani had met President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani before the India-Pakistan talks indicated that the military was laying down the parameters for the politicians.
It is this perception of a gun being held to his head by the ISI and the army which seems to have made Qureshi allege that the Indian external affairs minister, S.M. Krishna, was also held hostage by New Delhi. Yet, even as Qureshi made the charge, he must have been aware of the difference between the two examples. As Krishna later pointed out, it was normal for a leader attending bilateral talks in a foreign capital to be in touch with his “base”. But while Krishna’s “base” was civilian, Qureshi’s was not.
What is more, the increasing awareness of the rest of the world that the Pakistani “base” in Rawalpindi is the real power centre perhaps makes its civilian leaders all the more jittery. But there is another reason. No matter what promises are made by them to control terrorism, they are perfectly aware that the ISI and the army will not let them touch the India-centric terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Haqqani brothers, etc.
The helplessness of the Pakistani civilian leaders in this matter apparently makes them all the more angry. Hence, the intemperate reaction to Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai’s charge that the ISI was behind the Mumbai massacres from start to finish. Clearly, the fact that they are no more than puppets in the hands of the military can hardly enhance the self-esteem of the civilians.
Besides, since their hands are tied where these terror groups are concerned, the civilians know that they are deceiving India, and the world, when they promise to rein in terrorism since it is a threat to Pakistan as well. While the civilians may be serious in their intent, the ISI and the army are not, for they still believe that they will be able to control groups like the Tehreek-e-Taliban which target Pakistan while nurturing LeT and similar other outfits as strategic assets against India.
A deadlock in such a situation is inevitable. Since India is in no hurry to make any concessions on Kashmir, Islamabad is unable to use that “gift” to persuade the army to relent a little in relation to its perceived anti-Indian assets. The civilians also know that the army is less sensitive to the plight of ordinary people even if Pakistan experiences a “26/11″ on a daily basis, as its politicians and commentators say.
With their focus on bleeding India to death, the ISI and the army are willing to let the fire of terrorism singe their own country. Their hope apparently is that if they can hold out for some more time, it may be possible after America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fruition of a nuclear deal with China for Pakistan to hold the upper hand again vis-Ã -vis India.
(17.07.2010-Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. He can be reached at aganguli@mail.com)
]]>Britain's ambassador to the US, Sir Nigel Sheinwald issued a statement Thursday night saying that the new coalition government regards the release of the man convicted of the bombing of the Pan-Am aircraft on its way to New York from London in December 1988 was a "mistake". ]]>
Britain’s ambassador to the US, Sir Nigel Sheinwald issued a statement Thursday night saying that the new coalition government regards the release of the man convicted of the bombing of the Pan-Am aircraft on its way to New York from London in December 1988 was a “mistake”.
The Scottish government denied the allegations of the American senators: “He was sent home to die according to the due process of Scots law, based on the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service Director of Health and Care, and the recommendations of the Parole Board and Prison Governor – all of which have been published by the Scottish Government.”
Sheinwald’s statement came following the American government’s decision to look into the claims by a group of Democrat senators that the oil giant, BP, had lobbied the British government to release Megrahi so that it could secure an oil deal with Libya.
In August 2009, the Scottish government decided to release Megrahi, suffering from cancer, following medical opinion that he hardly had three months to live.
However, closer to the first anniversary of his release, family members of the Loberbie victims claimed in June that the medical opinion, given by professor Karol Sikora, medical director of CancerPartners UK, was “influenced” to secure Megrahi’s early release.
There were also reports which quoted professor Sikora as saying this June that Megrahi could even live for a decade.
He now says his words were taken out of context: “There was a greater than 50 per cent chance, in my opinion, that he would die within the first three months then gradually as you go along the chances get less and less. So the chances of living 10 years is less than one per cent, something like that.”
At the time of Megrahi’s release the then prime minister Gordon Brown said he was not responsible for what happened, but that he “respected” the right of the Scottish government to take the decision. That was construed by the British media to mean an endorsement of Megrahi’s early release. But Thursday’s statement by Sheinwald means that the coalition government takes a different view.
His statement, quoted in The Guardian, read: “Under UK law, where Scottish justice issues are devolved to Scotland, it fell solely to the Scottish executive to consider Megrahi’s case. Under Scottish law, Megrahi was entitled to be considered for release on compassionate grounds.
“Whilst we disagreed with the decision to release Megrahi, we have to respect the independence of the process. The inquiry by the justice committee of the Scottish parliament concluded in February that the Scottish executive took this decision in good faith, on the basis of the medical evidence available to them at the time, and due process was followed.”
BP, meanwhile, admitted that it had pressed the government over the signing of a prisoner transfer agreement with the Gaddafi regime in Libya, but insisted it had made no representations about Megrahi’s actual release by the Scottish government.
]]>According to The Telegraph, Miliband accused Brown, the man he is bidding to replace as Labour leader, of failing to keep many of the promises he made on taking office three years ago.
He claimed ‘spin’ and ‘highhandedness’ intensified under his premiership while previous Labour strengths such as ‘clear strategy’ and ‘bold plans for change’ were lost.
“I agreed completely with Gordon Brown, when he became Prime Minister in 2007, that we needed renewal. I supported and voted for him. I agreed with him on the importance of party reform and a meaningful internationalism that would be part of a unified government strategy,” the paper quoted him, as saying.
“But, it didn’t happen, that is a political fact and now words are cheap but the stakes are high,” he added.
The paper also stated that while Brown and Alistair Darling, his chancellor, had successfully rescued the banks at the height of the credit crisis, Miliband accused the former prime minister of failing to use the opportunity to transform the economy.
Miliband also accused the former leader of failing to reward the wealthy, and intervening too much in the state, allowing officials to unnecessarily interfere in people’s lives. (ANI)
]]>The bills for a team of bodyguards, which accompanies Blair on luxury holidays and international trips, are said to be nearly twice those submitted by officers protecting his successor Gordon Brown, who is now out of office, The Mail reported. ]]>
The bills for a team of bodyguards, which accompanies Blair on luxury holidays and international trips, are said to be nearly twice those submitted by officers protecting his successor Gordon Brown, who is now out of office, The Mail reported.
The revelations come as the government plans huge cuts in home office expenditure with large numbers of police officers expected to be made redundant.
Wherever Blair travels, a team of up to five personal bodyguards from the Metropolitan Police SO1 Specialist Protection unit go as well.
Blair now spends much of his time abroad, either in his international diplomatic role as a UN Middle East envoy, on his lucrative business dealings or on holidays.
During a two-week break in Borneo last summer, officers ran up a bill of almost 22,000 pounds on their Metropolitan Police Barclaycard, the report said.
This was immediately followed by the Blairs making a week-long visit to Bali, where the cost of the three-man police team’s stay was 6,873 pounds.
As well as the holidays, police officers have accompanied Blair on more than 21 international trips in the first four months of 2010 to destinations including Abu Dhabi, Jordan, Liberia, China, Israel, Singapore, Malaysia and the US.
On New Year’s Eve several members of Blair’s protection team were deployed in Oxford. One officer claimed 984 pounds for five nights in the Malmaison Hotel, while the team also claimed a 213.84 pounds restaurant bill, which they said was so high because of the extra costs of eating out Dec 31.
The startling expenses over Blair’s security will raise new questions about the high cost of providing bodyguards to former politicians and whether wealthy individuals such as Blair should be asked to contribute to the spiralling costs.
The former premier can earn up to 80,000 pounds an hour for a speaking engagement – which means he could clear his protection team’s annual expenses bill with little over three hours’ work, the report said.
]]>The bills for a security team, which accompanies Blair on luxury holidays and international business trips, are said to be nearly twice those submitted by officers protecting his successor Gordon Brown.
According to The Mail, more than 1,200pounds were spent a night for accommodation at some of the most luxurious hotels in the world, as well as for limousine hire and thousands of pounds in cash for overseas trips without receipts, reports The Telegraph.
During a two-week break to Borneo in the summer of 2009, officers ran up a total bill of over 22,000pounds.
Soon after, a three-man police team reportedly accompanied Blair and his wife for a week long trip to a luxury health retreat in Bali.
Other expenses included 3,000pounds cash for a trip to Sierra Leone, for which no receipts were obtained.
Blair now spends much of his time outside Britain, either in his international diplomatic role as a UN Middle East envoy, on business dealings or on holiday.
A team of up to five personal bodyguards from the Metropolitan SO1 Specialist Protection travel with him wherever he goes.
On New Year’s Eve many of Blair’s protection team were deployed in Oxford. One officer claimed 984pounds for five nights at the Malmaison Hotel, while the team claimed a 213pound restaurant bill.
Other claims were said to include:
464pounds a night to stay at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan;
3,020pounds cash to cover expenses in Sierra Leone;
6,693pounds for one officer to fly from Jerusalem to Jeddah, then on to Kuala Lumpur, then Indonesia, Singapore and Washington DC to assess security for future trips by Blair. The visit included one night at the Jeddah Hilton, costing 1,264pounds.
Total spending on Royal and diplomatic protection has reached over 1.5 million pounds so far this year, The Mail report said.
A spokesman for the Home Office, which oversees the funding of the diplomatic and Royal protection squads, refused to discuss their budgets. (ANI)
]]>