Parenting classes are a good idea. But families need so much more | Observer editorial
The arrival of a baby is, more often than not, an occasion for celebration and joy. Ensuring that he or she develops into a rounded human being, capable of giving and receiving love, holding down a job and generally getting on with life without causing undue grief to others, can be an altogether more taxing process.
Parenting is anarchic. The skills clumsily acquired by trial and error can fluctuate alarmingly from one child to another in the same family and during the course of each offspring’s childhood, as the willing and docile toddler turns into a stubborn four-year-old who knows best. Then there is adolescence.
Of course, parents have muddled through for centuries with a modicum of advice and interference from nearest and dearest, so is there any reason why today’s mother, father, guardian and carer should turn to the government for help?
David Cameron believes there is. New parents are to be given advice “from teething to tantrums”, including tips on changing nappies and “baby talk”, under a multimillion-pound initiative. A £3.4m digital information service already provides free email alerts and text messages. In addition, free parenting classes will be available to parents of under-fives in three trial areas, to be rolled out nationally if effective, and relationship support for first-time parents will also be offered in pilots from this summer. Cameron has said it is “ludicrous” that parents receive more training in how to drive a car than how to raise children: “This not the nanny state; it is the sensible state.”
Government entering the private domain of family life isn’t new. Labour promised practical help that eventually transformed into a parenting strategy. Every local authority appointed a parenting commissioner who oversaw help, from a light touch (eg a call to a helpline) to voluntary parenting courses and, finally, compulsory parenting classes backed with parenting orders. Unfortunately, these last clad much of the enterprise in stigma.
What Labour’s efforts did signal is how family life has changed. The golden era, when father worked and mother was a full-time domestic engineer on permanent standby for her thriving brood, is a figment of a propagandist’s imagination. Upper-class parents banished offspring to the nursery and the nanny; working-class parents directed their (often many) sons and daughters to the street. Some parents got it right, others didn’t. But the extended family was available to soften the blows and offer direction, distraction and hands-on help.
Now, with divorce and separation, the arrival of the “blended” step-family, women’s move into employment, the shrinking of the family unit and the distance from support networks, parenting can be a very lonely exercise. While guide books and television programmes exist in abundance, they aren’t that much help in the heat of the moment, at the heart of the crisis. The miracle is that, according to research conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the majority of parents in all income brackets don’t do a bad job, often against the odds.
However, these are difficult times. Financial crises, unemployment, sexualised culture and the internet jungle all add to the parental challenge. So Mr Cameron’s initiative has a place. If, that is, the support offered is of the highest quality (does a consensus exist, for instance, around what constitutes “good enough” parenting?). If too, the role of fathers is supported as strongly as that of mothers and the wellbeing and mental health of both is taken into account. If there is an investment in a buddying system to encourage the less confident to sign up, otherwise those who receive the benefit will be those who need it least.
Crucially, what also matters is for the coalition to focus more effectively on what makes a family strong, namely a fair income, employment, decent neighbourhoods, good, affordable childcare, excellent schools and the right kind of interventions early enough to make a positive difference to the 2% of families who are deemed the most chaotic.
So, if Mr Cameron’s initiative makes it normal to seek help to make the good times better and the rougher periods manageable, then he will have achieved an admirable step-change: a universal understanding that support isn’t for the “bad’ parent, it is for anyone who wants to make the very best of raising a child.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/20/editorial-cameron-childcare-plans-welcome
Use ‘overdose cure’ naloxone more widely, drugs advisory council urges
An antidote to heroin overdoses should be made widely available without prescription, according to controversial advice from the government’s drugs advisory body.
Critics claim that the distribution of naloxone would create a “safety net” for drug users and potentially encourage greater use of class A drugs. But the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has written to health minister Anne Milton to argue that people working with the UK’s estimated 300,000 heroin addicts will be able to save lives if they are given access to the drug.
When a heroin user has an overdose, one injection of naloxone revives them from unconsciousness and gives them enough time for medical help to arrive. It is already used by ambulance crews, casualty staff and out-of-hours GPs.
But the drug is only available on prescription, which means people working with drug users cannot keep stocks or carry them in case of emergency.
The government will be under pressure to ignore the advice, with some claiming naloxone encourages users to indulge in even riskier drug-taking. Others have warned that up to 3% of those receiving naloxone suffer potentially life-threatening side-effects and even that it can be used as a weapon in fights between users.
However, the chairman of the advisory council, Professor Les Iversen, told Milton: “The ACMD is not aware of any significant body of evidence that naloxone provision encourages increased heroin use.
“The ACMD concludes that naloxone provision is an evidence-based intervention, which can save lives. Naloxone provision fits with other measures to promote recovery by encouraging drug users to engage with treatment services, and, ultimately, keep them alive until they are in recovery.”
Mike Pattinson, a former probation officer and now the director of operations at the Brighton-based health and social care charity CRI, said: “We know that if people in constant contact with heroin users are able to carry this drug that they will save lives. We would hope that the government acts on this advice because it is compelling.”
Trevor Ball, 40, a recovering heroin addict, said he had been saved by naloxone when paramedics had been called but believed others could have been rescued from overdoses if it had been more widely accessible. He said: “Drug users don’t think about life and death when they take heroin. It is a case of ‘it will never happen to me”, so the idea that access to naloxone will encourage drug use is a nonsense. I have been saved by it and I have seen others go blue, go over, and been saved by it.”
Regulations concerning the distribution of naloxone have already been relaxed in Scotland, where the devolved government is funding the distribution of 10,000 units.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/20/use-overdose-cure-naloxone
Clegg attacks rift between state and private schools’ A-level results
Pupils at private schools are more than three times as likely to get AAB in the key A level subjects that help candidates gain access to top universities as those in state schools, according to the first analysis of its kind released by the government.
The figures have been made public by Nick Clegg as part of a new initiative to promote “social mobility” to be unveiled by the deputy prime minister on Tuesday. The government looked at those attaining AAB at A level in subjects identified by the Russell Group as “facilitating” entry to their universities – including English literature, maths, physics, languages and history.
Under a new social mobility “tracking” system, the relative numbers achieving these grades in private and state schools will be published annually, as will a series of other indicators including access to early years education and entry to the professions.
Clegg said there was a “great rift in our education system between our best schools, most of which are private, and the schools ordinary families rely on. That is corrosive for our society and damaging to our economy.”
He added: “We do need to ensure that our school system as a whole promotes fairness and mobility, that it heals the rift in opportunities. We are committed to narrowing the gap in our school system – state and private – and ensuring that all children are given the chance to rise. The way to do that is to make the state education system better – to level up – and ensure that anyone can get ahead.”
In an article in today’s Observer ahead of an international summit on social mobility being hosted by the Sutton Trust, its chairman Sir Peter Lampl says “education reform still holds the key to breaking the cycle of low mobility”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/20/rift-private-state-school-grades
Oliver urges MPs to end academy junk food exemption
An exasperated Jamie Oliver has written to every MP demanding a U-turn over nutrition rules in schools after education secretary Michael Gove refused to act on a report that found nine out of 10 academies were selling junk food.
Announcing the move on his website, the TV chef, whose campaign for better food in state schools has lifted standards for millions of pupils, told voters that if their MPs did not act “you can safely assume that they don’t care about the wellbeing of our children and the future of our country”.
Oliver’s move came as public health officials and doctors joined a growing number of education and food organisations in criticising the education secretary. In a move that astonished experts, Gove insisted that he would not apply the nutrition standards that cover all other state schools to academies and free schools – even after a report by the School Food Trust charity found last week that many were selling sub-standard products.
The investigations, initially requested by Gove, showed that 89 out of 100 academies surveyed were selling at least one of the snack foods high in sugar, salt or fat that have been banned in vending machines in other state schools.
Gove insists that academies, which enjoy greater freedom than other state schools, should be left to determine their own nutritional standards because they are run by responsible head teachers.
However, of the 100 academies questioned by the trust, 31 were found to be selling one type of banned fattening food, 33 were selling two and 15 were selling three. Also 82 of the academies sold sweetened fruit juices, which often contain only a small amount of juice and would therefore be banned in maintained schools. The national school food standards stipulate that such products must contain at least 50% fruit juice.
The trust, which was called in after Oliver and others raised concerns last year, concluded that the nutritional standards introduced in 2008 under the Labour government should now cover academies and free schools.
A spokeswoman for the Department for Education said that despite the report there was no prospect of a change of policy. In a statement the department said: “We trust teachers – the professionals on the frontline – to do what is best for their pupils. Many academies go over and above the minimum requirements and are offering their pupils high-quality, nutritional food.”
However, Oliver, urging MPs to back a Commons early day motion from Tory MP Zac Goldsmith which says that academies should be covered by the rules, says in his letter that the government’s approach threatens a “massive erosion of everything we have achieved”.
“I passionately believe that this is taking a huge step in the wrong direction as far as taking care of our children and the future of this country is concerned,” Oliver writes. “His (Gove’s) decision means that the one million children attending academy schools no longer have any standards in place to protect the food they eat every day.
“I have written to all MPs asking them to sign Zac Goldsmith’s early day motion. If your MP does not support this motion, then you can safely assume that they don’t care about the wellbeing of our children and the future of our country.”
There are 1,283 secondary academies in England – 40% of the total of 3,261 secondary schools – and a further 10% have applied for academy status. Gove is pressing for still more to convert.
Dr Janet Atherton, president of the Association of Directors of Public Health, which represents England’s 150 directors of public health in the NHS, said: “The standards were brought in because catering standards in schools weren’t as good as they needed to be. They have brought about dramatic improvements in children’s nutrition and eating habits.
“They have been proven to be effective. You can see that in children’s diets. Some academies are following the standards, but that’s not across the board.
“I’m concerned that evidence shows that academies aren’t doing what Mr Gove said should happen. It feels that it’s moving back to before the standards came in, with confectionery and soft drinks available in schools. The standards should apply in all schools.”
Rob Rees, chairman of the School Food Trust and a well-known chef, said: “We have clear evidence that shows standards work for schools when it comes to food and cooking. For the last three years the number of children eating lunches has increased and many children are enjoying the hard work of so many cooks across the country.
“I hope that all schools will value the evidence and realise the benefit good food brings to performance, behaviour and social cohesion.”
Last month Gove told the education select committee that he saw no evidence of academies failing to comply with the standards. He said: “All the evidence seems to me to point in the other direction: that schools that have academy freedoms have improved the quality of food they offered children.”
The Department of Health said it was a matter for Gove.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/may/20/jamie-oliver-banned-food-academy-mps
Miliband set for decision on EU referendum
Ed Miliband is being urged by a growing number of shadow cabinet members and senior allies to promise a dramatic in-out referendum on Britain’s future membership of the European Union if Labour wins the next general election.
Several figures in the party are pushing the Labour leader to make the pledge well before the next European elections in 2014 to outmanoeuvre David Cameron, who is under heavy pressure to commit the Tory party to a national vote on the issue. The Observer has been told that, after discussions with shadow cabinet members, Miliband is leaving the door open to a referendum – although he is keen to stress that the short-term focus and discussion must be on how to end the current euro crisis.
Allies of the Labour leader say pressure on him to make what would be a historic, high-risk pledge will increase following the appointment of Jon Cruddas, the MP for Dagenham and Rainham, as Labour’s policy chief.
Cruddas, a long-time opponent of the euro but otherwise pro-EU, is strongly in favour of an in-out referendum as a means of ending divisive arguments on Europe once and for all. Before his appointment, Cruddas told the People’s Pledge campaign for a referendum that the issue was one of “democracy”, and said a referendum pledge should be made “immediately, or as quickly as we can”. Cruddas is understood to think that such a move would help define Miliband’s leadership as bold and distinct from the New Labour years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
A ComRes opinion poll for the Independent on Sunday and Sunday Mirror showed how Europe is emerging as an issue that could be pivotal at the next election. The poll showed that 26% of Tories now say they will consider voting for the anti-EU Ukip compared to 11% of Labour supporters and 14% of Liberal Democrats. It also showed the extent of anti-EU hostility Labour would need to overcome if a referendum were held now, with 46% of voters saying they would vote to leave the EU compared with 30% who would vote to stay in.
If Labour did commit to a referendum, the party leadership would campaign vigorously in favour of a vote to stay in – a stance that would be supported by most Labour members.
A referendum would, however, leave the Tories divided, with the party leadership certain to campaign for a vote to remain in the EU, while many MPs and grassroots Conservatives would want to leave. One shadow cabinet member said: “We should have the confidence to say we think we can win this and get on with it. There are issues of timing, about when we make the decision and when one would be held. But it certainly is no longer heresy to talk about it.”
A spokesman for Miliband did not deny that the option was being considered, stressing merely that “our position is that we don’t think this is what Europe needs at the moment”.
Last week, in a sign that the Labour party is gradually preparing the ground for a referendum pledge, shadow chancellor Ed Balls said there could be a case in future, for calling a national vote when the current euro crisis was over and the shape of the new Europe was known. This followed similar comments from former cabinet minister and European commissioner Lord Mandelson.
On Thursday Peter Hain, a former Europe minister who stepped down from the shadow cabinet last week but who remains loyal to Miliband, said on BBC1′s Question Time that he believed the British people would deserve a say when the time was right. “I think the way things are going people in Britain probably want to make up their minds about whether to stay in Europe or not,” he said. “I don’t think we should be frightened about giving people a vote.”
Sources said that Hain would never have spoken out on the EU issue had he felt such remarks would have been unhelpful to Miliband, or significantly out of kilter with the Labour leader’s own views.
Miliband is said to be genuinely undecided and cautious – not least because of the possibility that the country could vote to leave the EU. He is also being advised by some that the move could be seen as crudely opportunistic at a time of crisis in the EU.
Others say that it could put off Liberal Democrats who might otherwise come over to Labour.
Labour enthusiasts for a referendum stress, however, that it would not in any way amount to a watering down of Labour’s commitment to the EU. On the contrary, it would be an opportunity to argue the positive case for membership during a national campaign – one that would also help the party build alliances with pro-EU elements of the business community.
While a minority of Labour MPs might want to leave the EU, highlighting divisions within Labour, they say a referendum would cause far deeper splits in the Tory party.
The People’s Pledge, which draws support from all political parties, has announced it will hold more local referendums in three Greater Manchester constituencies, Withington, Cheadle and Hazel Grove, asking people if they want a national vote.
The seats, one in Manchester and two in Stockport, are all represented by Liberal Democrat MPs: John Leech, Mark Hunter and Andrew Stunnell, respectively. This follows its local referendum in Thurrock last month where 89.9% of people who voted backed a referendum.
Ian McKenzie, director of the People’s Pledge, said: “The people of Thurrock set the pace last month by voting in huge numbers for a referendum. Voters in Manchester Withington, Cheadle and Hazel Grove now have the chance to quicken that pace towards a national referendum for the rest of us.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/20/ed-miliband-eu-membership-referendum
Politics then and now: Nehru, Ambedkar didn’t object to cartoon
What is noteworthy about the cartoon row is that neither Jawaharlal Nehru nor B.R. Ambedkar found anything objectionable about it when it was published in 1949.
Nor did all the politicians in the intervening decades, among whom were luminaries such as Vallabhbhai Patel, J.B. Kripalani, Ram Manohar Lohia, Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Jagjivan Ram, A.K. Gopalan, Hiren Mukherjee and scores of others whose names are likely to last in textbooks longer than of some of their successors in the political field today.
It may be worthwhile, therefore, to mull over the differences in response between an earlier generation of politicians and the latest ones, especially when, by common consent, the calibre of those who graced the hallowed chambers of Parliament House and of public life in the past was of a higher order than of those who came in their wake. There is little doubt that what places them on a higher pedestal in the eyes of their countrymen is their accomplishments in personal and political life.
Among the attributes which gave them a higher status was an ability to take a critical look at themselves. Nothing showed this exemplary trait more than Nehru’s searing observations on himself which surpassed anything which his critics might have said. Writing anonymously in the Modern Review in 1937, the hero of the independence movement said: “Caesarism is always at the door and is it not possible that Jawaharlal himself might fancy himself as a Caesar.”
If the builder of modern India detected an unworthy trait in himself, Ambedkar, the architect of the constitution, sounded a warning about a dubious characteristic of the nation, “where ‘bhakti’ or the path of devotion or hero worship plays a part in its politics unequalled in its magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, bhakti or hero worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship”.
Central to this attitude is an uncluttered vision and a self-deprecatory sense of humour about one’s personal self and the country. It is this broad-minded outlook which must have made them see Shankar’s cartoon about Ambedkar being harried by Nehru in the matter of framing the constitution as a droll, inoffensive interpretation by a humourist. To them, raising a hue and cry over a form of popular art common to all democracies would have been like taking the “road to degradation”.
But, there was another, deeper reason for their response – or the lack of it – which underlined their culture and academic temperament. It was the fact that they took it for granted that their popular base was the entire nation, not segments of it which had to be assiduously cultivated. Instead, they drew their strength from the adulation of all sections of Indians, irrespective of their caste or creed.
If the reactions of those who have replaced them in the political field to Shankar’s cartoon are so very different from Nehru’s and Ambedkar’s, the explanation lies in the heavily truncated nature of their perceived bases of support. None of today’s politicians can claim to represent the nation. Instead,they seem to see themselves as representatives of particular religions or castes or provinces or regions. What is more, since they are uncertain of their hold on their targeted communities, they constantly need to exploit issues which can enable them to retain their influence.
So, the Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP) has to harp on the temple on which it has set its heart lest the Hindus slip out of its grasp, the caste-based outfits like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) of the Dalits, the Samajwadi Party of the Yadavs and others have to use real or imaginary slights on their castes to mobilise their supporters and provincial groups like the Shiv Sena have to call for the banning of a book seemingly offensive to Maratha icon to retain their bases. But, interestingly, all these parties also have to pander to the supposedly hurt sentiments of the other communities in the hope of winning over some of them. Hence, the outrage voiced across the board after a Dalit organisation criticised the cartoon.
The pity is that Nehru’s own party, the Congress, with its history of non-partisan politics, has fallen prey to this cynical game to pander to the Dalits just as it had banned Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” to please the orthodox Muslims and offered muted support to the ban on James W. Laine’s biography of Shivaji to keep the Marathis in good humour. Yet, there is nothing to suggest that anyone other than the backward-looking sections in these communities are impressed by such kowtowing to self-serving propaganda which makes a mockery of democratic values, intellectual acuity and freedom of the media.
Hilary Devey: ‘Politics is probably my next career move’
You’ve written your autobiography. Your life was pretty eventful from early on, wasn’t it?
-
Bold As Brass: My Story
- by
Hilary Devey
-
- Buy it from the Guardian bookshop
- Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this book
It wasn’t the usual childhood. My dad was very spontaneous: it was: “Come on kids, we’re going on holiday.” “No, Arthur, you can’t, they’re at school tomorrow.” “Sod it, they’ll learn more with me.” Or, 11 at night, “I think I’ll knock that wall down.” The following morning, we’d get up and the wall would be gone. It was a rather different childhood.
But you also reveal some extremely traumatic times, particularly being raped when you were a young adolescent. How did it feel to write about it?
It was emotionally stressful. Things I suppose that you suppress over many, many years, that are not even thought about for many, many years, actually came to the pen. I’ve never told a soul; even my family are going to get a shock when they read that.
And we get a glimpse of the embryonic dragon. You got the bug early, didn’t you?
I’ve always loved business, since being a kid. Even from working on a stall on the market. I could take dictation in shorthand and type the letter by the age of 11. It must be inbred. I love the cut and thrust of getting the deal.
You’ve had a very successful career in the freight industry and brought a son up on your own. How did you manage that?
I had to go back to work two weeks after my son was born, but those two weeks I had with him were probably the happiest of my life. But I had to feed him, clothe him, house him. I’m totally independent. It was my choice to have him. The fact that his father chose to sod off isn’t the state’s fault, is it? I was determined I would continue with a career.
You describe some traumatic times with your son, Mevlit. How are things now?
I’m very positive about my son. Very, very proud of him. He’s one in 10 million, 100 million, that comes back from the brink of death as a heroin addict and puts his life back on track, and he’s now working, he’s happy, he’s slowly, slowly becoming an outgoing, humorous person again, with the aid of no drugs whatsoever.
Do you think women get a fair deal in the workplace? Is it getting better?
There is chauvinism or misogyny in any industry all over the world. Therefore, if a woman’s got it in her, then for God’s sake, fight for it, go for it, get there. I do feel that having a child, and taking a sabbatical to have a child, and taking two years out of the corporate ladder to care for that child, if you think of a woman’s working life now, it’s probably 30-40 years, so it’s not even a tenth of her career, so why should she be penalised?
How does it work in your companies?
My middle and senior management within the businesses are a 50/50 split. I do think mixed-gender workforces have more fun and are more innovative. You can have more banter; you can have more tears as well. But, in general, I think you get more out of a mixed-gender workforce.
You were an instant hit when you arrived on Dragons’ Den. Had you ever thought about going on TV before?
No, never. They just said I was a natural. Whether I am or not, I don’t know. People respond to being told the truth and I don’t believe there’s any other way to do it. I was always brought up that, if you’ve got any bad news to deliver, then you must deliver it face to face and look them in the eyes. And you take compassion out of a commercial decision and then put some compassion in subsequently. That’s been my mantra all my life.
Why do you think we’re so obsessed with shows such as Dragons’ Den and The Apprentice?
I think everybody’s got a dream, and everybody wants to realise that dream. I want to help, but make them aware of what is required from them to make that dream come to fruition.
You obviously have a lot of fun getting dressed up for Dragons’ Den, don’t you?
I love doing it. Putting outfits together is my passion and I don’t always buy expensive clothes, contrary to popular belief. I buy skirts and a cheap top and dress it up with a really nice jacket and matching shoes and a matching bag, and it looks fabulous, and I’m probably dressed for 50 quid. I actually hate wearing make-up – or as much as they put on me on TV. If I go out shopping on Oxford Street, it would be tinted moisturiser, a touch of blusher, bit of lippy, bit of mascara.
You do complain in the book about having to wear a different outfit for each posh do.
I’ve found that incredibly frustrating, really. I’m not getting value for money, am I? In fact, I am going to wear the same outfits again, and if I get criticised, I’m going to say: “Why be wasteful?”
You’ve suffered some ill-health in the last couple of years. How are you now?
I’m OK. I had a stroke; so have millions and millions of other people. It has left its after-effects, which are quite frustrating, but I’m one of the lucky ones, aren’t I? I can now move my arm, but I’ve no feeling in my fingertips so I can’t fasten buttons. I can’t fasten a bra. I can’t put rollers in my hair. I’ve got a young girl who’ll help me with my hair and whatever. I’m very fortunate that a) I can afford it and b) I’ve got her. I keep saying” “You’re my left arm” and she says: “But I’d rather be your right one.”
So do you take it a bit easier these days?
I don’t think I’ve had a holiday in 17 years. Some days, at weekends, I don’t get up out of bed, I’m that tired. I have a shower, put clean pyjamas on, go back into bed with my Kindle and that’s bliss.
Can you ever imagine yourself retiring?
I think I’d die when I do. I’ll carry on working for as long as I can be effective. Once I start hindering, I like to think I’ve got enough savvy to say: “Enough’s enough.”
Any other jobs you’d like to have a go at?
I’d love to be in politics; it’s probably my next career move. I tell you what, I don’t think they’d like me very much, whichever party I joined.
Bold as Brass is published by Macmillan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/may/20/hilary-devey-dragons-den-interview?newsfeed=true
Marco Rubio’s Past Political Vulnerabilities?
MIAMI – Marco Rubio is a young senator and a rising star within the Republican party who has been cited as a possible Mitt Romney running mate, but questions exist about whether potential vulnerabilities in his personal and political background might hold him back.
The 40-year-old Florida lawmaker has close ties to a colleague accused of questionable financial dealings. He once was enmeshed in a controversy over the use of the state party’s credit card for his personal expenses. Since emerging on the national political scene, he has faced increased personal scrutiny. There are conflicting details about his parents’ immigration from Cuba and his recently disclosed ties to the Mormon faith.
The effect of those issues on his political fortunes is the subject of debate in Republican circles in Washington, Florida and elsewhere as the Cuban-American senator with solid conservative credentials works to raise his profile beyond his home state and possibly position himself for a national role.
“Marco Rubio is a huge star in the Republican Party in much the same way that Barack Obama was in the Democratic Party between his convention speech in 2004 and his candidacy for the president,” said Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to GOP Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “There are a lot of pluses when you look at Marco Rubio as a potential vice presidential candidate, but there are also unknowns.”
Rubio frequently is mentioned by Republican insiders as an attractive candidate to be Romney’s vice presidential pick, partly because the GOP needs to attract Hispanic voters in pivotal states such as Nevada and Florida.
Rubio denies any interest in the No. 2 spot this year, but he’s working hard to stay in the national spotlight. He recently gave a major foreign policy address in Washington. He’s talking about writing a bill to allow some young illegal immigrants to remain and work in the country without citizenship. Next month, he’ll release a memoir.
Floridians may be numb to these hits because of the rough-and-tumble nature of politics in the state, when it’s looked at by a national audience it may not be as palatable.
- Abe Dyk, a political strategist
The country is only just starting to get to know Rubio and his political vulnerabilities, though Florida residents know both well.
Both Rubio’s ties with U.S. Rep. David Rivera, a fellow GOP freshman who now is facing a federal probe into tax evasion, and the state party credit card matter surfaced during Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaign. While they didn’t have much effect, that doesn’t mean they would get a pass on the national stage.
“Floridians may be numb to these hits because of the rough-and-tumble nature of politics in the state, when it’s looked at by a national audience it may not be as palatable,” said Abe Dyk, a political strategist who managed the 2010 Senate campaign of Rubio’s Democratic challenger.
Rubio and Rivera met in 1992, during the campaign of former Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a fellow South Florida Cuban-American. The two rose through the ranks in the Statehouse with Rivera oftentimes playing bad cop to the more congenial Rubio.
During the legislative session, they shared a Tallahassee town house, which a bank began foreclosure proceedings on in 2010. Rubio and Rivera made only partial payments on that mortgage for five months in 2010; at that time, he held jobs as a consultant and professor. Rubio has said the missed payments were due to a dispute over the terms of the mortgage.
State officials closed a criminal probe into Rivera’s personal financial dealings without filing charges but didn’t clear him entirely. They cited Florida’s brief statute of limitations and its lax campaign finance laws for not charging him with living off of his campaign funds and failing to disclose his income.
In the last year, Rubio has publicly kept some distance from Rivera and has said that his friend has some issues he must address on the campaign trail. Still, Rubio threw a small Washington fundraiser for Rivera last week. So far, Rubio hasn’t faced blowback from his friendship with Rivera.
“It’s tough to say how that will play out,” says Emilio Gonzalez, a consultant who served in the Bush administration and sees Rubio as a potentially formidable presidential candidate in 2016.
If Rubio were to end up on the GOP presidential ticket or mount his own national campaign in the coming years, he all but certainly would face questions about the scandal over the use of state GOP funds when he was the speaker of the Florida House.
The head of the party, Jim Greer, was forced to resign following revelations he and his second-in-command charged $1.5 million on party credit cards, much of it on luxurious hotels, fancy restaurants, chauffeured sedans and lavish entertaining. Greer’s trial is set to start July 30, just ahead of the Republican convention, and many Republican observers anticipate he will detail unethical use of party money by other high-ranking GOP officials.
Rubio spent more than $100,000 on the party card between 2006 and 2008, paying off about $16,000 in personal expenses and claiming the rest as official party business. His records from 2005, when he was lobbying to become Florida House speaker, never were released. When asked about using the party card for personal expenses, Rubio has said he sometimes just pulled the wrong card out of his wallet and he has called it a “lesson learned.”
He also has had to answer criticism for how he spent money donated to two political committees he formed – including payments to relatives. He has acknowledged the bookkeeping for at least one of the accounts was sloppy.
Then there’s his family’s background.
Rubio long claimed his parents fled Fidel Castro’s rule. But it was recently disclosed that they arrived several years before Castro took power, although they quickly embraced the Cuban exile community as Castro turned toward communism. Rubio has said the dates he gave were based on his parents’ recollections.
There’s another part of Rubio’s upbringing that long had gone undisclosed, and the revelation is one that could turn off evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP.
Rubio was baptized as Mormon when his family lived for a few years in Las Vegas, thanks to the influence of cousins who belonged to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rubio returned to the Catholic Church as a young teen, and as an adult he has also frequently attended Baptist services.
When it comes to the vice presidency, Rubio’s greatest liability may be one only time can resolve.
“I suspect that the Romney campaign is going to pick someone who is viewed as unquestionably qualified for the office,” said Schmidt, who was intimately involved in McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin. “To the extent that (Rubio’s) in his first term, he’s in the first two years of his term and he’s 40 years old probably doesn’t help him.”
Based on reporting by The Associated Press.
Follow us on twitter.com/foxnewslatino
Like us at facebook.com/foxnewslatino
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/05/19/marco-rubio-past-political-vulnerabilities/
Comment: Politicians should bow out of pensions
By JEFF SALWAY
Published on Sunday 20 May 2012 00:00
FORCING babies to find paid employment – or presumably forgo their right to be sick all over anyone close enough – seemed beyond the pale even for this government.
Fortunately the headlines screaming that “babies have to work until 77” were misleading – what they meant to imply was that kids born this year won’t receive their state pension until the age of 77, not that they’d have to stack the lowest shelves at their nearest supermarket.
The stories were based on PwC “research” that merely pointed out that the recent Queen’s Speech ratified plans to raise the state pension age in line with longevity. Predictably this met with “outrage” and “shock”, but it’s hard to see why. If anything, kids born today are more likely to be working into their 80s before claiming their state pension – if there is to be such a thing by then.
In another recent report, the Pensions Policy Institute warned that nearly half of people already over 50 will have to work until their mid-70s to avoid financial hardship in retirement.
The challenge posed by greater longevity is one that policymakers have only just begun to get their collective head around. The increases in the state pension age will continue to accelerate and for people under the age of 30 now, that means working lives of more than 50 years – for those lucky enough to keep in secure employment.
One of the biggest obstacles to tackling this daunting challenge is the politicisation of pensions. For as long as policy is made and remade by successive governments there’s no hope of a coherent approach to longevity and its financial implications.
Neither government, industry, nor individuals can truly plan ahead when they know the next administration will move the goalposts yet again.
Progress means successfully convincing people of the need to save and creating an environment in which they can do so confidently. That involves genuine financial education in schools; workplace savings schemes which address the fact that debts are the biggest obstacle to saving; employment laws and structures that reflect changing employee needs; and removing disincentives to saving, just for starters.
Leaving pensions in the hands of politicians hasn’t got us far in recent years. To have a chance of making the system fit for purpose for the next few decades the responsibility must be handed to an independent pensions commission.
The commission chaired by Lord Adair Turner in the mid-Noughties produced the groundwork on which current pensions policy is based – most notably automatic enrolment, which starts in October – and has stood the test of time.
Sadly there’s little appetite among today’s politicians to relinquish control of pensions.
Last year, the pensions minister, Steve Webb, dismissed such a suggestion by arguing that “you are never going to depoliticise these things because ultimately they are value judgements and that is the very stuff of politics”. That’s a feeble case at best from a minister who has, in fact, been a rare coalition government success. It’s exactly two years today that it produced its initial agreement and pensions is one of the very few areas in which progress has been made.
The biggest contribution this government can make to the future of the UK pensions system is to hand over to an independent commission once the current reforms are under way.
Sadly, however, it’ll be putting babies to work and making them earn their formula before even considering such a bold step.
scotsmancash@yahoo.co.uk
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.
Cohn: Playing politics with your hydro bill by cooking the books
Ontario PC party leader Tim Hudak, centre, speaks at a news conference in Scarborough in January, 2011, calling for a forensic audit to explain the continued need for Ontario Hydro’s debt retirement charges. He now has a new energy plan.
NICK PERRY/Scarborough Mirror
The last time Tim Hudak campaigned to be premier, he promised to lower hydro bills in two tantalizing ways:
First, he’d take the HST off hydro. Second, cancel that annoying “debt retirement charge” on your monthly electricity bills.
But Hudak’s hard sell failed to light up his 2011 election. Now, the Tory leader is plotting new ways to win the next campaign — reversing the polarity of his failed energy platform with more electrifying promises.
His new plan to privatize two provincially owned utilities has generated high voltage headlines. It has also triggered unpleasant political fallout for the party, reviving memories of wildly unpopular rate hikes from a similar Tory government experiment a decade ago.
As interesting as what Hudak said, however, is what he left unsaid. His shifting rhetoric on energy is a case study in political positioning — underscoring how quickly a wobbly platform can be submerged.
By reprising privatization this week, the Tory leader conspicuously omitted two centrepieces of his 2011 campaign platform: The HST holiday and the hated debt retirement charge (the DRC is about $5.60 on most bills, but ranges as high as $12 monthly).
These two consumer “relief” measures, or pocketbook pitches, had tested well in Tory focus groups before the last campaign. But by voting day they looked gimmicky — which is why Hudak turned the page this month with a more meaty “discussion paper” on energy issues.
Hudak now argues that selling off part of publicly-owned Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Hydro One to the province’s big pension funds would bring private sector discipline to these underperforming pieces of the old Ontario Hydro behemoth. Whatever the merits of his proposal, Hudak may be unintentionally undermining the consumer relief he once promised on the campaign trail.
The new private shareholders would demand more profits as a return on their investment (pushing for higher electricity rates, which Hudak has pledged to forestall). Private ownership would also reduce the money turned over yearly to the provincial treasury in the form of profits and payments in lieu of taxes (the utilities would ultimately lose their tax-exempt status).
Here’s where a fiscal Catch-22 comes back to haunt Hudak: Currently, all that cash flow is dedicated to paying down a long-standing debt from the old Ontario Hydro — a legacy of the abortive attempt by the Harris Tories to privatize it in the late 1990s. Massive debt made it unsalable, so the Tories transferred the unfunded liability to the government’s books, orphaning it as “stranded debt.”
Under this exotic accounting concept, any projected future cash flow from OPG and Hydro One would go to pay down this debt. That still left another $7.8 billion to be paid off — an amount the Tories dubbed a “residual stranded debt” to be covered by ratepayers for years to come. And that’s where your monthly DRC payment has been going all along.
In a feat of political fiction, Hudak claimed last year that this esoteric residual debt had already been paid off — because $7.8 billion had so far been collected in DRC payments (equal, he argued with a straight face, to the original $7.8 billion debt).
The auditor general didn’t buy Hudak’s claims, since the Tories were conveniently ignoring interest payments on the debt (as much as $1.6 billion a year), and fluctuations in cash flow from the utilities which changed the complex debt equation. At the auditor’s behest, the Liberal government last week gave a detailed historical accounting of the DRC, showing that it stood at $5.8 billion as of 2011 (down from a high of $11.9 billion in 2003-2004 after the panicked Tories froze hydro rates).
Playing politics with power generation is a risky business. In the complex and highly politicized world of energy, every action generates a reaction — and distortion. By privatizing the utilities, Hudak will only perpetuate the DRC he vowed to extinguish.
Every political party in power has made a mess of Ontario’s energy landscape. Uniquely, however, Hudak is repeating past mistakes — and misstating past debts.
One day, those liabilities — political and pecuniary — will come due.
Martin Regg Cohn’s provincial affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. mcohn@thestar.ca, twitter.com/reggcohn.