quinta-feira, 30 de setembro de 2021

INVESTIGAÇÃO. AS ESTRANHAS ATITUDES DA CANDIDATA DE MEDINA


 

INVESTIGAÇÃO. AS ESTRANHAS ATITUDES DA CANDIDATA DE MEDINA

Margarida Martins: as boleias, as ofertas e a dívida de €47 mil (vídeo)

Marco Alves

23 de setembro

https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/detalhe/margarida-martins-as-boleias-as-ofertas-e-a-divida-de-47-mil-video?fbclid=IwAR0InfAL4KdZ6IKccD2cuNgd8JT28YD51soTiJ9R5F3caB2n94gIi6dYSr8

 

É recandidata à Junta de Freguesia de Arroios, mas a Segurança Social reclama-lhe €47 mil e penhorou-lhe salário e casa. Entretanto, a SÁBADO filmou-a e fotografou-a nas suas compras pessoais (sem pagar) ao sábado. Um carro da junta e um fiscal vão buscá-la e levá-la a casa. Fernando Medina reitera que mantém confiança pessoal e política

 

É recandidata à Junta de Freguesia de Arroios, mas a Segurança Social reclama-lhe €47 mil e penhorou-lhe salário e casa. Entretanto, a SÁBADO filmou-a e fotografou-a nas suas compras pessoais (sem pagar) ao sábado. Um carro da junta e um fiscal vão buscá-la e levá-la a casa. Fernando Medina reitera que mantém confiança pessoal e política.

UK staff shortages 'could last for two years', CBI warns

Poland carried out migrant push-back at Belarus border, Amnesty says

Analysis: US Congress to vote on stopgap funding bill to avert government shutdown • FRANCE 24

China's Housing Conundrum

 


China's Housing Conundrum

Sep 29, 2021

KENNETH ROGOFF

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/china-evergrande-real-estate-economic-rebalancing-by-kenneth-rogoff-2021-09?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic-social&utm_campaign=page-posts-september21&utm_post-type=link&utm_format=16%3A9&utm_creative=link-image&utm_post-date=2021-09-29&fbclid=IwAR3HNYfsKEX1PRJ5hiKjeXjGxw1_0CJAi5bwdWhu7xG3GQiUIh-2PVYcJv8

 

The Chinese government may yet succeed in insulating the broader market from the financial crisis at real estate giant Evergrande. But the larger challenge is to rebalance an economy that has depended for far too long on the bloated housing market for jobs and growth.

 

CAMBRIDGE – The impending bankruptcy of Chinese real estate giant Evergrande, with its $300 billion in debt, has roiled global investors. Analysts have focused mainly on whether the Chinese government will succeed in ring-fencing the problem, so that it does not spill over into a broader Western-style financial crisis.

 

Given the government’s deep pockets, including over $3 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves, and its ability to dictate restructuring terms without long court delays, few would bet against such an outcome. But concentrating only on near-term financial stability misses China’s larger challenge: rebalancing an economy that has depended for far too long on its massive real estate investment sector for jobs and growth.

 

The outsize share of real estate and related services in Chinese GDP – a staggering 25%, and only slightly less after adjusting for net exports – is even larger than the property sector’s share of the Spanish and Irish economies at its pre-2008 peak. Because of its knock-on effects on other sectors, a significant slowdown in China’s real-estate sector could easily cut 5-10% from cumulative GDP growth over the ensuing few years.

 

Moreover, real estate is by far the most important savings vehicle in an economy where capital controls constrain citizens’ ability to invest abroad. Any significant decline in real estate prices would lead not only to widespread disaffection, but also to a potentially significant pullback in consumption of other goods and services.

 

Can’t the Chinese real estate machine just keep running full speed ahead, given the need to house the country’s 1.4 billion people? Maybe. But China has been rapidly building houses and apartment buildings for decades, not just in its top-tier cities but also in less-desired third- and fourth-tier cities, where prices are much lower and vacancy rates are high.

 

As a result, China’s total housing supply, measured in square meters per person, has already reached the levels of much wealthier economies such as Germany and France. Although average housing quality in China is lower and there is potential to upgrade, the massive current level of real estate production has to be unsustainable. With the housing vacancy rate in urban China now at 21%, the authorities fully understand the need to shift productive resources into other sectors.

 

But engineering a slow, controlled deflation of China’s real estate bubble will not be easy. With the banking sector having lent heavily to residential projects (Evergrande alone has borrowed from almost 300 banks and financial firms), a sharp drop in housing prices could prove painful and cascade catastrophically into other sectors. In principle, banks are protected by substantial down payments, often amounting to 30% or more of the purchase price. But given China’s epic house-price boom in the twenty-first century, 30% may prove not nearly enough when a collapse comes. (After the 2008 financial crisis, US housing prices dropped by 36%, and by significantly more in some regions.)

 

Besides, making housing more affordable has been an important goal of President Xi Jinping’s government, so there are limits to how much one can expect policymakers to prop up prices.

 

Many believe that the Evergrande housing crisis is part of the government’s general squeeze on the Chinese elite, which has included taking down internet giants, making it more difficult for wealthy parents to get private tutoring for their children, and insisting that firms give back much more to their communities. According to this line of thinking, policymakers can always recalibrate if their efforts to rein in housing debt, and Evergrande in particular, prove too destabilizing. But as the government is well aware, this risks making the eventual reversal of the real estate and construction boom all the more painful.

 

Real estate slowdowns, even real estate-related financial crises, do not tend to happen on their own, but rather in the context of a slowing economy. The Chinese economy came roaring out of the pandemic, and for a while was the envy of the world, thanks in part to the government’s zero-COVID strategy. But the future looks much less rosy. In addition to headwinds from an aging population and slowing productivity growth, the Delta variant is proving far more difficult to contain.

 

On top of all that, the almost daily rash of new government decrees has made it exceedingly difficult for the private sector to plan ahead. The resulting policy uncertainty would put a damper on growth even without the other issues. In such an environment, a housing market slowdown can significantly amplify any economic downturn, as I showed in a 2020 paper with Yuanchen Yang of Tsinghua University.

 

After nearly four decades of extraordinary economic expansion, one should not underestimate the Chinese authorities’ ability to maintain growth despite all obstacles. Nevertheless, as impressive as China has been at building roads, bridges, and houses, its real estate construction boom is coming to an end, and there is no reason to expect a smooth landing.

 

Chinese financial regulators may yet succeed in insulating the broader market from Evergrande’s crisis, and convincing everyone that this is an anomalous case. But given China’s decades-long over-reliance on the real estate sector for growth, particularly during general downturns, the biggest challenges may be yet to come.

China energy crisis: Companies are trying to adapt rolling blackouts • F...

Sarah Everard's killer sentenced to life in prison

'I am so sorry' - Met Chief apologises to Sarah Everard's family

‘Won’t happen': Manchin on having bill deal language by Thursday

Senate passes bill to avoid shutdown, sending proposal to House

 


18:58

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2021/sep/30/joe-biden-infrastructure-social-policy-congress-us-politics-live-latest-news

 

Senate passes bill to avoid shutdown, sending proposal to House

 

The Senate has officially passed a stopgap government funding bill to avoid a shutdown at midnight.

 

The bill, which needed 60 votes to pass, was approved in a bipartisan vote of 65 to 35, with a handful of Republicans -- including minority leader Mitch McConnell -- joining Democrats to advance the legislation.

 

The bill now heads to the House, which is also expected to pass the legislation later today and send it to Joe Biden’s desk.

 

The president will then need to sign the bill before midnight to avoid a government shutdown. If he does so, at least one item will be off Democrats’ legislative to-do list, but several others remain.

White House gives a wink to progressives as they threaten Biden’s infrastructure bill

 


WHITE HOUSE

White House gives a wink to progressives as they threaten Biden’s infrastructure bill

 

In an effort to put pressure on Manchin and Sinema, any help is welcome.

 

By NATASHA KORECKI and CHRISTOPHER CADELAGO

09/30/2021 04:30 AM EDT

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/30/white-house-progressives-manchin-sinema-514775

 

Progressives in the House are revolting. Inside the White House, they’re welcoming it.

 

One by one, liberal lawmakers have announced that they will vote to defeat a bipartisan infrastructure bill if moderate Democrats and the White House do not offer a firm outline for an accompanying social and climate spending package as well. And just as tensions within the party were at a seeming boiling point this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) turned it up even further, urging House Democrats to vote against that bipartisan infrastructure bill when it is scheduled to hit the floor on Thursday.

 

Though some of those same progressives have loudly complained that President Joe Biden isn’t doing enough to reach out to them individually on his legislative agenda, the White House seems utterly unbothered by it.

 

Instead, they’re hoping that the prospect of a progressive revolt will only add to the pressure they’re attempting to exert on Sens. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the two moderate Senators most noncommittal about supporting a party-line reconciliation bill. Two sources familiar with the White House’s messaging to progressives said that officials have made it clear to them that they are not displeased with all the talk about voting down the infrastructure package.

 

“I think it's good to have drama around this because it does isolate those people who are obstructing it for no good reason other than some sort of austerity politics mentality that, when you're in a time of crisis, just isn't a logical position,” said Heather Gautney, a former senior adviser to Sanders.

 

“We made a deal and I think they just need to keep hammering that because the tradition is to paint the progressive as hard headed and wanting to spend too much money and that’s just absurd at this point — especially with Biden where he is on all of it,” Gautney added.

 

Ultimately, the White House wants to see the infrastructure bill passed when it is brought up. But the idea that it would be comfortable with an effort by a portion of its own party to delay and put into question one of the president’s most important initiatives would have been unheard of in previous administrations. These, however, are not normal times. And this is hardly a normal legislative calendar.

 

Biden and his top aides are desperately trying to reach an agreement on the reconciliation package with the two moderate Democrats. But both Manchin and Sinema have not just resisted overtures, the two have been evasive about what framework and price tag they would accept for the $3.5 trillion climate and social spending plan.

 

Without any material commitments from their moderate counterparts, progressives in the House have vowed to tank the bipartisan infrastructure package, believing that if it were to pass they would be removing whatever leverage they still had to ensure the reconciliation bill’s passage. They argue that both plans are part of Biden’s economic agenda — a point that the White House has increasingly echoed in public statements as well.

 

The White House is convinced progressives’ end goal is still aligned with theirs and see the pressure they’re exerting as ultimately helpful rather than damaging.

 

“We want to know what will be in a bill, especially if it’s going to be anything less than $3.5 [trillion],” said Rep. Chuy García, (D-Ill.). “The holdup isn’t with progressives, because we’ve maintained our position throughout. It’s the moderates that have slowed this down and delayed it.”

 

White House press secretary Jen Psaki seemed deferential to progressives in the briefing room Wednesday when asked about the progress of negotiations.

 

“[M]embers of the Progressive Caucus want to have an understanding of the path forward on the reconciliation package,” Psaki said. “They have stated that publicly. You know why? Because they think it's a historic progressive package that will make bold changes into addressing our climate crisis, into lowering costs for the American people, bringing more women back into the workplace.”

 

Progressives, meanwhile, have taken pains to stress in their public comments that the package they want advanced is Biden’s agenda, and they are merely ensuring it all passes Congress. And while some on the left have complained about the lack of communication between the White House and progressives, an aide to Sanders said the senator has been in regular touch with both senior members of the White House and top officials in the Biden administration.

 

“It’s constant communication with everybody,” the aide said.

 

Sanders did not give the White House a head’s up before his Tuesday tweet insisting that no “infrastructure bill should pass without a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.” But the president’s team was aware of his position, an aide said.

 

One point several progressives raised in interviews is that moderate intransigence on the social spending package will only hurt moderates in addition to the party at large. Indeed, should Biden’s entire agenda crumble over the two-bill stalemate, progressives are exceedingly less likely to suffer politically given that most represent safe seats, while many moderates hold swing districts.

 

“It will be moderates who suffer. We will lose moderates if we’re running on a record that is not attractive enough to voters,” Matt Bennett, of the centrist Third Way, said matter-of-factly. “And we’ve been very clear, along with the vast majority of Democratic moderates including the president, that reconciliation is absolutely vital. It's important that we confront all of these crises, including climate change, with something real. And I think we’d agree that the infrastructure bill is necessary but not nearly sufficient.”

 

As progressives continue to make the case for dual tracking the two bills, there is fear among some close Biden allies and moderate Democrats that they may be tarnishing the infrastructure component in politically damaging ways. It’s a proposal that the party still plans to run on during the mid-terms, and the fear is it will have less impact if Democratic lawmakers themselves are downplaying it.

 

“Those are powerful images — the commemorative hard hats and the golden shovels. Those visuals are solid gold. They are great for TV. It may be the only thing that saves our bacon in 2022,” said Colin Strother, a Democratic strategist in Texas who works with moderates and regularly tangles with progressive activists. “A full bowl of rice does wonders for your polling, as a lot of countries will tell you. Biden needs this win. He really, really needs this win.”

 

Strother said the lack of a breakthrough in Washington is also presenting a problem for Democrats, by driving up anxiety elsewhere in the country and raising doubts about whether Biden can effectively use his power to pull together lawmakers from across the party. It’s not just Manchin and Sinema that need to be put on notice, he said, it was House progressives as well.

 

“I am not convinced the White House is being particularly effective. How many fucking times can we go to the White House and have tea?” Strother added. “Right now, everyone has their arms folded across their chest and their bottom lip sticking out. We need to be in some of these progressive districts talking about the infrastructure bill and what it will do and how many jobs it will create. We need to get them on our program.”

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez On The Standoff Between Progressive Democrats And Man...

Britney Spears Freed As Judge Rips 'Toxic' Father’s Control

Stephanie Grisham’s book was kept a secret from her closest allies in the White House.



Stephanie Grisham’s book was kept a secret from her closest allies in the White House.

 

Stephanie Grisham’s book was kept a secret from her closest allies in the White House.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

 

Katie Rogers

By Katie Rogers

Published Sept. 28, 2021

Updated Sept. 29, 2021

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/us/politics/stephanie-grishams-book-trump.html

 

WASHINGTON — Stephanie Grisham, the former Trump White House press secretary perhaps best known for never holding a televised briefing with reporters, plans to release a tell-all book next week that accuses President Donald J. Trump of abusing his staff, placating dictators like Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and making sexual comments about a young White House aide.

 

In her book, titled “I’ll Take Your Questions Now,” Ms. Grisham recalls her time working for a president she said constantly berated her and made outlandish requests, including a demand that she appear before the press corps and re-enact a certain call with the Ukrainian president that led to Mr. Trump’s (first) impeachment, an assignment she managed to avoid.

 

“I knew that sooner or later the president would want me to tell the public something that was not true or that would make me sound like a lunatic,” Ms. Grisham writes, offering a reason for why she never held a briefing.

 

After serving as press secretary, Ms. Grisham worked in Melania Trump’s office. She resigned on Jan. 6 as a horde of Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol. Her book was kept a secret from her closest allies in the White House, though by the time she departed Washington that number had dwindled. (She writes that, months before the election, she had moved to Kansas.) Her publisher, HarperCollins, calls the book “The most frank and intimate portrait of the Trump White House yet.”

 

The former president and his advisers have already moved to discredit Ms. Grisham’s account, and have used increasingly personal terms to disparage her.

 

“Stephanie didn’t have what it takes and that was obvious from the beginning,” Mr. Trump said in a statement on Tuesday. He said she had become “very angry and bitter” after a breakup. “She had big problems and we felt that she should work out those problems for herself. Now, like everyone else, she gets paid by a radical left-leaning publisher to say bad and untrue things.”

 

In her book, Ms. Grisham offered a pre-emptive response to the criticism: “This is not, by the way, a book where you need to like me.”

 

Here are some highlights from the manuscript obtained by The New York Times:

 

A (fleetingly) tough stance toward Putin is just for show

Ms. Grisham lands on a well-documented theme when she explores Mr. Trump’s love of dictators. But she says Mr. Trump went out of his way to please one in particular: Mr. Putin, whose cold reception of Mr. Trump, she writes, seemed to make the president want to impress him even more.

 

“With all the talk of sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 election and for various human rights abuses, Trump told Putin, ‘Okay, I’m going to act a little tougher with you for a few minutes. But it’s for the cameras, and after they leave we’ll talk. You understand,’” Ms. Grisham writes, recalling a meeting between the two leaders during the Group of 20 summit in Osaka in 2019.

 

During that meeting, Ms. Grisham listened to Fiona Hill, Mr. Trump’s top adviser on Russia who later became an impeachment witness, who observed what she said were Mr. Putin’s subtle efforts to throw Mr. Trump off guard.

 

“As the meeting began, Fiona Hill leaned over and asked me if I had noticed Putin’s translator, who was a very attractive brunette woman with long hair, a pretty face, and a wonderful figure,” Ms. Grisham writes. “She proceeded to tell me that she suspected the woman had been selected by Putin specifically to distract our president.”

 

Sexist language toward women

While he was in the White House, Mr. Trump’s targets included a young press aide whom Ms. Grisham says the president repeatedly invited up to his Air Force One cabin, including once to “look at her,” using an expletive to describe her rear end. Mr. Trump, she writes, instructed her to promote the woman and “keep her happy.” Instead, Ms. Grisham tried to keep her away from the president.

 

During an Oval Office rant about E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Mr. Trump of raping her in the 1990s, Mr. Trump first insults Ms. Carroll’s looks. Then he gazes into Ms. Grisham’s eyes and says something that unnerves her.

 

“‘You just deny it,’” he told Ms. Grisham. ‘That’s what you do in every situation. Right, Stephanie? You just deny it,’ he repeated, emphasizing the words.”

 

Melania Trump’s quiet rebellion

Ms. Grisham also confirms what she and Melania Trump had long denied: That the first lady was angry after several reports of her husband’s infidelities — and hush money payments — surfaced in the news media.

 

To the contrary: “After the Stormy Daniels story broke and all the allegations that followed from other women,” Ms. Grisham writes, “I felt that Mrs. Trump was basically unleashed.”

 

The first lady, she says, found ways to omit her husband from photos and tweets, and made it a point to show up on the arm of a handsome military aide. Mrs. Trump, who is closed off to even her closest aides, begins to open up to Ms. Grisham, telling her that she doesn’t believe her husband’s denials or those from his former fixer, Michael Cohen — “Oh, please, are you kidding me?” she asks at one point. “I don’t believe any of that,” the first lady adds, using an expletive. (This book, it should be said, contains a lot of expletives.)

 

Ms. Grisham also attempts to illuminate why Mrs. Trump wore a jacket inscribed with the phrase “I Really Don’t Care, Do U?” to visit a Texas camp for child migrants, but focuses more on the president’s reaction: “What the hell were you thinking?” he asked Ms. Grisham and his wife in the Oval Office, before instructing an aide to tweet out a cover story: “You just tell them you were talking to the” news media, he told the group.

 

The first lady grew more disengaged over time, Ms. Grisham writes, to the point where she was asleep on election night. She was overseeing a photo shoot of a rug on Jan. 6 and declined to comment publicly on what was happening at the Capitol. (For Ms. Grisham, this was the last straw. She resigned later that day.)

 

In the end, the first lady sided with her husband, doubting the election results — “Something bad happened,” she told Ms. Grisham — and declined to invite Jill Biden, the incoming first lady, to the White House for tea.

 

“She would always say, ‘Let me think about it’ or ‘Let’s see what the West Wing will do,’” Ms. Grisham writes, “Which meant no. And when exactly did she decide to start following the West Wing’s lead?”

 

Demands to evict the press from the White House

Ms. Grisham says that a trip to North Korea inspired Mr. Trump to ask her to research ways the press could be permanently evicted from the James S. Brady Briefing Room.

 

“I researched different places we could put them other than the press briefing room. Each time the president asked me about my progress on the matter, I let him know I was still working on options,” Ms. Grisham writes.

 

As she tries to please Mr. Trump, whose press coverage was relentlessly negative, she describes his anger toward her and others as “terrifying”: “When I began to see how his temper wasn’t just for shock value or the cameras,” she writes, “I began to regret my decision to go to the West Wing.”

 

She says one frequent target of Mr. Trump’s ire was Pat Cipollone, who served as White House counsel: “He didn’t like them telling him that things he wanted to do were unethical or illegal. So he’d scream at them. But then he’d usually listen. And then yell at them again later.”

 

(There were other indignities: Ms. Grisham writes that Mr. Trump called her while aboard Air Force One to defend the size of his penis after Ms. Daniels insulted it in an interview. “Uh, yes sir,” Ms. Grisham replied.)

 

At one point, she writes, Mr. Trump’s handlers designated an unnamed White House official known as the “Music Man” to play him his favorite show tunes, including “Memory” from “Cats,” to pull him from the brink of rage. (The aide, it is revealed later, is Ms. Grisham’s ex-boyfriend. She does not identify him, but it is Max Miller, a former White House official now running for Congress with Mr. Trump’s support.)

 

She was a close-up observer of Mr. Trump’s obsession with control, and details a scene in which the president undergoes a colonoscopy without anesthesia — though she doesn’t name the procedure — because, she reasons, even temporarily assigning power to the vice president would have been “showing weakness.”

 

In the end, Ms. Grisham stood by as three chiefs of staff, two press secretaries, and countless other aides resigned. She notes that Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, seemed to grow more powerful.

 

Ms. Trump, she said, made it a point to insert herself into meetings where she did not belong, including when she demanded that her father address the nation from the Oval Office during the early days of the pandemic. But Ms. Grisham reserves special ire for Mr. Kushner, whom she calls “Rasputin in a slim-fitting suit.” (At one point, Mr. Trump warns her not to get on Mr. Kushner’s bad side.)

 

“The truth was that pretty much everyone eventually wore out their welcome with the president,” Ms. Grisham writes. “We were bottles of milk with expiration dates.”

 

The former press secretary adds, “I should have spoken up more.”

 

Katie Rogers is a White House correspondent, covering life in the Biden administration, Washington culture and domestic policy. She joined The Times in 2014. @katierogers


Trump's former press secretary tells all in new book l GMA

‘Pudgy guys with crazy hair’: Trump found soulmate in Johnson, book says

 


‘Pudgy guys with crazy hair’: Trump found soulmate in Johnson, book says

 

Memoir reveals US president once discussed strength of kangaroos in meeting with UK PM – one of the few European leaders he liked

 

Martin Pengelly in New York

@MartinPengelly

Thu 30 Sep 2021 06.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/30/donald-trump-boris-johnson-stephanie-grisham-book

 

Boris Johnson once devoted a considerable part of a meeting with Donald Trump to discussing how strong kangaroos are, as the British prime minister struck up a robust relationship with a fellow “pudgy white guy with crazy hair”.

 

In contrast, the then US president considered his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, “a wuss”.

 

Such bizarre scenes and claims are contained in a new book by Stephanie Grisham, Trump’s third White House press secretary and chief of staff to Melania Trump when she was first lady.

 

I’ll Take Your Questions Now will be published next week. Rifled for gossip and scandal, it has been condemned by Trump. But the memoir contains striking descriptions of Trump’s often unusual interactions with other world leaders and his opinions of them. Even though Trump regularly stunned foreign – and domestic – audiences with his behaviour abroad, scenes revealed by Grisham are still likely to raise eyebrows.

 

On Tuesday, the Washington Post first reported Grisham’s description of how, at the G20 summit in Osaka in 2019, Trump told Vladimir Putin he would “act a little tougher with you for a few minutes, but it’s for the cameras”.

 

Rather more strangely, Grisham reports that during a meeting with the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Trump “asked, out of the blue, ‘Have any of you guys ever seen Midnight Express?’”

 

Made in 1978, the film portrays a young American imprisoned in Turkey and subjected to beatings and sexual assault. Its screenwriter, Oliver Stone, has apologised for its depiction of Turks and Turkey.

 

“That’s a dark movie for you guys,” Trump reportedly said.

 

“There was little reaction from the delegation,” Grisham writes, “maybe a few polite chuckles, before the conversation moved on, as if the president of the United States hadn’t just blurted that out.”

 

Grisham also writes that Trump told Imran Khan, the prime minister of Pakistan, that “India reminded him of California with all of the homelessness”.

 

Trump, Grisham says, was not “a big fan of European leaders in general. Of French prime minister [sic] Emmanuel Macron, a trim, soft-spoken man, Trump scoffed, ‘He’s a wuss guy. He’s all of a hundred twenty pounds of fury.’”

 

Trump, who Grisham calls “President Germophobe”, is reported to have praised the Swiss president for the cleanliness of his country. But, Grisham says, he found a true soulmate in Johnson.

 

The British prime minister was “one of the few European leaders Trump seemed to tolerate”, Grisham writes. “Conversations between those two, both pudgy white guys with crazy hair, redefined the word random.

 

“Johnson once told us over breakfast that Australia was ‘the most deadly country – spiders, snakes, crocodiles and kangaroos’. Then they discussed how powerful kangaroos were at considerable length.”

 

Johnson and Trump staged a “working breakfast”, one of the prime minister’s first moves on the world stage, on 25 August 2019, at the G7 in Biarritz.

 

Grisham adds that Johnson and Trump also discussed “some political figure who’d just had surgery, which they thought had involved the removal of a gallbladder.

 

“‘Can you put a new gallbladder in?’ Johnson asked, chomping away on scrambled eggs and sausage. ‘I don’t know what a gallbladder does.’

 

“‘It has something to do with alcohol,’ Trump replied.”

 

As defined by Johnson’s own National Health Service, a gallbladder is “a small, pouch-like organ in the upper right part of your tummy [which] stores bile, a fluid produced by the liver that helps break down fatty foods”.

 

The NHS also says: “You don’t need a gallbladder, so surgery to take it out is often recommended if you develop any problems with it.”

 

 This article was amended on 30 September 2021 because an earlier version referred to Oliver Stone as the director of Midnight Express. In fact Stone wrote the screenplay for the film.


 

The End Of The Furlough Scheme Sparks Concerns For Sectors That Haven't ...


 

COVID-19: Furlough support scheme ends / 100,000 renters in England ‘risk eviction’ when universal credit is cut


100,000 renters in England ‘risk eviction’ when universal credit is cut

 

Housing charity Crisis says £20-a-week reduction could be final blow for struggling households

 

Robert Booth Social affairs correspondent

Thu 30 Sep 2021 06.00 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/30/100000-renters-in-england-risk-eviction-when-universal-credit-is-cut

 

At least 100,000 renting households will be placed at risk of eviction when the government’s planned £20-a-week cut to universal credit comes into effect next week, the housing charity Crisis has warned.

 

The proportion of private renters relying on benefits in England has surged to around one in three since the start of the pandemic, leaving thousands at risk of homelessness due to arrears if the uplift to UC is removed by ministers as planned.

 

The footballer Marcus Rashford is among those calling for its retention, citing fears about child hunger.

 

The squeeze on renters is being compounded by the final lifting of the emergency restrictions on evictions during the pandemic in England and the end of the furlough scheme on Friday.

 

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have extended more liberal measures on evictions until next year.

 

“For many struggling renters this cut could be the final blow that forces them from their homes,” said Jon Sparkes, the chief executive of Crisis. “The UK government must change course and keep the £20 uplift so that people don’t needlessly lose their homes this winter and we have a fighting chance at recovery. The UK government assured people they would not lose their home because of the crisis; we must not fail them now.”

 

The charity predicts evicted households who seek help from local councils with emergency housing will end up costing the public purse more.

 

With a third of renters relying on benefits following the pandemic, the impact could be widespread.

 

The number of private renters relying on UC or housing benefit for rent surged to almost 2 million in May 2021 with 560,000 renters joining benefits queues since February 2020, according to analysis by the housing charity Shelter of Department of Work and Pensions figures.

 

The biggest increases were seen in the most expensive areas of London and the south-east, but other hotspots where the majority of renters rely on benefits include Blackpool, Middlesbrough, Great Yarmouth and Torbay.

 

Dan Wilson Craw, the director of the Generation Rent campaign group, said the UC cut would have a twin effect on renters, pushing some into arrears that would lead to eviction and make it harder for them to pass affordability checks to get a new home. He said about half of private renters who rely on local housing allowance benefits already do not get enough to cover their rent and have to top it up.

 

“Without the uplift, and with the end of furlough … we will see another surge in eviction notices served in the run-up to Christmas,” he said. “There’s still time for the government to step in with a Covid rent debt fund to clear renters’ arrears and keep people in their homes.”

 

From 1 October, the notice periods for anyone served a section 21 “no fault” eviction notice in England will have two rather than four months’ notice to find a new home. For tenants in arrears, the notice period for anyone owing less than four months’ rent was cut from four to two months and for anyone with longer arrears to four weeks.

 

A government spokesperson said the UC uplift was always temporary and “designed to help people through the toughest stages of the pandemic.”

 

“Universal credit will continue to provide vital support for those both in and out of work and we will deliver a fairer and more effective rental market that works for both tenants and landlords,” they said, adding the government is spending £750m to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over 2021-22 and will publish a white paper on renting including the abolition of “no fault” evictions in due course.


Keir Starmer vows to ‘re-tool’ Labour as party of law and order

 


Keir Starmer vows to ‘re-tool’ Labour as party of law and order

 

Party grandee Peter Mandelson tells POLITICO hecklers offered a ‘great contrast’ with Labour leader’s speech.

 

BY ESTHER WEBBER AND EMILIO CASALICCHIO

September 29, 2021 3:46 pm

https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-vows-to-re-tool-labour-as-party-of-law-and-order/

 

BRIGHTON, England — Keir Starmer vowed to remake Labour as the party of law and order — and aimed some low blows at Boris Johnson — as he tried to turn the page on the opposition’s failures and win back disillusioned voters.

 

In his first in-person party conference speech since taking over as leader, Starmer — a former director of public prosecutions — promised tougher sentences for those who commit violence against women. He told delegates: “The fight against crime will always be a Labour issue.”

 

A “national mission” to insulate Britain’s homes, compulsory work experience for school children and mental health treatment targets were among the policy promises on offer as he wrapped up the Brighton gathering.

 

Starmer told a packed conference hall his job was “not just to thank those voters who stayed with us” but to reach out to those who had lost faith in Labour, by making Britain a “brighter, more prosperous” place.

 

His speech followed a fraught few days in which Starmer’s deputy threatened to eclipse him and a member of his frontbench team quit in a confrontation over the minimum wage.

 

But Starmer leaves conference having achieved a host of rule changes that will make it harder for the party’s left to take power or challenge MPs. “It will not take another election defeat for the Labour party to become an alternative government in which you can trust,” he said. “That’s why it has been so important to get our own house in order this week and we have done that.”

 

Starmer was interrupted by hecklers at several points. He faced complaints about his approach to Brexit, criticism of his party’s minimum wage policy — and one cry of “where’s Peter Mandelson?” That was a reference to a key lieutenant of Tony Blair, Labour’s election-winning prime minister who remains deeply unpopular with some parts of the left but whose achievements Starmer openly acknowledged.

 

Mandelson told POLITICO: “With every paragraph of his speech Keir sounded more and more normal and in touch with ordinary people’s lives. With every heckle from the fringe his critics sounded more marginal and lost. It was a great contrast. I am glad they were able to use me to help advertise their crankiness.”

 

Starmer had his own comebacks ready to go. One of his ripostes — “slogans or changing lives, conference?” — drew a standing ovation.

 

The Labour leader also found time to attack the government over Britain’s ongoing fuel crisis, its handling of the pandemic, and a perceived lack of progress on its flagship “leveling up” agenda to address regional inequality. “If you go outside and walk along the seafront, it won’t be long before you come to a petrol station which has no fuel,” Starmer said. “Level up? You can’t even fill up.”

 

Starmer — who leads a party that sank to its worst electoral result since the 1930s under predecessor Jeremy Corbyn — sought to bolster Labour’s economic credentials. He promised to “take the responsibility of spending your money very seriously” and boasted “Labour is back in business.”

 

In an effort to respond to claims he lacks emotion, Starmer talked at length about his family and the values he learned from his mother, a nurse, and father, a toolmaker. That set him up for a jibe at the prime minister’s expense. “My dad was a toolmaker — although in a way, so was Boris Johnson’s,” he quipped.

 

Manual labor was a theme throughout the speech, as he spoke about “retooling” for the next election and a greener economy. He wound up by telling the party faithful: “Work. Care. Equality. Security. These are the tools of my trade, and with them I will go to work.”

 

The speech received immediate and effusive praise from Labour MPs, but was not without criticism from the left of the party.

 

Jon Trickett, a member of the Socialist Campaign Group and a longstanding Corbyn ally, said: “I expected to hear Sir Keir explain why he supported Jeremy Corbyn in shadow cabinet, at the meetings where the policies were made and through the general election. It’s surely now apparent to everyone that it was all a matter of convenience for his career development.”

 

The Conservatives, who gather for their own conference in Manchester next week, also took a swipe.

 

Conservative Party chairman Oliver Dowden — who pointedly referred to the knighted opposition leader as “Sir Keir Starmer” — said the party was “more divided than ever and has no plan.”

 

“Labour spent five days talking to themselves about themselves instead of to the country,” he said.

 

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to correct the location of the Tory Party conference.

Sir Keir Starmer Interview: Labour is a "broad church" with something to...

Sky News Breakfast: Uncertainty for many, as furlough ends

Rendeiro e a Justiça em parte incerta / João Rendeiro em fuga – que país é este?

 


 


EDITORIAL

Rendeiro e a Justiça em parte incerta

 

Há processos demasiado importantes a serem dirimidos nos tribunais para que continuemos a ser confrontados com fugas espectaculares e a terrível sensação de impunidade.

 

Tiago Luz Pedro

29 de Setembro de 2021, 17:34

https://www.publico.pt/2021/09/29/opiniao/editorial/rendeiro-justica-parte-incerta-1979293

 

O país assistiu atónito a mais um caso que é um tiro em cheio na credibilidade das nossas instituições: João Rendeiro, o antigo banqueiro no centro da falência do Banco Privado Português (BPP), fugiu para parte incerta e estará num país sem acordo de extradição com Portugal. Ironia das ironias, anunciou que o fez no exacto dia em que foi condenado em mais um processo relacionado com o BPP, desta vez a três anos e meio de prisão efectiva por burla qualificada.

 

Vale a pena esboçar uma brevíssima cronologia do caso Rendeiro para melhor se perceber o que está em causa: o BPP faliu em 2008, acumulando prejuízos de 700 milhões só nesse ano e deixando um rasto de 3000 clientes lesados. Rendeiro levou anos a ser acusado e só em 2014 começou a responder em tribunal pela queda do banco. Foi condenado em três processos, a dez, cinco e três anos de prisão, e só num deles a sentença transitou em julgado – aconteceu agora mesmo, no passado dia 17 de Setembro, 13 anos depois do colapso do BPP. Foi a sua prisão iminente que o levou a viajar para Londres, de onde partiu agora em trânsito para parte incerta.

 

A fuga de Rendeiro encerra três pecados capitais: demonstra uma vez mais a ineficácia de um sistema de justiça demasiado moroso e em permanente plano inclinado para as garantias da defesa – de recurso em recurso, de incidente em incidente, o caso Rendeiro é todo um manual de instruções sobre como ludibriar a Justiça e arrastar as decisões para lá do limite do razoável; acentua a percepção de que há uma Justiça para ricos e outra para pobres e que o Estado de direito não serve a todos por igual; e é, pelo que representa de descrédito numa instituição primordial à vitalidade das democracias, o pasto perfeito de que se alimentam os populismos e todo o tipo de justiceirismo popular.

 

Nas três últimas décadas, Portugal acumulou uma galeria apreciável de arguidos notáveis que deram o salto para fugir à Justiça – praticamente todos, é certo, acabariam mais cedo ou mais tarde por regressar ao país. Há processos demasiado importantes a serem dirimidos nos tribunais para que continuemos a ser confrontados com fugas espectaculares e a terrível sensação de impunidade.

 

tp.ocilbup@zulogait

 



OPINIÃO

João Rendeiro em fuga – que país é este?

 

Há gente que é apanhada em flagrante delito – e há gente que é deixada em flagrante fuga.

 

João Miguel Tavares

30 de Setembro de 2021, 0:14

https://www.publico.pt/2021/09/30/opiniao/opiniao/joao-rendeiro-fuga-pais-1979320

 

Os políticos adoram encher a boca com a palavra desigualdade. Em 20 dos últimos 26 anos fomos governados por um partido de esquerda que ama a igualdade. Em todas as eleições há lamentos sobre os números da abstenção e a distância entre eleitos e eleitores. Cada vez que alguém anuncia que “o sistema vai tremer”, há uma longa fila de políticos e comentadores a alertarem para os perigos do populismo. Parece-me tudo óptimo. Mas, por favor, alertem com o mesmo fervor para os perigos de manter o sistema como ele está quando acontecem inconcebíveis escândalos como esta mais do que previsível fuga para o estrangeiro de João Rendeiro – uma imponente estátua à miséria das nossas leis, ao interminável arrastamento dos processos em tribunal e aos estratagemas jurídicos que abrem crateras de distância entre ricos e pobres.

 

João Rendeiro está condenado em três processos diferentes, um dos quais já transitado em julgado, a três, cinco e dez anos de prisão. O jornalista Luís Rosa tem acompanhado os casos de perto no Observador, e explicado em artigos muito detalhados os imbróglios jurídicos e as estratégias da defesa que acabaram por conduzir a este desfecho. No dia 11 de Setembro, publicou um texto intitulado “Por que razão João Rendeiro e o seu ex-braço direito ainda não foram presos?”. Esta quarta-feira, dia 29 de Setembro, publicou outro chamado “Como foi possível João Rendeiro fugir? 8 respostas sobre o caso”.

 

Entre um artigo e outro, João Rendeiro resolveu viajar para Londres. Apesar de três vezes condenado, apenas se mantém sujeito ao chamado TIR (Termo de Identidade e Residência), a medida mínima de coacção. Por isso, ele fez duas coisas: 1) comunicou às autoridades portuguesas, já em Inglaterra, que iria ficar por lá entre 13 e 30 de Setembro; 2) indicou os contactos da Embaixada de Portugal em Londres para o caso de ser preciso falar com ele.

 

Simultaneamente, Rendeiro pisgou-se com estilo e a gozar com os tribunais – “se quiserem saber onde estou, perguntem à vossa embaixada”. Agora, pasmem: não é inédito. No Verão, ele já tinha viajado para a Costa Rica (terá ido comprar casa?), tendo na altura indicado, junto dos autos, os contactos do consulado de Portugal. Pelos vistos, nenhuma autoridade se chateou muito com isso.

 

Entretanto, e como é óbvio, João Rendeiro já não está em Londres. Voou para parte incerta, sendo mais do que certo que será um país sem acordo de extradição para Portugal (dica às autoridades: telefonar para o consulado da Costa Rica). No seu blogue, Rendeiro informou o povo português que já não volta, pois sente-se “injustiçado pela justiça” e a sua “ausência” (sublinhe-se o eufemismo) é um “acto de legítima defesa”. Não sei quantas pessoas estão presas de uma forma que consideram injusta, mas imagino que sejam muitas – a diferença é que umas têm de serrar as grades para fugir e outras telefonam para a TAP.

 

Como explica Luís Rosa nos seus artigos, há belíssimas justificações jurídicas para o que aconteceu. Em Portugal, os mandados de condução à prisão só são emitidos após terminarem todas as hipóteses de recurso, e essas hipóteses são quase intermináveis para quem as pode pagar. Nos entretantos, dá para viajar pelo mundo, ainda que triplamente condenado, e escolher com calma a ilha onde viver no futuro. Há gente que é apanhada em flagrante delito – e há gente que é deixada em flagrante fuga. Em Portugal, os pobres vão para a prisão, mesmo que não queiram. Os ricos só vão se lhes apetecer.

Sarah Everard murder: 'Our lives will never be the same again' @BBC News...

Sarah Everard's mother 'haunted' by 'horror' of daughter's death | ITV News

Exclusive: How they caught Sarah Everard's killer

Press Preview: We take a look inside Thursday's newspapers

France slams UK’s ‘unacceptable’ decision to deny French boats fishing licenses • FRANCE 24

Brexit is ‘going badly,’ say Brits in new poll

 


Brexit is ‘going badly,’ say Brits in new poll

 

Pollster asks Brits how the EU exit is working out.

 

BY PAUL DALLISON

September 29, 2021 10:39 pm

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-is-going-badly-say-brits-in-new-poll/

 

More than half of Brits think that Brexit is "going badly," according to new polling — and the number of people with that opinion is growing.

 

The pollster YouGov asked people how they thought the country's exit from the European Union was working out, and a whopping 53 percent said it was going badly, a rise of 15 percentage points from June, when they asked people the same question. The "badly" camp can be split into two: those who thought Brexit was going "fairly badly" (21 percent) and those who said it was going "very badly" (32 percent).

 

The number of people with a positive take on Brexit was down seven percentage points from June, to 18 percent — of those, 14 percent said it was going "fairly well" and just 4 percent "very well."

 

 In addition, 21 percent said it was going "neither well nor badly" and 8 percent said they didn't know.

 

YouGov asked 6,546 British adults for their opinion on Wednesday, with the results published the same day.

Treasury minister branded 'ridiculous' after claiming HGV driver shortage nothing to do with Brexit

 


Treasury minister branded 'ridiculous' after claiming HGV driver shortage nothing to do with Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/sep/30/rishi-sunak-universal-credit-cut-furlough-keir-starmer-live

 

Simon Clarke, the new chief secretary to the Treasury, was giving interviews on behalf of the government this morning and he insisted that Brexit had nothing to do with the shortage of HGV drivers in the UK that has contributed to petrol stations running out of exchange. He was speaking to Justin Webb on the Today programme, and here is the key exchange.

 

SC: The difficulties we are facing are not unique to this country. The idea that this is somehow just a British problem is fundamentally wrong. There’s a shortage of 400,000 HGV drivers across Europe.

 

We share that problem. It’s driven in part by workforce demographics, it’s worsened by Covid restrictions.

 

JW: And worsened by Brexit. That’s just a fact.

 

SC: Well, no. It’s not a fact.

 

JW: Really? It’s not a factor at all?

 

SC: The fact that we want to control immigration, the fact that we need to ...

 

JW: I understand why we did it, and we may still be keen on doing it. But, in the short term, it has [led to labour shortages]. Why can’t we just be plain about it? We would be in a better position vis-a-vis HGV drivers if we had not at least left the single market.

 

SC: No, I really don’t accept that. We have a problem that we need to fix, but one that is shared by other European countries too. The idea that this is about Brexit is to try and take us back into what is really, I’m afraid, quite a negative conversation around opportunities forgone when, if you look at the situation in Germany, if you look at the situation in Poland, if you look at the situation in France, they share these problems too.

 

In fact only this week Olaf Scholz, who is favourite to become the next German chancellor, said the situation inn the UK was worse than in EU countries and that Brexit to blame.

 

The causes of the driver shortage in the UK are complicated, and no one factor is solely responsible. But outside circles where belief in the wisdom of Brexit is an article of faith (and that includes the cabinet), there is a virtual consensus that Brexit is a factor. My colleague Lisa O’Carroll published an analysis explaining that here, and this briefing (pdf) from the Road Haulage Association says clearly that Brexit is a factor.

 

Clarke’s argument has been described as “ridiculous” by Gavin Barwell, a Conservative peer who served as Theresa May’s chief of staff when she was prime minister. He posted this response on Twitter.