Sunday, April 23, 2017

Independent - What would happen if Trump went to war with North Korea?

What would happen if Trump went to war with North Korea?
As the totalitarian state says it is ready to sink a US aircraft carrier, experts assess whether this is a battle the US can afford to wage
“Now that we possess mighty nuclear power to protect ourselves from US nuclear threat, we will respond without the slightest hesitation to full-out war with full-out war and to nuclear war with our style of nuclear strike, and we will emerge victor in the final battle with the US.”
That is just one of the latest statements from North Korea’s interior ministry as tensions continue to rise over its continued missile tests and nuclear weapons programme. while today the ruling Workers' party newspaper said the country's forces were "combat-read to sink a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier with a single strike". The editorial further likened USS Carl Vinson to a "gross animal".
From sending new inter-continental ballistic missiles rolling through Pyongyang in a huge parade to threatening an “annihilating strike” on its American enemies, there’s little sign of Kim Jong-un’s government responding to international pressure.
Donald Trump has attempted to strike a tough tone, threatening to “properly deal” with North Korea if China is unable to rein in its ally and sending what he described as an “armada” of warships to the region.
His orders to destroy a cave system used by Isis militants in Afghanistan using the “mother of all bombs” – which had never before been deployed – and attack a government airbase in Syria were seen as warning signals to Pyongyang.
But the attacks have raised questions over whether the President would be prepared to take the same step in North Korea and risk all-out nuclear war.
David S Maxwell, a retired US Army special forces colonel who served in Korea and Japan, said an even more powerful bomb known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (Mop) had been developed for American forces with North Korea’s underground facilities in mind.
“There are many targets in the world buried deeply underground and the Mop was developed for that,” he told The Independent.
“But I think you have to ask the question: Can a military action against North Korea not result in a catastrophic response by the North?”
Mr Maxwell, who is now the associate director at the Centre for Security Studies at Georgetown University, warned that if Pyongyang felt the existence of its regime was threatened it could launch a nuclear attack.
“They would not win a war with South Korea and the US, but they might believe that’s their only option,” he added.
“Even if it’s a pre-emptive strike to take out missile and nuclear capabilities, North Korea may feel it has to respond… this is the dilemma that strategists and policy makers.”
The decorated former Special Operations Command Korea policy director warned that even an isolated air strike could trigger a “catastrophic response”, necessitating the evacuation of large parts of South Korea and deployment of American forces in preparation of a ground war.
Dr John Nilsson-Wright, a senior research fellow in the Asia programme at Chatham House, believes the probability of military intervention by the US is “very low”.
“The risk of provoking a conventional conflict or worse with huge casualties in South Korea militates against such a course of action,” he told The Independent.
“Washington cannot risk alienating Seoul and Tokyo, and Trump himself appears more interested in using the bully pulpit of calculated ambiguity and rhetorical provocation than any serious commitment to full blown military action.”
Mr Trump dialled down his rhetoric on Friday, calling China the “economic lifeline to North Korea” after discussing the issue with Xi Jinping.
“While nothing is easy, if they want to solve the North Korean problem, they will,” the President added.
His tweet came after defence sources repeatedly briefed journalists that the US was not considering a military strike, with Mike Pence insisting a peaceful resolution was still possible.
“We truly believe that, as our allies in the region and China bring that pressure to bear, there is a chance that we can achieve a historic objective of a nuclear-free Korea peninsula by peaceful means,” the Vice President said on Saturday.
“We are encouraged by the steps that China has taken so far.”
Mr Pence insisted a strike group headed by the USS Carl Vinson, which had been completing a training exercise with the Australian navy when Mr Trump made his announcement, would arrive in waters off the Korean peninsula “within days”.
Like the strikes in Syria and Afghanistan, the move could merely “harden North Korean resolve” to increase its military capabilities, Mr Maxwell warned.
He said the “real wildcard” was Kim himself, who has brutally purged challengers from his inner circle in his six years of power, adding: “There is not an intelligence service in the world that can tell us what he will do.”
South Korea is on heightened alert for potential new weapons tests as the 85th anniversary of the Korean People’s Army approaches on Tuesday, with a large concentration of military hardware massed on both sides of the border.
Joseph Yun, the US’ special representative for North Korea policy, will be in Tokyo on the day for meetings with Japanese and South Korean representatives.
North Korea has previously launched missiles or conducted nuclear experiments to mark key dates, while next week also coincides with the conclusion of its winter military drills and huge joint exercises conducted by the US and South Korea.
Satellite imagery analysed by 38 North, a Washington-based monitoring group, found activity underway at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site, but it was unclear whether the site was in a “tactical pause” before another test or was carrying out normal operations.
Dr Nilsson-Wright said that while there have been calls for the US to destroy North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction, its stockpiles would be difficult to pinpoint and heavily reinforced, with sites dispersed across the secretive country.
He argued that the only way the US can hope to solve the crisis is via coordinated pressure with allies – and a willingness to negotiate.
Possible measures could include economic sanctions from China, offering political concessions in exchange for a freeze on testing and peace talks involving regional actors.
Mr Maxwell agreed, saying that although Kim’s government had learned to “get around” international banking after previous crackdowns, financial action was still the most effective.
He urged the US to mitigate uncertainty and lower tensions by refusing to rise to “every missile test and every military movement with rhetoric.
“Kim acts like a terrorist and one of the things terrorists want is notoriety,” Mr Maxwell added.
The world should instead focus on North Korea’s appalling human rights record, he said, which has largely fallen off the radar since a UN investigation revealed “unspeakable atrocities” in 2014.
“When we talk about human rights, it undermines the legitimacy of the regime,” Mr Maxwell said.
“There is a moral and strategic value to informing the North Korean people that we know they are suffering.”


Trump at 100 days: 96 percent of his voters say they'd do it again (POLL)

Trump at 100 days: 96 percent of his voters say they'd do it again (POLL)
  • By GARY LANGER
Apr 23, 2017, 12:00 AM ET




Star 

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
WATCH New poll shows Trump has the lowest approval rating of any president since 1945
There's no honeymoon for Donald Trumpin a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, but also no regrets: He approaches his 100th day in office with the lowest approval rating at this point of any president in polls since 1945 –- yet 96 percent of those who supported him in November say they'd do it again today.

His challenges are considerable. Majorities say Trump lacks the judgment and the temperament it takes to serve effectively. Six in 10 doubt his honesty and trustworthiness, see him as out of touch and don't think he understands the problems of people like them. Fifty-six percent say he hasn't accomplished much in his first 100 days. And 55 percent say he doesn't follow a consistent set of principles in setting policy (though fewer see this as a problem, 48 percent).
All told, 42 percent of Americans approve of Trump's performance as president, while 53 percent disapprove. That compares to an average of 69-19 percent for past presidents at or near 100 days in office -– for example, 69-26 percent for Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.
Still, the national survey also finds some brighter spots for the president –- chiefly in pushing for jobs and in foreign policy –- as well as deep popularity problems for the opposition party. Sixty-seven percent say the Democratic Party is out of touch with the concerns of most Americans, even more than say the same about Trump, and similar to the Republican Party (62 percent). That's a steeply negative turn for the Democrats, 19 percentage points more critical than when last asked three years ago, including especially steep losses in their own base.
Trump's better grades include broad 73 percent approval of his pressuring companies to keep jobs in the United States –- even most Democrats, liberals and nonwhites approve, three groups that are broadly critical of Trump more generally. And more than half, 53 percent, see him as a strong leader, although that compares with 77 percent for Obama at this stage.
On one specific issue, a plurality, 46 percent, says he's handling the situation with North Korea "about right," as opposed to being too aggressive (37 percent) or too cautious (just 7 percent). Similarly, a recent ABC/Post poll found 51 percent support for Trump's missile strikes on Syria; together these results make his foreign policy a comparative bright spot. They're also a contrast with Obama, seen by 53 percent as too cautious in his foreign policy in fall 2014, as he dealt with Syria and Russian intervention in Ukraine.

As noted, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds no evidence of buyer's remorse among Trump supporters. Among those who report having voted for him in November, 96 percent today say it was the right thing to do; a mere 2 percent regret it. And if a rerun of the election were held today, the poll indicates even the possibility of a Trump victory in the popular vote among 2016 voters.
In two break-even results, Americans divide, 44-41 percent, on whether Trump is keeping most of his campaign promises, and likewise divide, 35-35 percent, on whether he's doing a better or worse job than they expected. Views turn negative, as noted, on how much Trump has accomplished in his first three months. Forty-two percent say a great deal or good amount, but 56 percent say not much or nothing.
Again, Obama scored far better on all three of these measures at his 100th day, 60-26 percent on keeping his promises, 54-18 percent on performing better vs. worse than expected and 63-36 percent on his accomplishments.
There are difficulties for Trump in other results, as well. Just 37 percent approve of the major changes in federal spending he's proposed (50 percent disapprove) and only 34 percent approve of his having given his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, major positions in his administration (61 percent disapprove). (There are only three groups in which more than half approve of these appointments –- Republicans, 69 percent; evangelical white Protestants, 56 percent; and conservatives, 51 percent.) And rejecting Trump's criticisms, the public by 58-36 percent says the federal courts that have blocked his immigration orders are "acting rightly as a check on the president's powers" rather than wrongly interfering with them.
The president does better on another item on which he's been criticized in some quarters –- spending substantial time at commercial properties he owns, chiefly his Mar-a-Lago resort. Forty-three percent see this as a conflict of interest because it promotes those properties, but 54 percent say it's not a conflict because he has the right to go where he wants.
The 100-day point has been used as a benchmark since Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, but, like any such time stamp, it has questionable predictive value. As noted, it usually marks the height of a president's honeymoon in public opinion. It's also situational. In available data, the highest rating at or near 100 days was Harry Truman's 87 percent in a Gallup poll when he took office after the Roosevelt's death; yet Truman's career average was 47 percent approval. The lowest at 100 days was Gerald Ford's 48 percent after he succeeded (and pardoned) Richard Nixon, yet Ford's career average was about the same as Truman's. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had 63 and 71 percent 100-day approval ratings –- yet neither won a second term.
Current politics, moreover, are marked by especially sharp partisanship, a central reason for Trump's comparatively poor rating. Seventy-nine percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of his job performance; just 12 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents agree. Obama at 100 days did better in his base, with 93 percent approval from leaned Democrats, but also had 40 percent from leaned Republicans.
As mentioned, Trump's challenges don't mean the opposition is in good shape. In March 2014, 48 percent of Americans said the Democratic Party was out of touch with the concerns of most people. Today 67 percent say so. And the biggest change has occurred chiefly among the party's own typical loyalists, with "out of touch" ratings up 33 points among liberals, 30 points among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 26 points among moderates and nonwhites alike.
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they’d stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.
That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn’t vote.
In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.
Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.

Approval groups
Trump's approval rating among groups differs in familiar patterns from the election. Fifty-four percent of whites approve of his job performance; just 19 percent of nonwhites (including 22 percent of Hispanics and 6 percent of blacks) agree. His approval rating is 15 points lower among the youngest adults compared with seniors. It's 67 percent among conservatives vs. 37 percent among moderates and 9 percent among liberals. And it's 73 percent among evangelical white Protestants, a GOP mainstay.
Trump's rating is 10 points higher among whites who lack a college degree than among those who have one. Indeed, again echoing the election, he reaches 65 percent approval among non-college white men, vs. 40 percent among college-educated white women.
The economys another factor; while it doesn’t guarantee presidential approval, a strong or improving economy at least makes it easier to achieve. Today 30 percent say the economy is improving, vs. 18 percent who say it’s getting worse, with a plurality, 49 percent, saying it’s staying the same. Among those who think it’s improving, 83 percent approve of Trump’s job performance, while among those who think it’s staying the same, just 29 percent approve, as do only 10 percent of those who say it’s getting worse.
Of course, the result likely is bi-directional – views of the economy color views of the president, but views of the president also influence views of the economy. Indeed, 62 percent of Republicans think the economy’s improving; just a quarter of independents and 12 percent of Democrats agree.
There are notable differences among groups on other questions as well. One is a large age effect on whether or not Trump is in touch with people’s concerns – 71 percent of under 30s say not, as do 65 percent of those age 30 to 39, declining to 52 percent – still a majority – among those 40+.
Additionally, 62 percent of Democrats say Trump is not keeping his promises, while 77 percent of Republicans say he is keeping them. (Independents split evenly.) As with views of the future economy, that’s an example of motivated reasoning – sharply different assessments of the same object, informed by partisan predispositions. Whatever changes in the Trump administration, this phenomenon – typical of all politics – likely won’t.

Methodology
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone April 17-20, 2017, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 31-24-36 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt Associates of Cambridge, Massachusetts. See details on the survey’s methodology here.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale confere - Independent

Donald Trump has 'dangerous mental illness', say psychiatry experts at Yale confere

Mental health experts claimed the President was 'paranoid and delusional', and said it was their 'ethical responsibility' to warn the American public Getty / Chip Somodevilla
Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University.
Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.
Speaking at the conference at Yale’s School of Medicine on Thursday, one of the mental health professionals, Dr John Gartner, a practising psychotherapist who advised psychiatric residents at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, said: “We have an ethical responsibility to warn the public about Donald Trump's dangerous mental illness.”
Dr Gartner, who is also a founding member of Duty to Warn, an organisation of several dozen mental health professionals who think Mr Trump is mentally unfit to be president, said the President's statement about having the largest crowd at an inauguration was just one of many that served as warnings of a larger problem.
“Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that’s delusional,” he added.
Chairing the event, Dr Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor in the Yale Department of Psychiatry, said: “As some prominent psychiatrists have noted, [Trump’s mental health] is the elephant in the room. I think the public is really starting to catch on and widely talk about this now.”
James Gilligan, a psychiatrist and professor at New York University, told the conference he had worked some of the “most dangerous people in society”, including murderers and rapists — but that he was convinced by the “dangerousness” of Mr Trump.
“I’ve worked with some of the most dangerous people our society produces, directing mental health programmes in prisons,” he said.
“I’ve worked with murderers and rapists. I can recognise dangerousness from a mile away. You don’t have to be an expert on dangerousness or spend fifty years studying it like I have in order to know how dangerous this man is.”
Dr Gartner started an online petition earlier this year on calling for Mr Trump to be removed from office, which claims that he is “psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President”. The petition has so far garnered more than 41,000 signatures.
It states: “We, the undersigned mental health professionals (please state your degree), believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. 
“And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office'."
The claims made in the conference have drawn criticism from some in the psychiatric establishment, who say they violate the American Psychiatric Association’s “Goldwater rule,” which states psychiatrists are not to give professional opinions on people they have not personally examined.
They have also been condemned by Republicans, including Connecticut Republican Party Chairman JR Romano, who accused the group of “throwing ethical standards out the window because they cannot accept the election results.”
Responding to the criticism, Dr Gartner said: “This notion that you need to personally interview someone to form a diagnosis actually doesn’t make a whole lotta sense. For one thing, research shows that the psychiatric interview is the least statistical reliable way to make a diagnosis.”
A spokesperson for Yale University told The Independent the panel at the conference abided by the Goldwater rule during the discussions, but that the organiser was "troubled" by the "silencing of debate".
“The panel at Yale School of Medicine abided by ‘the Goldwater rule'. Eminent psychiatrists were invited to speak about whether there are other ethical rules that override it, as in ordinary practise," said the spokesperson.
"The organiser, Dr Bandy Lee, agrees with the Goldwater rule but is troubled by its recent expansion (as of March 16, 2017) and the silencing of debate. She hopes that the public and politicians will understand that mental health issues are not to be used as a weapon, just as other health issues are not.  
"Dr Gartner was invited as an activist and was not on the actual panel. The organiser emphasises that the event was independently organised and did not represent the views of Yale University or Yale School of Medicine.”
The doctors have said that even if it is in breach of tradition ethical standards of psychiatry, it was necessary to break their silence on the matter because they feared “too much is at stake”.
It is not the first time Mr Trump's mental health has been called into question. In February, Duty to Warn, which consists of psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, signed an open letter warning that his mental state “makes him incapable of serving safely as president”.
The letter warned that the  President’s tendency to “distort reality” to fit his “personal myth of greatness” and attack those who challenge him with facts was likely to increase in a position of power.


Wednesday, April 19, 2017

This Common 401(k) Rule Is Making Life Difficult for Retirees - TIME Business

Posted: 19 Apr 2017 03:00 AM PDT

A big part of retirement planning is setting up monthly income for the years after you leave work. Yet many 401(k) plans make this difficult by placing restrictions on how you take distributions. In some plans, if you want to withdraw anything at all you must take out every dime.
That is more than a mere inconvenience. You may have most of your retirement dollars in a 401(k) or similar plan. Restrictions on how you take out your money may prompt you to roll over all the funds into an IRA, where you are free to take out cash pretty much as you wish. That’s not necessarily a bad move. But it may push you into higher-fee investments and leave you without certain valuable investment options—such as a stable-value fund, which is a cash equivalent with a relatively high yield that is generally not available outside a 401(k) plan.

In this way, inflexible distribution rules handcuff savers and may cost them dearly when it comes time to live off the money they have gathered. Even the government’s mighty Thrift Savings Plan (TSP), which will welcome the military with new incentives next year, leaves participants with painfully few options for taking their money out.
Earlier this month, lawmakers called attention to inflexible distribution rules with a proposal to loosen restrictions on the widely used federal government plan, which has assets of $482 billion. Senators Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Tom Carper, D-Del., introduced the TSP Modernization Act, which would change distribution rules for the first time since the TSP was established in 1986.
Currently, federal employees can take only one partial distribution while they are employed and meet age requirements. Any follow-up distribution after they leave government employment must be for the full balance. Those who have left the federal payroll and meet age requirements and haven’t yet taken a distribution can take one partial distribution. After that, they must move to full distribution options.
The proposal would allow for multiple partial distributions while workers are employed by the government and more again after retiring or leaving government service. The idea is to keep more government workers in the TSP, which has some of the lowest fees of any retirement plan. TSP participants move $9 billion a year into other plans that almost always have higher fees. More than a quarter of those moving the funds say they do it for greater flexibility.
In the private sector, a shift toward more flexible withdrawal rules is one of the encouraging ways that 401(k)s are changing to help retirement savers. Making it easier for workers to keep the money in a 401(k) can benefit the employer as well as workers: Companies are concerned that if plan assets shrink, they may have less leverage to negotiate lower fees with investment managers, theWall Street Journal reported last year.
Larger 401(k) plans tend to have lower fees and fewer restrictions on distributions. But that isn’t true across the board. Some charge higher fees than you would pay in an IRA stocked with low-cost index funds. And only 61% of large plans allow people to take monthly distributions, according to Aon Hewitt.
Small-employer 401(k) plans tend to charge the highest fees and be the least flexible. So for those in such a plan, a full rollover to an IRA may make sense in any event.
The good news for retirement savers is that the proposal to loosen distribution rules from the massive government TSP has momentum, and it may lead more private-industry plan sponsors to follow suit. For now, though, you will have to navigate on your own. A rollover to an IRA makes the most sense if you can get into lower fee investments, like index funds. If you cannot lower your costs, consider keeping your money in an employer-sponsored plan as long as possible—and hope for distribution reforms sooner rather than later.@

Trump Adding Former Lobbyists To Swamp, Giving Them Ethics Waivers - Huffington Post

Trump Adding Former Lobbyists To Swamp, Giving Them Ethics Waivers
Some new Trump officials are working on policies likely to benefit clients they recently served.
Far from fulfilling his campaign promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, President Donald Trumpappears to be filling it with former lobbyists and consultants.
The president has relaxed ethics regulations, eliminating a requirementbarring lobbyists from joining agencies that they lobbied up to two years prior. Trump does require that former lobbyists not work on specific issues linked to a past client. But it appears that regulation is not always followed.
The New York Times and ProPublicahave highlighted some especially worrisome hires in the executive branch, including White House energy adviser Michael Catanzaro, a former oil and gas company lobbyist, and Geoff Burr, a former construction industry lobbyist now working at the Department of Labor.
A lobbyist may “de-register on Monday and enter the Trump Administration on Tuesday,” Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen told ProPublica — and could also quickly return to the private sector.
Far from fulfilling his campaign promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, President Donald Trump appears to be filling it with former lobbyists and consultants.
The president has relaxed ethics regulations, eliminating a requirement barring lobbyists from joining agencies that they lobbied up to two years prior. Trump does require that former lobbyists not work on specific issues linked to a past client. But it appears that regulation is not always followed.
cm.png
The New York Times and ProPublica have highlighted some especially worrisome hires in the executive branch, including White House energy adviser Michael Catanzaro, a former oil and gas company lobbyist, and Geoff Burr, a former construction industry lobbyist now working at the Department of Labor.

A lobbyist may “de-register on Monday and enter the Trump Administration on Tuesday,” Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen told ProPublica — and could also quickly return to the private sector.
cfcm.ashx.gif
Just last week, Bloomberg revealed that Marcus Peacock, a top Trump aide who worked briefly in the Office of Management and Budget, will join the lobbying group the Business Roundtable. Peacock has recused himself from lobbying the OMB for just six months — even though he agreed not to lobby his former agency for five years, according to Bloomberg. 

Trump may also be issuing other ethics waivers, but that’s difficult to determine because granted waivers are generally kept secret, the Times reports. The president is also keeping White House visitor logs secret, making it difficult to track corporate representatives’ meetings with federal officials as they create new policy. 
The White House told the Times that it “takes its ethics pledge and federal conflict of interest rules very seriously,” and is complying with the law.

Huffington Post

Theresa May has just handed Scottish independence to Nicola Sturgeon on a plate - Independent

Theresa May has just handed Scottish independence to Nicola Sturgeon on a plate
One career politician in Westminster is striking while the iron is hot, and so is another north of the border

Nicola Sturgeon must be rubbing her hands with glee at this moment.
In the aftermath of Theresa May’s announcement to hold a snap election, Sturgeon knows how most Scots will receive the news: badly.
Provided May is allowed to hold the election by Parliament, it will most likely lead to a Conservative victory and further degradation of the opposition – one poll predicts the Conservatives will end up with a 100-seat lead in Parliament. So long 2020: May could stay in power until 2022.
Sturgeon’s tweet after the news hit the nail on the head: “The Tories see a chance to move the UK to the right, force through a hard Brexit and impose deeper cuts. Let's stand up for Scotland. #GE17,” she said.
One career politician in Westminster is striking while the iron is hot, and so is another north of the border.
Sturgeon has already won the backing of Holyrood to hold another referendum between 2018 and 2019, but needed the people’s support for a second push. She might have it now, and could force May’s hand into the bargain.
No one has forgotten the £12 billion cuts to welfare. Austerity is a bitter pill to swallow when there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Yet the Scottish people might never have thought they would have to choose between debilitating cuts under May and breaking away from the UK altogether.
The Conservatives won the 2010 election off the back of false rhetoric which said Labour’s expenditures caused a global financial crisis. They then whipped up a frenzy of xenophobia and ignorance to take us out of the European Union, walked away without a stain, and then convinced us they were the best ones to clean up the mess.
Over the past few years, the sustained media attack against Jeremy Corbyn, who was elected in a landslide – twice – has fuelled the perception that there is not a credible opposition.
It has only been seven years and we have already forgotten why we take pride in allocating money (less than 1 per cent of gross national income) to foreign aid, why we need immigrants to power our economy, why we need to stop spreading myths of welfare “hand-outs” and watching shows like Benefits Street.
Nicola Sturgeon knows all of this; she knows the potential devastating impacts of a prolonged Tory government and the hard Brexit it’s likely to bring. She knows people are growing tired and impatient of cuts to welfare, without seeing an equal attack upon big companies and wealthy individuals.

She knows that the tide might be turning in her favour. Ironically, May thinks now is the time to cement her hold on power, under the guise of creating unity in Westminster. What the snap election will do is just the opposite – and she might be surprised by how Scotland responds.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Theresa May Seeks Snap U.K. Election to Get Brexit Backing - Bloomberg

Theresa May Seeks Snap U.K. Election to Get Brexit Backing
by Robert Hutton , Alex Morales , and Tim Ross
18 April 2017 at 8:07:19 PM AEST 18 April 2017 at 8:40:53 PM AEST

U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May said she will seek an early election on June 8, in an unexpected gamble aimed at strengthening her hand going into talks on leaving the European Union.

The surprise statement came less than a month after she triggered the formal start of Brexit and marks a reversal of her position before the Easter break, when her office insisted an early election wasn’t on the cards.
An election isn’t due until 2020 though her popularity -- polls show her Conservative Party is more than 20 points ahead of the main opposition -- give her an opening to consolidate her power. The announcement indicates that May has decided she cannot get the Brexit legislation she needs through the House of Commons with the slim majority she inherited from David Cameron.

All About Brexit

“There should be unity here in Westminster but instead there is division,” she said in a statement outside her Downing Street residence on Tuesday. “The country is coming together but Westminster is not.” A rift in Parliament will damage the government’s ability to make a success of Brexit, she said.

Her current polling lead over Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party means she can be fairly confident of increasing her majority, and bringing Tory lawmakers into Parliament who will back her on the flavor of Brexit that she prefers. Moreover, a survey last week by Orb International showed that 55 percent of Britons support her handling of Brexit talks.

“This is Theresa May’s attempt to free herself from some of the constraints she’s under and get the mandate to execute the hard Brexit she’s been talking about,” said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director of the Eurasia Group. “She sees an opportunity to win the election, secure a bigger mandate and execute the hard Brexit.”

Popularity Surge

A poll on Monday gave the Conservatives a 21-point lead over Labour for the first time in nine years, according to the Times newspaper. May’s party would win 44 percent of the vote, compared with 23 percent for Labour and 12 percent for the Liberal Democrats, the Times said, citing a poll by YouGov.

However, a 2011 law passed by Cameron during his coalition government with the Liberal Democrats has complicated matters. It means there are two circumstances in which there could be an early election: If two-thirds of the House of Commons votes for one or if the government loses a no-confidence vote and a new administration fails to win a confidence motion within 14 days.

In her statement May said she was taking the first course of action. “Tomorrow I will move a motion in the House of Commons calling for a general election to be held on the 8th of June,” she said.

The vote will need the backing of a substantial number of opposition lawmakers, including many from Labour. For the Liberal Democrats, leader Tim Farron signaled he’d support the motion and urged voters who oppose leaving the EU to back his party.

“If you want to avoid a disastrous hard Brexit, if you want to keep Britain in the single market, if you want a Britain that is open, tolerant and united, this is your chance,” he said.

Labour’s Corbyn has previously said his party would back an early election.

Uber Drivers Aren’t Worried About Self-Driving Cars — Yet - TIME Business

Posted: 10 Apr 2017 06:36 AM PDT

Rachel Bolles, who’s been driving for Uber in the Columbus, Ohio area for just over a year, says her job is about much more than getting passengers from A to B. “I consider myself part nanny, part chauffeur,” she says. “A lot of these people just need someone to talk to.”
That was more true than ever when Bolles picked up a distraught customer coping with the death of his girlfriend’s father. Having recently lost her own father, Bolles empathized and offered advice during the trip. “It was one of those rides you walk away from feeling really good,” she says.

But many observers argue that the approximately 4.5 million Americans who work as professional drivers in the U.S. are at risk of being replaced by self-driving vehicles. Once a far-flung fantasy, the technology is inching closer to reality every day. Silicon Valley firms like Uber and Google, as well as automakers like GM and Ford, view driverless cars as the next holy grail of transportation — and a potentially lucrative market. Already, self-driving cars are picking up passengers in Pittsburgh and Arizona, driverless trucks have made deliveries in Colorado, and London is about to deploy autonomous busses.
Despite self-driving vehicles’ impressive progress, neither Bolles nor any of the half-dozen other rideshare drivers TIME interviewed expressed fear of losing their job to a robotic car any time soon. Some envision themselves working in a different field by the time self-driving technology is ready for primetime, which will likely take several years at least. (Workers, after all, tend to be short-term thinkers.) Others believe the tech may complement, but not completely replace, human drivers. “There’s a lot more to driving than not running into another car,” said Kat Ellery, who also drives for Uber and Lyft in Columbus. “There are a lot of idiosyncrasies that [self-driving cars] can’t account for.”

Such sentiment may seem like denying the inevitable. But self-driving vehicles indeed have their limitations. Bad weather, for instance, remains a roadblock. That means they might be fine in sunny San Diego, but less useful in snowy Buffalo.
Some drivers, meanwhile, argue they’re better than computers at knowing which routes to avoid at certain times, or which side roads to take when the highways are clogged up. Daniel Woermer, a longtime Uber driver in Connecticut, argues that his GPS still doesn’t always immediately reflect changes in road conditions, like when a new divider appears overnight. “An autonomous vehicle, if it’s not updated and doesn’t have that proper knowledge, it could drive right into a barrier,” he says.
A fleet of networked, self-driving cars could potentially learn from one another, passing data about new road conditions from one vehicle to the next. However, you would still need that first car to be able to handle an unanticipated circumstance. But adaptability remains a weak point for computers, says Professor John Leonard of The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Department of Mechanical Engineering: “The capacity for human intelligence, to deal with the unexpected and to use what we call common sense knowledge to handle situations for which they weren’t trained, those things are hard for a robot to do.”
Some Uber drivers also argue they play the role of babysitter by making sure their passengers aren’t mistreating their vehicle. “[If you’re] spilling coffee, a driver might say you can’t eat in here,” says Julian Jackson, who also drives for Uber in Columbus. “If you realize that someone is watching, then you might end up being a little more respectful of other people’s things.”
Ultimately, the biggest factor holding back self-driving cars may not be technology, but passengers. “There are a lot of people out there who wouldn’t trust a self-driving car,” says Carl Johnson, an Uber driver in Kansas City, Mo. That’s true no matter how studies show autonomous cars are more capable than human drivers. (One report from McKinsey and Company estimated that driverless cars could reduce automotive accidents by 90%.) Of course, that sentiment may change as self-driving cars become a more typical element of everyday life.
Despite these drivers’ confidence, it may not be wise for a young person today to bank on a lifelong rideshare career tomorrow. Uber executives in particular have not been shy about their pursuit of self-driving cars, which don’t clamor for higher fares or attempt to unionize. So far, the company has tested its autonomous vehicles in Pittsburgh, Tempe, Ariz., and its hometown of San Francisco. (Rival Lyft says it plans to deploy autonomous cars around 2021 or 2022.) But Uber’s self-driving progress hasn’t come without setbacks. A recent crash in Arizona, clashes with state regulators, and an ongoing and increasingly nasty legal battle with Google parent company Alphabet have all highlighted just how far it and other companies have to go before robots are zipping us around town.
Regardless of how drivers might feel, it’s increasingly likely that autonomous cars will make up some portion of tomorrow’s transportation landscape. But that world is far enough away that most professional drivers aren’t feeling the heat — yet. Some, like Johnson, are even ready to embrace such a future. “I think it’s a great idea,” he says. “I seriously believe there will be one day where we’re going to be like The Jetsons.”

The Military Is Revamping Its Retirement System to Attract Millennials - TIME

Posted: 13 Apr 2017 03:00 AM PDT

In a bid to lure millennials, the U.S. military is making the most sweeping changes to its retirement program since World War II. Gone are the days when only a 20-year veteran leaves the service with a nest egg. Going forward, those who serve as little as two years will return to civilian life with retirement savings.
The new system introduces 401(k)-type savings for military personnel while downsizing the traditional pension benefit—a trade the corporate world has been making for 35 years. The new design also comes with a stepped-up effort to provide service members with the education they will need to make the most of a system that demands more individual involvement.

The new Blended Retirement System, authorized through the National Defense Act of 2016, goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. Those who enroll in the military after that date will be put into the new blended plan. Anyone with less than 12 years of service on that date will have one year to choose between the old system and the new one. Those with more than 12 years of service will remain under the old plan.
Under the new plan, 85% of those serving in future years will leave with a portable retirement benefit, the military says. That compares to less than 19% that leave with a benefit under a system that has been in force since the days of MacArthur and Patton.
The switch highlights some of the tradeoffs between defined-benefit pensions and defined-contribution 401(k)s that workers in private industry have been grappling with for decades. Pension plans can provide worry-free income for life, but the benefits go mostly to long-tenured workers. With savings plans, far more people get a retirement nest egg. But much of the responsibility for diligently saving and for making reasonable investment choices rests with the workers themselves.
The military employs 1.4 million men and women, many of whom struggle with the demands of serving and managing their financial affairs at the same time. Veterans of all the armed services are twice as likely as civilians to carry debt from month to month, according to a recent financial literacy survey conducted by Harris Poll for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. More than half say they are unprepared for a financial emergency.
Such figures prompted the federal government to order all branches of the military to take steps to improve the financial capability of service members. “When I was battery commander in Germany, soldiers were purchasing encyclopedias and $2,000 washer-dryers,” Michael Meese, chief operating officer of the American Armed Forces Mutual Aid Association, a nonprofit helping service members with financial issues, has said. “Then they return home to a pile of debt.”
The military now provides financial counseling at most bases on such things as managing bank accounts, living on a budget and avoiding debt. Before deployment, all service members now must attend a financial preparedness class, which includes explanations on how to access bank accounts from overseas, ways to pay bills remotely, powers of attorney, wills, and death benefits.
All current and future service members remain eligible for a lifetime annuity after 20 years of service. For those in the new blended plan, that annuity benefit will be 20% less than under the old pension plan. But those service members will have the benefit of also being enrolled in the government’s giant Thrift Savings Plan, where they will receive a contribution of 1% of base pay beginning almost immediately. They fully vest in the TSP in two years, meaning they can take all those dollars with them if they leave the service at that point. They will also receive a matching contribution of up to another 4%, depending on their own contributions and length of service.
Most importantly, the new plan ensures that most service members get a retirement benefit, an incentive to help recruit millennials who are less likely to want long-term military careers. Military officials concede that cutting pensions for those with 20-plus years of service might lead to more service members not sticking around. But attracting millennials is the main objective.
For the government, the savings don’t hurt either, says Meese. The U.S. will save about $2 billion annually under this system and may be using it as a trial balloon. “This is the first time since the 1983 reforms to Social Security that the federal government has actually cut entitlements,” he told me in an email. “I wonder if the military taking the lead in entitlement reform will lead to similar reforms in Social Security or Medicare.” Change might be coming on a broader scale than just for those who serve.