Tory Rank and File Rebellion Continues over alleged comments

Tory Rank and File Rebellion Continues After Alleged Comments .

Rank and file Tories rebellion marred by the Conservatives over alleged allegations made by a senior aide. I’m sure that many very angry Conservative members will not feel appreciated and no doubt will be exercising their right to leave their beloved party for UKIP and taking their hard-earned donations with them to obtain a better deal. It’s no surprise why UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage moved to exploit unrest within the Conservative ranks, urging discontented Tories to defect to his party.

UKIP used a full-page advertisement in The Daily Telegraph to accuse the Conservative leadership of having betrayed the trust of its natural supporters. In an open letter to Conservatives, Mr Farage described the reported comment of a senior Tory figure deriding activists as “mad, swivel-eyed loons” as “the ultimate insult”.

“Only an administration run by a bunch of college kids, none of whom have ever had a proper job in their lives, could so arrogantly write off their own supporters,” he said. “Conservatives are used to a party that is patriotic, supports business and believes in aspiration. Today they are led by people obsessed with farms and introducing gay marriage and happy to open the door to 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians from January 1 next year.

“If you are a Conservative who supports the UKIP position that we should be an independent, self-governing nation, then your party now treats you with contempt.” Then there is another alleged plot from the senior aides of the Tories determined to push the knife into their bedroom partner the Libdems to undermine Nick Clegg’s position as the Deputy Leader of the coalition. David Cameron is faced with Conservative opposition at all levels from the grassroots to the Cabinet. Lord Howe has publicly denounced David Cameron over Europe calling him a weak leader for not controlling his backbenchers.

I say let the infighting continue in the rank and file of the Conservatives. For myself I love to have a ring side seat to see them dig themselves into a grave. I’m sure most people would love to see the end of the coalition. Just two years to go for general elections Tories have reopen old division between supporters of Thatcher and Major which destroyed the Conservative Party over Europe. A group of more than 30 current and former local party chairmen warned that the plans would drive Tory voters to the UK Independence Party and make a Conservative election victory in 2015 impossible. Well I’m glad that I don’t belong to or been a member of the Conservative Party nor any of my family. I read with  interest to know that the infighting have shown its ugly head in the Tory Party over Europe, Gay Marriage, and alleged comments make by a senior aide to David Cameron. I would not like to be David Cameron who is at turning point will he still remain loyal to his party faithful by standing by them or will he sack his aide and personal friend over the alleged remarks?

I would rather see UK position to remain in the European Union with the right conditions. The idea that UK is better of out is wrong this is on the grounds much of our business interest comes from EU which have giving us many legislations that has enhance our lives like the Working Time Directives, Human Rights, and some of the European Funding has benefit UK.  Some of Britain’s most successful and eminent business leaders have accused Eurosceptic MPs of putting “politics before economics” and abandoning the national interest in their calls for Britain to leave the European Union. the group issues a trenchant riposte to politicians who have argued that Britain’s economic interest would be better served outside the EU. They also call for David Cameron to “strengthen and deepen” the European single market to boost Britain’s economy by £110bn. The letter, which is signed by senior figures including the current and next presidents of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) as well as the chairmen of BT, Deloitte, Lloyds and Centrica, is the first co-ordinated response from the business community to increasing anti-European political rhetoric.

It reflects growing concern in the City that anti-European feeling is not being effectively countered by mainstream political leaders in the wake of last month’s local council elections. Two cabinet ministers have already publicly stated that they would vote to leave the EU if a referendum were held today, while privately some senior Tories believe Mr Cameron will never be able to negotiate a new deal for Britain’s membership that Eurosceptics could willingly sign up to.

But in their letter the businessmen write that on a purely economical basis, exiting the EU would be deeply damaging to Britain. “The economic case to stay in the EU is overwhelming,” they say. “To Britain, membership is estimated to be worth between £31bn and £92bn per year in income gains, or between £1,200 to £3,500 for every household. “What we should now be doing is fighting hard to deliver a more competitive Europe, to combat the criticism of those that champion our departure. We should push to strengthen and deepen the Single Market to include digital, energy, transport and telecoms, which could boost Britain’s GDP by £110bn.”

Addressing concerns that European banking legislation is adversely affecting the City of London, the 19 business leaders say that the right answer is to fight for Britain’s interests inside the EU – rather than attempting to go it alone. “The City of London is Europe’s global financial centre,” they say. “Some of the EU’s ideas such as a cap on bankers’ bonuses put this standing at risk. So the Government needs to work hard to protect it. “But there is also a huge opportunity to promote London’s capital markets to help solve the problems of the EU banking system. We should promote the cause of EU membership as well as defend our position.”

They conclude: “The benefits of membership overwhelmingly outweigh the costs, and to suggest otherwise is putting politics before economics.” Some businessmen privately express concerns that were Britain to leave and place restrictions on foreign workers, other European countries would retaliate and make it harder for Britons to work in the EU.

As well as UK nationals, this may also affect bankers from around the world who are drawn to London as Europe’s financial hub. Should bankers working in London need separate work permits to operate elsewhere in Europe, they argue, this could force many large multinationals to relocate their headquarters. “I don’t think a lot of people have really thought through the consequences of what leaving might mean,” said one.

Interestingly the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, insisted that the Tory party was “absolutely united” on the issue of Europe and Lord Howe’s views did not “represent the reality” of the situation. “If you look at the substance of the issue, the Conservative Party is absolutely united,”

To be perfectly honey I make no apologies for saying if some of those rich donors wants to cross over to Labour Party you are more than welcome to join the grassroots of Labour rank and files.

 

Coalition In turmoil with their Bedroom Partners

Coalition In turmoil With Their Bedroom Partners Libdems:

It is alleged that some Conservatives senior aids plans to break up the coalition with the Liberal Democrats(Libdems) with various scenarios, as Nick Clegg as a weak leader for the Libdems over clashes and policy rows. There has been much tweeting and news headlines about the dreaded UKIP and BNP of lately are they a threat to all the three main political parties for next year and 2015?

 

My personal view and experience has always been keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer to your chest. For the time being I will say that Labour  may be in a position to return to 10 Downing Street if they are really seriously want to engage with communities to reclaim the lead from Labour disenfranchise voters from United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and British National party (BNP) I don’t say this lightly. What all the main political parties have witnessed is a wakeup call when our country in a mess with no prospect of any green shoots anytime soon.
So far if it is anything to go by the recent elections all indication has shown voters don’t know what David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband all stands for as they want to smell the coffee from all the political leaders to receive  a flavour of which party will listen and action their concerns.

Granted there has been some protest votes to both UKIP and BNP of lately. Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats has not really listened to voters instead some Member of Parliament have been marred with sandals and in fighting which includes UKIP and BNP as well from sexism to racism.

If political parties do not change their way of campaigning most will see a return of a hung parliament again which will not benefit any political parties. There have been suggestions of a Conservative and UKIP pact, but what voters and commentators are forgetting that UKIP does not have a MP in parliament yet. On the other hand the worse that can happen is a Lib and Lab pact which I as a Labour Party member will not entertain this idea.

Many have seen what it is like having a coalition running our country. In my opinion when the recent Queen Speech was read out I’m sure the Queen almost chocked in regards to immigration and welfare caps with no other policies available.

If Conservatives wins the general elections in 2015 rest assured they will do further damage to our welfare state with more privatization not just in local government but also to our NHS. We all have to start paying private insurance to use our NHS facilities.

I’m sure in my mind that the National Minimum Wage will be targeted in a big way to please the Tory donors and big businesses. The argument for the case will no doubt big, medium and small businesses will not able to survive as they will continue to say. Don’t be surprised if the next incoming Conservative Government will either start to hit the trade unions, social housing tenants, and introduce a big brother society as their programme of big society has fallen by the wayside. It has been noticeable that all the charities and third sectors have stop promoting the Big Society mantra since they realized that they will not get the funding from both Central and Local Government Departments.

Recently in the Commons there was a vote on Welfare Reform Jobseekers (Work Programme) Bill when Labour whip informed the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) to abstain which did not help the case of Labour. Many party activist and their supporters were very angry because of a few carrots dangling with the promise of some deal which the coalition had a double shotgun over Labour which never happened which the coalition had a laugh at Labour’s expense.

Granted there have been some positive reviews to Ed Miliband for a making a great leader in waiting but Labour must be very clear in their message that they send out not just to its membership but to all our Labour Supporters and wavering voters must translate into a language to all our supporters can relate and understand.
His best moment came when he referenced the calls from Tory MPs for a pact or even a coalition with UKIP. “They used to call them clowns. Now they want to join the circus,” he quipped, a line that improves with each reading.

He went on to remind the House how Cameron’s promise of an in/out EU referendum (which many predicted would prove disastrous for Labour) had failed to counter UKIP or sate his recalcitrant backbenchers. In a well-crafted passage, he declared: “The lesson for the Prime Minister is you can’t out-Farage Farage. Banging on about Europe won’t convince the public. And the people behind him will just keep coming back for more. A Europe referendum tomorrow. Drop same sex marriage. The demands go on and on. They will never be satisfied. And every day he spends dealing with the problem behind him he’s not dealing with the problems facing the country.”

Earlier in the speech, referring to Iain Duncan Smith’s suggestion that wealthy pensioners hand back their Winter Fuel Payments, he asked Cameron: “why doesn’t he set an example and hand back the tax cut he’s given himself?” Seizing on David Davis’s plea for “no more old Etonian advisers”, he quipped that it was “time for some diversity” – “let’s have someone from Harrow”. After the abandonment of minimum alcohol pricing and plain cigarette packaging, Miliband also brought up Lynton Crosby’s links [2] to the alcohol and tobacco industries, declaring, once again, that Cameron stands up for “the wrong people”.

This is what they used to say about cigarette packaging: ‘It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets … children should be protected from the start.’

That was the previous Health Secretary. Before they hired their new strategist. The one whose company worked for big tobacco. And now what’s happened? They’ve dropped the bill.

After his now-infamous World At One interview [3], in which he was unable to say whether Labour would borrow more to fund a temporary VAT cut, three Conservative MPs intervened to challenge Miliband over his plans. In response to the first, Jacob Rees-Mogg, he replied that “of course” a VAT cut would “have a cost” and “lead to a temporary increase in borrowing” (perhaps the first time Miliband has admitted in the Commons that Labour would borrow more), but that the increase would be justified since it would help to stimulate growth. But he was unable to answer Penny Mordaunt‘s claim that the measures included in Labour’s alternative Queen’s Speech would cost an extra £28bn, insisting that he had “already addressed this” (he hadn’t). After he was challenged again, he fell back on the line that it was the government that was “borrowing more”. This is true (£245bn, in fact) but it invites the Tory rejoinder, “you would borrow even more”, leaving the Labour leader back where he began. The danger for Miliband is that Tory MPs will continue to challenge him over the total cost of Labour’s plans until, as with the VAT cut, he finally gives way.

But while Miliband still gives the impression of running scared of his own economic policy, today he did enough to remind his party why he could emerge as the victor in 2015.

Let’s hope that we have a Labour Government in place and a manifesto in place need to be very concise and clear to our Labour supporters and wavering voters.

Pension Power speaks out

Pension Power:

At a recent conference for the National Federation of Occupation Pensioners(NFOP) the highlight of event has been grave concerns about the threat to Universal Benefits after the 2015 general election. There are also continued worries about the cost of social care funding, the winter fuel allowance and bus passes, and recommended means testing as a way to ensure that only the most vulnerable receive them. However, history has proved that those most in need are unlikely to claim if benefits are means tested (2.6 million of those eligible do not claim).

The other concerns were Care Funding an existing problem. Despite the recommendations by Andrew Dilnot in his 2011 Government commissioned report, of implementing cap of care cost to the sum of £35,000 the coalition government has announced a £75,000 cap. This cap is for individuals and does not cover hotel cost meaning a couple could be facing care cost of well over £150,000.

Delegates warned that the plans will result in people having to sell their homes as the only way of funding their care while nothing has been said about the desperate need to improve the quality and standards of care that people receive in the community.

The government should instead introduce a National Care Service funded through taxation like the NHS. Under the Bill a flat-rate state pension of around £144 per week will be introduced from April 2016, but this compares poorly with the basic state pension paid way back in 1979, which would be worth around £156 at today’s values.

“The government’s new single-tier state pension is actually going to cost less than the existing system and is really trying to con people into thinking they are going to get a better deal, when the reality is you will have to work longer, pay more and get less when you eventually retire.”

There’s a clear message from the Labour Party’s research into care of the disabled and the elderly and it’s don’t move to Brighton and Hove. One supposes of course that the advice would exclude Labour whip and peer Lord Bassam of Brighton, whose stellar career has taken him from dedicated squatter into the realms of the cushty.

But even the erstwhile Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms (one of the titles he picked up during his socialist career) might quail at the price of care in his adopted home city.

A £21.50 an hour rate for home care might put a bloody great big hole in even his lordship’s income.

So you can imagine what it does to those less fortunate. In fairness to Lord Bassam, it should be pointed out that Labour screwed up Brighton to the extent that Greens now run the council. The increase in home care charges means the average annual cost for 10 hours of home care a week has increased to £7,077 a year in 2012/13 – up more than £680 since 2009/10. Yet the number of elderly people having their home care services fully paid for by their local authority has fallen by 11 per cent over the past two years.

Why, do you suppose, is that? The reason isn’t difficult to find. Local authorities point to the government imposing a 28 per cent funding cut over the next four years which has forced councils into the unpleasant necessity of restricting free care to those who have “substantial” or “critical” needs. Many authorities have now removed the pre-existing caps on how much elderly or disabled people can be required to pay. Against all the available evidence, the government insists there is enough cash available to allow local authorities to pay for elderly care. Care Services Minister Paul Burstow says that the government is working on “cross-party agreement” on social care funding and shadow care minister Liz Kendall insists that Labour is “absolutely committed” to such cross-party agreement.

One can only wonder why the Labour Party believes it possible. Do its policy makers really think it can find common ground with a party that is utterly dedicated to reducing government funding and forcing all such expenditure back onto the individual?

If they do, they are even more naive than we believed was possible. Either that or the One Nation Labour mock-Toryism of the unlamented Blair interregnum has still got such a firm hold on Labour’s policy wonks that they can’t think past it.

It must be evident even to the meanest intellect that such a cross-party agreement can only come into being if Labour disavows any ambitions for equal access to care for rich and poor alike. The Tories certainly aren’t going to suddenly throw their arms wide and welcome the principle of care services free at the point of need. One has to admit, however, that such a policy has never really been widely enough adopted even within the Labour ranks. Means testing has always been an element of social policy in such cases. But the costs and inadequacies of means testing are well enough known to merit a thorough rethink.

Why, after all, have yet another system of clawing back cash from the better off when there’s a perfectly serviceable system of income taxation readily available?

But that brings into the discussion a sensible system of graduated taxation. And that, as we all know, has been something that a Labour Party dedicated to not fighting income inequality has backed away from like a dose of the Black Death, regarding it as a certain vote loser. Well, times are changing and working people simply can’t afford the private insurance against old age that is being mooted in some quarters. Besides which, we thought we had it already with the welfare state.

Campaigners dismissed the government’s feeble overhaul of social care funding unveiled today and demanded a NHS-style national care service. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley pledged in his social care white paper to introduce a national eligibility threshold by 2015 that will outline who can get access to care rather than it being set by an individual council.

He also announced plans to train more care workers with 50,000 apprenticeships created by 2015. The minister made no commitment to cap the amount people pay before the government steps in, although ministers have supported capping costs at £35,000.

Other plans include a deferred payment scheme where local authorities will cover costs of residential care up front to avoid people selling their homes to pay for care. Councils will be able to recover the costs of care from the sale of residents’ estates once they die and their homes are sold. Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham warned that councils are already suffering a funding shortfall and said the white paper was only “half a plan.” Instead the Care Minister says to frail elderly people: ‘You are on your own – use your savings, sell your house and get on with it.’

“We urgently need a national care service paid for by everyone so that we share the cost of care and ensure everyone gets the support they need in later life. For just 75p a day the average taxpayer could help fund a much-needed comprehensive, good-quality care system that treats older people with dignity.

Unison also backed calls for a social care service funded through general taxation.The union’s national officer Helga Pile said: “This white paper does not go far enough to protect the most vulnerable in our society and leaves too many unanswered questions about how the care funding gap will be filled.”The fairest way forward would be to fund social care through general taxation and provide a national care service free at the point of need. Doing so would address the issues of underfunding.”

 

 

 

 

 

More Cuts to Police Frontline Services

Cuts to police force:

More government cuts in our police force in West Midlands Region around 2,700 jobs including 1,100 officers post, to be cut by the force for the year 2015 to save the sum of £126 million. If this continues the force may lose a further sum of £100 million by 2028.  I feel for our police force provides an excellent job on the beat. For every cut that takes place they are on duty in many conditions which many would not do. For the coalition to cut the police budget is wrong. I note when there is a triple dip recession or flatling and high unemployment hate, and general crimes are increased.
The coalition should do more to ring-fence the police budget but they are on a course of cuts, cuts. People are fed up with the spin coming from the coalition it’s Labour fault and voters are saying on the doorsteps what is the coalition to address this as it happened on their watch. In light of the cuts to the police budget I can see the councils increasing council taxes to recuperating back into the budget which in effect means those who are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance housing, council tax benefits will get around 25% of their council tax which the claimant will have to pay the rest from their benefits.

To top it of unemployment has risen to 2,52 million ONS figures showed 15,000 more people were unemployed in the three months to the end of march with the unemployment rate now at 7.8%. The coalition says that jobs have been created in the private sector somehow I cannot see where in the private sector jobs are. Lets not forget to every jobs that allege is created there is roughly around 10 person in a 100 chasing the same job  depending what shorting listing the employers are applying to the criteria.

On the other hand cuts in the police force has some cases led to redundancies which means redundancy payment on top of their pension taking into account to the number of years service they have provided. “Across the country over 12,500 police officers and thousands more support staff are being lost and it is local communities that will pay the price. “The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary claim these cuts won’t affect the frontline. But they are completely out of touch. Neighbourhood policing, CID, domestic violence units, fraud, burglary and murder squads are all being affected already. Many forces are losing some of their most skilled and experienced crime fighters.

“Chief Constables are being put in an impossible position. They are rightly doing everything they can to deliver effective policing but the Government is pulling the rug out from underneath them with the scale and pace of these cuts. “The police can make efficiency savings, but their budget is being cut too far and too fast. And the steepest cuts are in the first few years so police forces don’t have time to plan and deliver sustainable change. Instead the frontline is being hit.

Instead the Coalition Government Home Secretary offers a very small dangling carrot to the police force, criminals who kill police officers in England and Wales will face compulsory whole life sentences, Home Secretary Theresa May announced.   “The Tory-led Government is taking too many risks with the fight against crime. The Home Secretary urgently needs change course, before it is too late.”

 

Return of Blue Labour

 

Return of Blue Labour:
Recent events at Progress Conference discussion of Blue Labour rare its head again intriguing to learn from the movers and shakers of Blue Labour yearning for a return of a Labour Govt, are they really in touch with the mood of the country comes to mind?.

Well it depends on the national swings at the time or nearer to the general elections. There are some in the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) would love to see the back of the Shadow Chancellor  Ed Balls as he has passed his sell by date. Little do they know that Ed Balls has much strength left in him to do the job as an incoming chancellor elect under a Labour Government?

 

Some will continue to say that he was Gordon Brown former advisor and he has served his time in govt, let someone else with new blood take the mantle. On a personal level I can see the backstabbers’ presences are increasing of lately. To sum it up in a nutshell to your face they say yes I will vote for you then behind your back they point the knife with another person to push the blade they call it politics or rather third world politics for you. Those who are close to Ed Miliband could be argued to be sympathetic to Blue Labour which may be good for a healthy debate but beware of Lord Glasman the second prince of darkness in waiting and is the replacement of Lord Peter Mandelson in my opinion.

Lord Glasman does seem to believe that immigration has been an important cause of the problems in UK. I don’t have a problem of discussing immigration in the positive context as I believe it can lead to a positive outcomes let’s not forget the vast diversity and multiculturalism it has brought to our beloved country as we need immigration to help boost our economy as it brings in investment and creates jobs. However there is a small down side to it a wealthily person can chose where they can live and gain a better prospect of employment whilst a poor person is restricted to where they live and in some cases employment prospect can be slim in some areas and may bring down wages if the person enter into this country with illegally which some recruiting companies depends on if it is not monitored properly. This coalition will have to do more to close the loopholes of the immigration laws introduced by previous and present governments.

 

It’s not surprising that people who have been waiting on the housing list are sick of other people jumping the queues as they see the alternative way is a protest vote for UKIP as they don’t know what Ed Miband let alone what David Cameron or Nick Clegg stands for as residence pointed out to me on the doorstep. Secondly a child does not have the choice of where they are educated until they reach the age of 18 years old. All of our party members need to be aware whether Blue Labour, New Generation, or One Nation will be in the right direction. We have a choice which one is best for the party or do we reclaim our party then decide which way where the party is heading. I know which one I will stick too. I acknowledge that Blue Labour has mostly academics but too male dominated as do many Think-tank’s. Do they really understand the issues really affecting social housing tenants with their social policy needs in poorer areas in some cases are intentionally being underdeveloped because of lack of truly affordable and rentable housing at the point of need?  Then there is the question how Labour will address sustainable economy and communities given it was the bankers who caused the global down turn throughout the world and the creation of employment. Will Black, Blue, Purple, New Generation or One Nation Labour continue to recognize the trade unions, socialist societies, cooperatives, Fabians, other affiliates and still have them on board our National Executive Committees (NEC).

Call me a sceptic I have a feeling that unless the infighting stops and let the members start to have a stake in Local Branches and Constituency Labour Party there are still some sitting Member Of Parliament, Councillors will be happy to see local branches and CLP don’t meet instead for our Labour MPs to call meetings bypassing our democratic process to hold them all to account does this have a familiar ring to all of us?.

One Nation Labour still needs more work to be done to convince voters that our party is listening to public concern and action their concerns. Let’s not forget the public perception sees all politicians are lining their pockets. Labour must start producing its manifesto ready for 2014 onwards for the electoral to decide if they want a return of a Labour Government or have a coalition. I’m on the strong opinion if Labour decides another brand name like Black, Purple, or Blue Labour will be apolitical disaster for us as we go door knocking and introducing our party as Blue Labour. Labour must continue to be in the centre ground if it wants to be in government as this a key point. 

What we must share in Labour is a belief that it is our party job to heed the warnings of the voters and help to realize it. The party is already making huge strides in that direction, in light of defeat of election.  Ed Miliband leadership, the Movement for Change, and the efforts to refunding Labour as a organizing movement are all manifestation of it. It would be fatal if we lost sight to internal argument about immigration policy. This is a Time Labour must come together under one umbrella and to decide its agenda which will speak for our nation in a way we have not seen for some time which celebrates a radical aspects of our party tradition.

Lastly if Labour is to gain the lead as a incoming government it must throw out its baggage as nothing is worse than seeing a lot of infighting amongst ministers and party activists. We all should continue to lead by example as this plays into the coalitions hands.

Iain Ducan Smith playing bully boys politics

When will the Secretary of State for Work and Pension Iain Duncan Smith start to smell the coffee and stop playing the bully boy politics?

It’s not surprising that there is a petition for his comments in regards that he could live on £7:00 per week and is having a nervous breakdown about mounting criticism on his welfare reform (universal credit).

Even the conservative think tank are urging him to make a u-turn and with the raft of the iron man approach about the cost and scale of the Multimillion welfare reform will fail and is linked to the Treasury.

It is implied that the Treasury have reservations and applying very cautious approach before sanction it nationwide which they have to process millions claims on a daily base. Lets visit the track record on introducing new IT systems the question is will it crash in some case computer systems do if you don’t back it up the consequences can be catastrophic which causes hardship to millions of people who has add-on affect millions of pounds to rectify.
I wonder why so many politicians trust consultancies in White Hall instead of doing their own research just look at the examples of NHS patient records system, regional control centers and passport office to name a few which all failed. In my opinion there is a concern for a potential large-scale fraud in the Treasury which is worrying in today’s world of cyber crimes.

How many self-employed workers really understands about the sweeping benefit claim changes as universal credit gather pace. People who are in business could lose their benefits if they do not inform the Inland Revenue of their income and profits as part of government led universal credit scheme. To get your universal credit one has to go online which will encompass your housing benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, working and child tax credits, employment and support allowances and income support which does not cater for Council Tax. You will have to make a separate application for Council Tax online which in my opinion is a fast as not everybody is computer literate as some fear new technology; others may have learning disabilities to name a couple of examples.

Whilst I don’t have a problem receiving benefits on a monthly basis but there are those who can’t budget properly and accustom to the old system by being paid fortnightly the question is will they be allowed time to adjust to the new system by introducing the American system into the UK?
This is not one offs just think if the Treasury can not get their own house in order how in hell can IDS lead by example.  To brand people who are on benefits as bums, scroungers and down and under and low life does not help by the press and social media. Lets not forget there are people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own and they have contributed by paying their taxes most of their working life now face the scrap heap because companies are not investing enough and businesses are closing down on a daily basis.

Granted there may be a few apples but like any system in place there will always be some are around but they are far few of them. Many have called on the government to invest in employment to stimulate the economy. The mantra of the day from the coalition seems to be we have invested new jobs in the private sectors.

Er hello where the jobs are our governments has invested in. Some of the job seekers have not been to university let alone left school with any form of qualifications on the one hand and the ones who have qualification and graduated from university still can not get the jobs which they trained for the coalition needs to be reminded. The other issue is there are not enough incentives to encourage the unemployed to take up not just training and getting a decent jobs which the Conservatives under Thatcher and Major which both created a culture of a life of benefits as manufacturing, and mining closed down.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith was caught fibbing yet again about the government’s vicious welfare policies today – this time by the official statistics watchdog.

Mr. Duncan Smith’s department claimed in April that the number of people set to be hit by his cap on benefits had fallen from 56,000 to 40,000, with 8,000 of those people finding work through jobcentres.  But the UK Statistics Agency said that the claim was “unsupported” by his own department’s numbers.

The benefit cap limits couples and single parents to £500 a week and single adults to £350, and covers the main out-of-work benefits, child benefit and child tax credit. The Tory minister used the dodgy statistics to claim the cap was “clearly having the desired impact.”

Intriguingly, the TUC trade union federation was skeptical, prompting an inquiry by the Statistics Agency. And in a letter to the TUC, agency chairman Andrew Dilnot spelled out just how wrong Mr. Duncan Smith had got it.

The claims were “unsupported by the official statistics published by the Department (of Work and Pensions) on April 15,” he wrote.

Mr. Dilnot criticised Mr. Duncan Smith’s department for not sticking to official rules on compiling statistics.

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady lashed out at the top Tory today following the revelations. “Only people with weak arguments need to make up statistics,” she said.

She demanded that Mr Duncan Smith apologise to the thousands of people who can’t find jobs. It is not the first time that the minister has been caught red-handed fiddling the figures.

In 2012, Mr Dilnot’s predecessor Michael Scholar took the Work and Pensions Secretary to task for “weaknesses” in the data used in a report on immigrants’ benefit claims.

And late last year Mr Duncan Smith was attacked for massively overstating the level of tax credit payouts under the former Labour government. He said payments had risen 58 per cent in the run-up to the 2005 election and by 20 per cent between  2008-10.

But HM Revenue and Customs confirmed that the actual figures were 8 per cent and 8.8 per cent respectively. Shadow work and pensions secretary Liam Byrne laid into the Works and Pension Minister Iain Ducan Smith.

“Iain Duncan Smith is living in la-la land. His ideas don’t work so he’s now literally making up stories.”

Oxfam policy chief Katherine Trebeck said: “The fact is that the vast majority of people who are out of work would jump at the chance to take a job that paid them a wage they can afford to live on.”

So lets not have lessons from the coalition of blaming Labour by saying they had 13 years to sort out the mess as their vinyl record must by now be very scratched and worn out. People want to know about their bread and butter issues.  I will go as far to say that some wants to taste the jam, marmalade or marmite instead the coalition would rather use scaremongering tactics and continue to use the big society as a smoke screen which will see public services go under and replaced by privatization which will include health and social services sooner or later. The next thing on the agenda will compulsory health insurance in a nutshell no health insurance, no treatment.

Can anybody remind me the stationary duty that the council has to ensure which is laid down in law for the councils to enact introduced by central government?

It’s about time the some people start to wake up and take action legally by voting in the coming years to chose who they want to lead this country and stop sitting on your hands. It’s no wonder why the coalition is allowed to get away with blue murder as no one party was allowed to form a government. Be warned this will happen again if voters chose not to vote in 2014-2015.

 

 

Local Government Cuts

 

My Thoughts On Local Government Cuts.

Sometime ago I mentioned in my previous article about local service cuts. Recently as yesterday I was speaking to a few people who had access to library computers and sports facilities now face a dilemma they found that their services had been cut.

They continue to argue that it’s the fault of the council that provide local services. What started out as a general discussion turned into a political debate which was interesting as they said that they never voted and now decided to vote at the next elections after I pointed out to them that it was central government that has cut the grants to local government and councils across the country have written and lobbied the government to no avail and the government continues to argue that they have no spare money.

Most of our elected representatives are there to serve the voters from which ever political parties that got them elected. Local Services have now being cut to the extent that some leisure centers such as education, swimming pools, gyms, day centers, care homes, hospitals, and museums had led to closures and now owed by private companies.

In the next 10 -15 years I’m almost convinced that we all will not recognize Local Government as it is at the current structure if the coalition continues with its current course. The hard facts are the coalition are not giving the incentives to Local Government to stimulate to building more new affordable rentable housing which I blame both our previous and present governments for their actions. Given that some council tenants who lives in tower blocks have been informed that their flats are facing demolition and councils have to be rehoused them to either one or two bedrooms or family homes.

There are not enough one bedroom accommodations some are moved into two bedroom accommodations which has add-on effect they have to pay the dreaded bedroom and council taxes. Some tower blocks which has been identified for demolition has a further added problems they are housing asylum seekers which contradicts the health and safety laws.

Instead of the Coalition cutting essential services in Local Government they should be working in partnership with councils and stop giving larger grants to their Conservatives and Libdems council chums. The grants should be shared out equally. Since the formation of the coalition there has been a cut in Police and Frontline Services, Benefits which the coalition has failed to address. Their solution to this is the big society which is ill thought out they should really reconsider a movement for change to generate well deserved grants to all essential services and stop playing political football.

No doubt there will be some who would continue to argue or play the blame games by saying that Labour had 13 years to sort this out. Well I could argue that Labour had to sort out 18 years of a Conservatives of under funding of public services, destruction of manufacturing industries and black hole that the Labour had to clear up the mess that they left behind. So I will not take any lessons from them.

Lets not forget Conservatives under John Major where more destruction came after Thatcher was forced out of office like The Conservative majority proved too small for effective control over his backbenchers, particularly after the United Kingdom’s forced exit from the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) on “Black Wednesday“, 16 September 1992, just five months into the new parliament, when billions of pounds were spent in a futile attempt to defend the currency’s value. After the release of Black Wednesday government documents,it became apparent that Major came very close to stepping down from office at this point, having even prepared an unsent letter of resignation addressed to the Queen.Major continued to defend Britain’s membership of the ERM, stating that “The ERM was the medicine to cure the ailment, but it was not the ailment”.

Major kept his economic team unchanged for seven months after Black Wednesday before he replaced Norman Lamont with Kenneth Clarke as Chancellor of the Exchequer, after months of press criticism of Lamont and disastrous defeat at a by-election in Newbury. Such a delay, on top of the crisis, was exploited by Major’s critics as proof of the indecisiveness that was to undermine his authority through the rest of his premiership. Britain’s departure from the ERM led to a fall in the opinion poll ratings for the Conservative Party,which despite the improvement in the economic position, did not fully recover whilst John Major was Prime Minister.

Within a year of Major’s general election win, general public and media opinion of him had plummeted, with Black Wednesday, mine closures, the Maastricht dispute and mass unemployment being cited as four key areas of dissatisfaction with the prime minister. The newspapers which traditionally supported the Conservatives and had championed Major at the election were now being critical of him on an almost daily basis.

The UK’s forced withdrawal from the ERM was succeeded by a partial economic recovery with a new policy of flexible exchange rates, allowing lower interest rates and devaluation – increased demand for UK goods in export markets. The recession that had started just before Major came to office was declared over in April 1993, when the economy grew by 0.2%. Unemployment started to fall; by the start of 1993 it had reached almost 3,000,000, but by early 1997 it stood at 1,700,000

On becoming Prime Minister Major had promised to keep Britain “at the very heart of Europe”, and claimed to have won “game, set and match for Britain” – by negotiating the social chapter and single currency opt-outs from the Maastricht Treaty, and by ensuring that there was no overt mention of a “Federal” Europe and that foreign and defence policy were kept as matters of inter-governmental cooperation, in separate “pillars” from the supranational European Union. By 2010 some of these concessions, but not Britain’s non-membership of the Single Currency, had been overtaken by subsequent events.

However, even these moves towards greater European integration met with vehement opposition from the Eurosceptic wing of the party and the Cabinet as the Government attempted to ratify the Maastricht Treaty in the first half of 1993. Although the Labour opposition supported the treaty, they were prepared to tactically oppose certain provisions in order to weaken the government. This opposition included passing an amendment that required a vote on the social chapter aspects of the treaty before it could be ratified. Several Conservative MPs, known as the Maastricht Rebels, voted against the treaty, and the Government was defeated. Major called another vote on the following day, 23 July 1993, which he declared a vote of confidence. He won by 40 votes, but the damage had been done to his authority in parliament.