Satire: Who are kidding conservatives


Hey folks have a listen to this, this will want you to join the Junior Doctors Strike:

 

Recently the establishment decided to curb charity organisations from using funds they received in the form of grants whilst I have always highlighted this in the public domain and I agree with the sentiment somehow I can’t help but feel this government has a hidden agenda. Ah do I hear people saying. Yes you are reading correct the establishment has got it partly right they do need to close the loopholes from some charities abusing their funding. How do you distinguish which is private funds from private organisations that is the question.

The Tories are using the Trade Union Bill to try and break our relationship. Hidden in the Trade Union Bill is a clause that is deliberately designed to restrict trade unions supporting the Labour Party financially – while doing nothing to limit the hedge funds and millionaires that support the Tories.

The union activists who set up the Labour Party all those years ago did so to ensure working people had a voice in Parliament. The Tories are trying to silence that voice. The Bill is not just an attack on the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party, but it’s an attack on our democracy.

Just like those activists in 1901, we have to pull together as working people to protect our voice in politics. That’s why we’re asking if you could take two minutes to sign and share the petition against the Bill –

http://action.unionstogether.org.uk/democracy

Well it’s not surprising from this government that they want to curb trade union funds which has been on the cards for a long time coming. Even during the Thatcher years there were talks of this happening ever since the miners’ strike which was but on the back burner then it came back to life again from 2010-16 under the Conservative coalition and a Conservative Government does this have a familiar echo within the trade union movement.

Now the establishment wants to subsidised rents for households earning more than £30,000, or £40,000 in London, will be scrapped in April 2017.

Social housing tenants will be asked to pay rent at or near market rates.

Ministers say it “better reflects people’s ability to pay” – but Labour and the Local Government Association say it would hit hard-working families.

The department for communities and local government argues that is “not fair that hard-working people are subsidising the lifestyles of those on higher than average incomes, to the tune of £3,500 per year”.

Housing Minister Brandon Lewis said people who could afford to pay more in rent “should do so” – but it would be graded, so that those on lower incomes would not have to pay full market rates.

“We have always said we would consider carefully how much more people pay as they move through the pay scales, once they get over £30,000,” he told BBC Radio 5 live’s Pienaar’s Politics.

He said the government would “listen to what comes in before we make a final decision in the period ahead of us”.

According to the LGA-commissioned study, almost 60,000 households in England will not be able to afford to pay rents at the market rate or take advantage of the right to buy.

Councillor Peter Box, housing spokesman at the LGA, which represents hundreds of local councils in England, said: “Many social housing tenants across the country will be unable to afford market rents or take up the offer to buy their council home under this policy.

“A couple with three children, earning £15,000 each a year, cannot be defined as high income. Pay to stay needs to be voluntary for councils – as it will be for housing associations.

“This flexibility is essential to allow us to protect social housing tenants and avoid the unintended consequence of hard-working families being penalised, people being disincentivised to work and earn more and key workers, such as nurses, teachers or social workers, having to move out of their local area.”

The LGA figures, compiled by the estate agent Savills, show that almost 215,000 social housing tenants will be affected by the “pay to stay” policy.

The policy is expected to save £245m a year by 2019-20, ending a situation where higher-income social tenants benefit from taxpayer-funded subsidies of up to £3,500 per year.

Former head of the civil service, Lord Kerslake, now a crossbench peer, will attempt to amend the housing bill, which is being scrutinised next week in the House of Lords, to place the scheme at the discretion of local authorities.

The peer, who is now chairman of the Peabody Trust housing association, has warned that the proposals were part of a package that could “threaten the future of social housing”.

“When this was originally discussed in the coalition government, it was intended to deal with the very small number of high earners on over £60,000.

“The current proposals will affect a lot more households with earnings of half that.”

Well it likes the Tories out to get David Cameron between the legs and it seems that Tory MP David Davis said news of the proposed in-work benefits ban could encourage workers to head to the UK.

Sir Eric Pickles, a Eurosceptic who supports Mr Cameron’s reform proposals, said action had to be taken to prevent a “new influx” of migrants.

The ban has to be agreed by all EU nations at a summit on 18 February.

It will be graduated, so that the longer migrant workers stay in the UK, the more in-work benefits, such as tax credits, they will be entitled to, in order to top-up their wages. Mr Cameron says the move will “make a difference” to high levels of immigration by reducing a “pull factor”.

But it will have to be agreed by member states, as part of a wider package of reforms to Britain’s relationship with the EU, and will only apply for a temporary period as an “emergency brake”.

If Mr Cameron can get a deal on his reform package in two weeks’ time at the Brussels summit he is expected to call a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in June.

David Davis, a former Tory leadership contender and leading Eurosceptic, said eastern European newspapers had carried numerous stories about the plan to terminate in-work benefits for the first four years after a migrant’s arrival in the UK.

At the same time, he said, Brussels has suggested the scheme could take 12 months to implement.

“Under such circumstances the incentive for anybody wishing to come to live in the UK will be to come as quickly as possible to beat the deadline when any such restrictions come into effect,” he said.

“Accordingly we are likely to see a surge in migrants in the next 12 months.”

Mr Cameron has suggested the “emergency brake” could come into effect within three months of the UK applying for it.

Eric Pickles defended Mr Cameron’s reform deal, on the BBC’s Sunday Politics, saying: “What we need to be clear is, we’re not trying to prevent people moving inside the European Union.”

The reforms were instead aimed at preventing people gaining “something for nothing” by claiming UK benefits before contributing anything in tax.

But  Sir Eric. a Conservative former cabinet minister, said action was needed to prevent a surge of migrants: “Clearly as part of the negotiations we have to ensure that that doesn’t happen.” Meanwhile, speculation is continuing about whether a big cabinet name will lead the campaign to take Britain out of the EU. Other potential Tory “outers” include Justice Secretary Michael Gove and Employment Minister Priti Patel, who have said they will make their position clear when they have seen the final deal.

The hot potato of the day was on Sunday 7 February 2016 on the BBC Andrew Marr Show I did not know whether to laugh, cry or bang my head on the wall like many of the junior doctors when Jeremy Hunt quote that the British Medical Association(BMA) of being “totally irresponsible” over a lengthy industrial dispute. The doctors union had refused to sit down and talk about improving patient care and had spread “misinformation”.

Okay now that I’ve got this out of the way, I say what a load of poppycock or what a load of pile of manure coming out of his mouth. No doubt he is promoting a great message by using spin doctoring to put patents lives at risk and he think we were all born yesterday thinking we all will believe him when he says that hospitals should be open 24/7. Er we all know that hospitals are open seven days a week all year round. Don’t be taken in by this spin doctoring by Jeremy Hunt.

Well Jeremy Hunt to put it in a nutshell it’s okay to put health workers lives in danger by this he pointed the finger at the BMA for the breakdown in negotiations, sticking to the mantra of blaming patient deaths on NHS “inefficiencies,” rather than on the cuts and the need for more doctors and NHS staff — but at the same time he announced some shiny new baubles.

Hunt has continually misrepresented independent studies to claim that the 11,000 extra deaths per year over weekends compared to weekdays is as a result of a “five-day” service and the existence of “excessive overtime rates.”

On the Andrew Marr show he managed to twice misquote the contents of the report while trying to claim he hadn’t been misrepresenting it.

“If the government want more seven-day services then, quite simply, they need more doctors, nurses and diagnostic staff, and the extra investment needed to deliver it,” the BMA retorted correctly.

“Rather than addressing these issues, Jeremy Hunt is instead ploughing ahead with proposals that are unfair and could see many junior doctors voting with their feet.”

The cornerstone of his new strategy appears to be the announcement of a fresh round of investment into upgrading and “modernising” the NHS’s IT infrastructure.

Workers are well inoculated to “modernisation” programmes being used as cover for a fresh round of public money being forked over to the usual rogues’ gallery of privateers — an alarming number of which have former government ministers on their boards.

But the potential for abuse and massive waste of expenditure without any substantial improvements is rife, particularly if it’s left to the usual PFI which was introduce by the Conservatives in 1992 under John Major  or PF2 as the government has now rebranded them contractors to deliver.

When the Labour Government came to power in 1997 it continued with the Tory’s PFI project NHS programme for IT provides a stark example. It took nearly seven years to complete at a cost of an estimated £10 billion most of which was pocketed by IT companies and PFI specialists before finally being abandoned.

But the Tories themselves already have form in this particular area. Under the coalition government, they attempted to introduce their own version of the NHS programme for IT in 2013.

The then health secretary claimed that the goal was to “go paperless across the NHS by 2018.”
The first element of this, the care.data project which aimed at creating a national database of health records that could be shared across the NHS in England, was quietly dropped in the run-up to the last general election after two years of failing to address critical concerns of campaigners and health professionals.

It was their steadfast refusal to drop the selling of this information on to the private sector that killed off this potentially life-saving project.

Lest we forget, the then health secretary in 2013 is the same as the current one — Jeremy Hunt.

But perhaps poor old Jeremy is suffering from a dose of selective amnesia due to the strain he’s been put under over the last few months and forgotten this.

Selected patient information is already made available to certain private medical research companies through the Health and Social Care Information Centre by many NHS trusts, raising questions about data security.

Aggregating of information and data mining have become a booming international market worth billions. And these are far from shadowy companies operating on the fringes of legality. One of the most notorious British-based data miners, Dunnhumby, is owned by Tesco.

The Tories’ unswerving commitment to the neoliberal mantra of “private good, public bad” will ensure that this latest programme is doomed before it begins.

Now that I have got all this my chest i urge all to join the Junior Doctors strike on 10 Feb 2016.

 

 

 

Satire: David Scameron failures


Here is for all to see on youtube and it’s time to make up your own mind over EU referendum:

 

 

Hate to say this but David Cameron makes Faulty Towers looks like a saint and you know what the actor who plays Manuel is a dead giveaway at least you know where he is coming from. As for David Cameron he is the sort of person who has no idea of European Union compare to let’s just say Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown stood his grounds and set out the criteria for a Five Economic Test.

There is a saying a promise is a comfort to a fool. Well Hameron has hoodwinked you again by claiming that he has achieved what was in the conservative manifesto but in truth he got bugger all from his trip to the European Union.  It’s no wonder he is living in the never, never land which Jeremy Corbyn put it so eloquently.

To top it off the Eurosceptic in the Conservatives are all lining up to put the knife into David Cameron which they hope will bring down their dear leader in a untenable position where a leadership challenge will take place. David Cameron faced a barrage of attacks in Parliament over his EU deal.

Nothing odd about that except a big chunk of it came from behind his back.  At least 23 Tory MPs who undermined their Prime Minister’s prize renegotiation in just two hours as part of a full-blooded assault.

Many even wore the garish yellow and black ties of the “Go” campaign to get Britain out of the EU.

What a lark, Hameron and Tusk (European Council President) continues with further talks on EU Reform. I’m sure certain that it will amount to anything if it needs other leaders to back the UK proposal at the summer later this month. This has only come about because Cameron wants to save face.

Why am I not surprised that Scameron fellow EU leaders are not happy with his reform proposals as they stand. Be warned beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

He may get egg in his face after two weeks of difficult negotiations to get all member states to support the deal, I kid you not.

I’m sure that UKIP will take comfort to rub Cameron nose by saying we told you, you not got a dickey-bird and it been a load of cobs wallop of a journey coming out of your gob it’s been nothing more than a waste of your time by going to EU to get a sweetheart deal.

Here are the list of the 23 Conservative rebel MPs:

Sir William Cash

Liam Fox

John Redwood

Peter Lilley

Philip Davies

Sir Edward Leigh

Michael Fabricant

Sir Gerald Howarth

Bernard Jenkin

Steve Baker

Anne Main

Christopher Chope

Jacob Rees-Mogg

John Baron

Peter Bone

Tom Pursglove

David Nuttall

Sarah Wollaston

Richard Drax

Chris Philp

Andrew Brigden

Craig Mackinlay

Martin Vickers

It further transpired that Theresa May has admitted fearing she had created a monster by setting up Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales.

The number of incidents had given PCC a bad name.
She also revealed she was planning to expand the powers of PCC after their elections in May. This includes those setting free schools for troubled children.

Well hell yes I have like many others have said the position created by the former Conservatives and Libdems was not value for money.

How many rivers does NHS have to cross before finding out that the Department of Health is to introduce further cuts jobs to reduce running cost.

Non-senior staff numbers will fall from 1,800 to 1,200 – 1,300 by April 2017 and three London offices will move to a single site in Westminister.

Most Whitehall budgets were cut in last November’s spending review and the DoH is trying to make efficiency savings of 30% in the next five years.

The chancellor announced a cut in the budget of DoH although NHS spending was protected. Well not only is this very fishy George Osborne has not said which non-senior staff he is referring to like care staff or cleaners.

It’s been alleged Senior Conservatives are opposed to provisions contained in the government’s Trade Union Bill which could slash funding to Labour Party.

If there is one good thing that has come out of this is a conference to raise funds from world leaders to make a pledge to help Syrians affected by the five year conflict. As much as I concur that funds are needed in Syria hor humanitarian grounds somehow deep down my heart I feel that some of those so called leaders who pledge to give money will not deliver as some of those leaders believes just by saying that they will make a pledge that will sufficient enough. Yet there is another side of me there is a feeling deep down in me says this play into the likes of the far-right groups which includes UKIP.

They will rightly or wrongly say that we should be looking after our own before giving aid to other countries. Well I’ve got news for the far-right groups and UKIP the amount that UK gives in foreign aid is small and every penny UK gives is worthwhile cause and helps improves the quality of life for others.

Well I have to take a look my crystal ball in front of me now. Oh here it comes it is estimated that 14,000 disabled people who rely on a specialist motoring allowance have their cars taken away from them following government welfare changes and the establishment says the new process is fairer and people can appeal. What a load of manure pile coming from the Conservative government.

The reality is they would be more happy to see that their fatcats are filling their party coffers when they say jump and they are happy to accommodate by saying how high master.

Government contractors Capita and Atos apologised over bungled disability tests.

Grovelling bosses from the heavily-criticised outsourcing giants were hauled before MPs to explain missed targets for carrying out vital assessments. The apologies were forced out as bosses were grilled by the Commons Public Accounts Committee.

Confronting the firms with missed targets and complaints over quality, Tory MP Nigel Mills said: “I thought you might be a little apologetic.

Capita divisional managing director Chris Stroud said: “Let me apologise and acknowledge that our quality has not been acceptable, and there’s no shying away from that.”

Atos David Haley admitted: “Any failure of a quality target is unacceptable and we wouldn’t be happy with that.

“We always stay very focused on making sure that we hit and exceed the service level targets.”

A recent report by Whitehall’s spending watchdog found that Maxius was worse than its predecessor.

One in 10 assessments was not up to scratch more than twice as bad as Atos according to the National Audit Office. The company is being paid £595 million over three years to carry out work capability assessments for people applying for employment and support allowance.

Now this gets very intriguingly for the Conservatives it’s been widely alleged that Iain Duncan Smith has paid consultants £200,000 to draw up secret plans for the possible privatisation of a key welfare service.

The Work and Pensions Secretary hired the advisers to look at putting the Access to Work scheme up for tender.

The Access to Work programme employs more than 600 people and is responsible for helping the disabled and long-term sick find a job.

It is alleged that memo has confirmed any privatisation could be seen to weaken the service and advises ministers not to make a public announcement about the plans.

“This is a sensitive piece of work in which stakeholders may have concerns that this represents a dilution of Government support for disability employment.”

“We recommend that DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) do not make a separate public announcement about the feasibility study at this stage,” the memo says.

It goes on to say that the work by the consultants should not be “widely promoted”.

The document says consultants should look at keeping Access to Work within the department, hiving it off to a charity or not-for-profit organisation or putting it up for tender.

But it adds: “We are open to looking at delivery options both inside and outside of Government, particularly where the latter have the additional capability of raising additional external funds.

“Our primary business objective is to increase customer reach whilst remaining a demand-led scheme, at no additional cost above Government forecast expenditure.”

The unions accused Mr Duncan Smith of trying to “fatten up” the service in preparation for privatisation.

How many times have we all read or heard this excuse A DWP spokeswoman said: “Thousands of people have already benefited from the support of the Access to Work scheme, and we want even more to do so.

“As part of this we are exploring whether there is an opportunity to work with organisations such as charities, but no decisions have yet been made.”

Noticed of lately how under hand the whole electoral register process has changed and people are missing from the register and the imposed boundary changes to give them the edge to win the next general elections in 2020.

This sums up the some of Scameron failures in a nutshell and he and others in the Conservatives still believes in their great leader legacies in the name of Thatcherism

 

 

Staire: What is it like to be a Conservative


Here is that we all should be reminded by this about this establishment why we should vote them out:

 

The arrogance of this establishment grows by the day. Welcome to the capitalist party of Tories they would rather trade damn right insults towards refugees and immigrants which plays into the hands of the Far-right elements of EDL, BritainFirst, LionheartGB, Pegida and UKIP oh what hypocrites David Cameron has become since being leader of the nasty party. Well done.

Cameron speaks his entourage pushes further; the media responds; and on the streets, the abuse and attacks kick off. Sadly, Cameron and the Tories seem to believe that the answer to a broken nation is to break it some more. During the last election David Cameron made great headway with his slogan about Labour and the SNP wanting to “break up Britain”. It’s been a theme with him. As leader of the opposition, David Cameron declared Britain is broken under Labour and claims that he will fix it.

It’s ironic, then, that few people in the past decade have done more to break apart the bonds that hold Britain together than the Tory party leader.  Responding at Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions on 27 Jan 2016 to Jeremy Corbyn’s visit to the refugee camp at Calais last weekend, Cameron joked: they met with a bunch of migrants in Calais. They say that they all can come to Britain.

Fancy this a Conservative Peer says that he could not live a £300:00 day for attending the House of the Lords. A millionaire peer appointed by David Cameron is describing the £300 daily allowance as “inadequate”.

Lord Farmer, a hedge-fund boss and Conservative donor said people would consider the current payment to be “modest and even inadequate” if they knew how hard peers worked.

And he argued that peers deserved higher pay because attending the House of Lords “restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere”.

Lord Farmer – who is also a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party with a reported personal fortune of £150 million – said he, personally, did not claim the £300 allowance when he attends debates, “because I do not need to”.

But he added: “Some depend on the daily allowance to make ends meet because they give so much of their time.

“If this were made clear to the public, who, of course, pay garage and plumbers’ bills per hour, or per day, they might think the daily fee is in fact rather modest, and even inadequate, particularly if they understood there are many peers whose work here restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere.”

The 71-year-old peer, who is reported to have donated £6.5 million to the Conservatives, also backed calls for a beefed-up Lords press office, to trumpet the chamber’s successes.

He said: “Crucially, however, if their [peers] contribution is to be considered worthy of public funding, the public need to value and understand the work we do.

“There is so much to shout about every day that would actually encourage all who pay taxes, whether individuals, or businesses, that they are in fact getting great value for money.

“We might even see public support for higher daily allowances, which I would endorse wholeheartedly.”

In another development the establishment lost their defence on two cases of bedroom tax the Government loses Court of Appeal cases followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.

The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a “spare” room.

Ministers have said they will appeal.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.

The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would “look very carefully” at the judgement. “But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don’t subsidise them in the private sector.”

One of the cases – brought by a woman identified as “A” – concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.

The second case – brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren – focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.

There are believed to be about 300 such victims of domestic violence and thousands of severely disabled children in this situation.

The Court of Appeal ruling comes after a judicial review brought by the Rutherfords was dismissed in the High Court in 2014.

Housing benefit changes – dubbed the “bedroom tax” by Labour – were introduced in April 2013. Since then families claiming housing benefits have been assessed for the number of bedrooms they actually need.

Families deemed by their local authorities to have too much living space have received reduced benefits, with payments being cut by 14% if they have one spare bedroom.

Both “A” and the Rutherfords claimed that the policy change discriminated against them unlawfully.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Vos ruled in their favour, saying the “admitted discrimination” in each case “has not been justified by the Secretary of State”.

Mr Rutherford said he was “absolutely delighted” with the ruling, adding: “I couldn’t have had a better start to the day.”

“It was so unfair that somebody had to do something to get the law changed.”

As if this is not bad enough David Cameron dear Buddy Rupert Murdoch has publicly attacked the conservative leader over Google. Remember he was the same person who spat out Tony Blair to the pack of wolves when he no longer wanted Labour in power now he is doing the same to David Cameron as a warning shot Rupert Murdoch is having a laugh at David Cameron expense by accusing the “posh boys in Downing Street” of being too easily awed by Google as the government came under fire over its £130m tax deal with the technology giant.

Murdoch, the multibillionaire executive chairman of News Corp who ultimately controls the Times and the Sun newspapers, sent a series of tweets on Wednesday suggesting Downing Street was too close to Google and accusing the company of “paying token amounts for PR purposes”.

He made the pronouncements after facing accusations over phone hacking scandal that he and his executives were too close to senior politicians in the UK and had too much lobbying power. Murdoch’s company tax affairs have also come under scrutiny in Austria.

How many of us remember Student Grants or student maintains grants defeat and conservatives jumps up and down for joy. Grants designed to support students from the poorest backgrounds through university will be abolished today, but if you plan to tune in to BBC Parliament to watch a fiery political exchange you’ll be sorely disappointed. There will be no Commons debate, no Commons vote and no sign of the mass demonstrations that shook the government that chose to treble university tuition fees five years ago.

Down the corridor and up the stairs, the Third Delegated Legislation Committee will meet in committee room nine. A small group of MPs will gather to consider the innocently titled ‘Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951)’. The numbers will be stacked in the Tories’ favour and even if the committee did want to quash the proposals, they will have no power to do so.

No doubt clever government whips hoped that using an obscure parliamentary process would minimise the political damage to the Tories’ reputation, but it is scandalous that such a major decision is being taken in this way.

The poorest students will be hit hardest. Currently, eligible students can receive a non-repayable grant of up to £3,387. This money helps with essential costs like rent, foods, bills and study materials. These grants were won as part of a hard-fought deal by previous generations of student leaders and parliamentarians who convinced successive governments that, if they were going to ask graduates to pay more for their university degree, it was only fair to help those from the poorest backgrounds to meet the costs of studying with a grant. When the Coalition government trebled university tuition fees to £9,000, students were told that the increase in maintenance grants for students ‘should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately’. Thanks to David Cameron, George Osborne and Tory MPs meeting in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee today, the poorest students will now be saddled with the highest debts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the poorest 40% of students in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 for a three year course, rather than £40,500 at present. Worryingly, another study from the IFS found that a £1,000 increase in grants created a 3.95% increase in university participation, so there are serious questions for the government to answer about the impact that abolishing grants could have on fair access to higher education.

Because the government is ducking the usual parliamentary scrutiny, MPs from all parties will not have the chance to ask ministers difficult and important questions. There has been no proper consultation with those affected and there was no mention of this major policy change in the Conservative Party manifesto.

The government’s behaviour is underhand and undemocratic. The poorest students will lose out as a result, making the policy unfair. Students, and the general public, should not stand for it.

Don’t be hoodwinked by Jeremy hunt and company he is not telling us the full story about our NHS. The Conservatives have allegedly blocked legal documents that may show the impact of a controversial ‘free trade’ agreement on the NHS.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, known as TTIP, is a US-EU trade deal currently under negotiation, and are avidly supported by the likes of the establishment and Obama. The blocked legal documents, campaigners have cautioned, may contain the extent to which, under TTIP, private NHS contractors could sue the government for introducing policies that negatively impact their profits.

The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is the most controversial element of TTIP. It allows corporations to sue governments or public bodies before an arbitral tribunal, for policies that are perceived as harmful to their profits. An ‘arbitral tribunal’ is an international hearing, out of the courts and behind closed doors, which decides how much money these companies should get.

The supposed motive is to encourage foreign investment, despite there being no empirical evidence for this (There is no ISDS in any trade agreements Brazil has, or between the US and China). ISDS is exclusively to foreign investment; US companies gain the right to these international arbitration tribunals, but EU companies must stick to national courts. Thus, ISDS can discriminate in favour of US companies.

Cameron has been in charge of the country for six years. If he hasn’t got it sorted by now, he never will!! It’s not rocket science, The clown is a waste of space and one of the big question is will we all see the return of legal aid which is a hot potato as it is alleged that conservatives about to do a uturn. Justices secretary Michael Gove is to ditch plans to completely overhaul legal aid, reversing yet another policy by his controversial predecessor Chris Grayling.

The minister repealed pledges to create a ‘two-tier’ contract system for cases affecting criminal legal aid in a move described by one journalist as “another humiliation” for Grayling. Legal aid is government money that helps pay for legal advice or representation for those accused of crime.

The coalition government approved plans for a drastic reduction – from 1,600 to 527 – in the number of legal aid contracts for duty solicitors attending magistrates’ courts and providing round-the-clock cover at police stations. Solicitor firms wiped from the duty-cover phonebooks would have been forced to rely only on clients who referred themselves to their practices.

Changes to legal aid under Grayling enraged lawyers, who argued the cuts would limit poorer peoples’ access to justice.

But in a written statement published on Thursday afternoon, Gove said he was scrapping the planned contracts cull.

“I have decided not to go ahead with the introduction of the dual contracting system,” he said.

Gove, who took over the justice brief from Grayling after the election in May last year, also declared he would suspend the second-half of a 17.5% fee cut for those providing legal aid at state expense.

“I have also decided to suspend, for a period of 12 months from 1 April 2016, the second fee cut which was introduced in July last year,” he added.

Explaining the move, Gove wrote: “By not pressing ahead with dual contracting, and suspending the fee cut, at this stage we will, I hope, make it easier in all circumstances for litigators to instruct the best advocates, enhancing the quality of representation in our courts…

“Thanks to economies I have made elsewhere in my department, HM Treasury have given me a settlement which allows me greater flexibility in the allocation of funds for legal aid.”

It signals the fifth serious reversal of Grayling policies by Gove, following the lift of a ban on friends and family sending books to prisoners, dplans for a £100 million youth ‘mega prison being axed, a U-turn on Saudi prison contracts and criminal court charges being scrapped.

This is what happens when ‘cost-saving’ measures are taken – the impacts of ‘efficiency’ in one area often results in another area picking up those costs. So while the police budget may be more protected, it doesn’t mean that austerity for the rest of services doesn’t result in more stress for the police. UK police are spending as much as 40% of their time dealing with incidents triggered by some kind of mental health issue, against a backdrop of severe cuts in social and health services, the Guardian has learned. Research by the Guardian shows that the overall number of incidents recorded in police logs as being related to mental health rose by a third between 2011 and 2014, a trend that looks set to continue.

It comes after warnings that a perfect storm is gathering over already overstretched police forces as they try to cope with the knock-on effects of cuts to mental health services.

Figures for mental health “qualifiers” – identifiers used by the police to mark incidents in which mental health has been a factor – were obtained for the period from 2011 onwards under the Freedom of Information Act. A total of 35 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland provided complete and consistent data.

The research found that the overall number of incidents with a mental health aspect rose by 33% between 2011 and 2014, the last full year for which data is available. This was despite the overall number of incidents recorded by the police forces falling by 10% in the same period.

The College of Policing estimates 20-40% of police time and vast amounts of money are taken up dealing with incidents involving people with mental health problems. Metropolitan police officers have estimated in the past that mental health issues account for at least 20% of police time.

Joanne McCartney, chair of the London assembly’s police and crime committee, said local authorities and health services had less capacity and staff to deal with mental health issues as they came under pressure from cuts.

“As a measure of last resort the police are going to have to be the ones to respond to incidents,” said McCartney. “They will do their best and do now have training in how to deal with vulnerable people, but they are not best placed to do that. They are not mental health professionals.

Compared with other forces, South Wales and North Wales police recorded particularly large jumps between 2011 and 2014 in the proportion of incidents related to mental health.

Pressures are also particularly high in Suffolk, where police spent a month last year analysing how much police time was spent on responding to mental health incidents. The results were stark: in one month 37% of officers’ time was devoted to dealing with incidents involving some mental health aspect.

“I wasn’t surprised when we saw how high that figure was,” said Ch Supt David Skevington of Suffolk police. “We knew the profile of mental health was being raised significantly through the number of operational incidents we were dealing with where people were suffering from mental health issues, whether it is people suffering from alcohol or substance abuse, or people just struggling in life.

“It could be an angry man who is smashing a place up; it could be concerns for someone wandering around the streets or someone at the top of a multi-storey car park. Mental Health is a key part of policing and we needed to do more to better equip our police officers. We have to look at these people being at a point of crisis in their lives, not being criminals.”

It now transpired that fifty Tory Member of Parliament lining up to defying Scameron over town hall budgets Tory cuts mean that the poorest local councils face cuts 18 times higher than the country’s richest, new analysis.

In an analysis undertaken by the Labour party and seen by the Independent, figures show that between the years 2010 and 2015, when the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government were in power, funding for the 10 most deprived local councils have fallen on average by £681.04 per household.

Of the 10 wealthiest councils in the UK, four saw an increase in their funding, while nine of the most deprived saw cuts of more than £520 per household.

The government looks at several factors such as crime, health, education, living conditions and unemployment, when monitoring whether an area or council is deprived.

Blackpool

Knowsley

Kingston upon Hull

Liverpool

Manchester

Middlesbrough

Birmingham

Nottingham 

On the 5 May 2016 well be various elections for Local Government, Police Crime Commissioner, and London Mayoral Elections I would urge all to use all your votes for Labour party Candidates.

Is Labour on its way to win or lose the next elections


After doing some serious reflecting on the some of the causes of why Labour lost both 2010 and 2015 I feel that this youtube gives a brief idea some may feel differently. If you listen to it to some it will make sense and to others it may not:   

 

Well folks it been reported in the Guardian, and other newspapers that Labour will face setbacks this coming May Local Elections. There is a saying if you keep on reading the negatives then you begin to be convinced if it continues to be reported. Our task should Labour activists and supporters take on this mission is to prove the press wrong this is a challenge to the Labour Party to get the votes out. See evidence enclosed:

http://labourlist.org/2016/01/read-labours-official-report-into-why-the-2015-election-was-lost/

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/14/beckett-report-labour-lost-2015-election-economy-immigrants-benefits

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/22/labour-warned-to-expect-losses-in-may-local-elections?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

There is some truth in that Labour Party took Blame and Chinese votes for granted which was published in the Guardian and other newspaper see articles below:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/24/one-million-minority-ethnic-votes-helped-tories-no-10

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/21590ede-c122-11e5-846f-79b0e3d20eaf.html#axzz3yFrLJUY7

http://survation.com/the-conservatives-took-a-third-33-of-ethnic-minority-votes-in-the-general-election-equating-to-1-million-votes/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-35390854

http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/ethnic-minority-votes-up-for-grabs/

For Labour to regain the trust of Black and Ethnic minority votes it will have to show that Labour is a government in waiting to energize our core voters and beyond to reclaim victory this I kid you not.

Winning in Labour safe seats is one thing but to take seats in marginal areas off the Tory, Libdems, Greens, SNP and other nationalist parties is a bonus this includes London Mayoral, and Police Crime Commissioners elections this I kid you not.

Most of all the Tories relay on the press to be bias towards Labour to help them to win. Remember the Conservatives nationally only won a majority of 12 seats to form a government.

If you have been following my blog for some time I’ve always said that polls goes up and down and the pollsters are paid to do a job and they got it wrong. This example reminded me of the Labour years in government the pollsters predicted that labour will lose the elections only for Labour to prove them wrong. No doubt if pundits put a wager on the results they may end up watching their money growing wings all the way to the betting shop bank account.

This is not about having a go at any individual Member of Parliament or activist. It’s the way how our voters see the infighting amongst ourselves on social media and putting our dirty laundry outside the public domain which feeds into the press and the so called insider who may think that they are doing the party a service is actual fact is damaging the party over a few pieces of silver.

Whilst many in Labour Party are having internal debate inwards we must be able to show that Labour can debate outwards to win public support to vote Labour. Let’s not forget that Labour has lost general elections already in 2010 and 2015.

There is a strong argument if we are not careful the party will face another defeat in 2020 which will make it two terms in a row that is put forward from the press. Like it or lump it it’s been alleged that 13,000 members have left the party for one reason or another if the truth is to be known the reasoning is not all that clear. It is those that have left the party that we need to convince to return to the party and encourage them to use their influence to help shape our policies both with old and new to help win elections by encouraging young members involvement in the policy development.

Some in the party will argue that Corbyn is the ultimate professional politician having spent 8 years as a paid Trade Union employee and 33 years as a paid MP from the ingrown Islington set who were the foundation of the Looney Left who destroyed Labour in the 80’s.

It’s been alleged that Corbyn has not left this Party stronger but very much weaker than before he became leader.  He is following the path that Foot trod as leader in 1980 and that will lead to the same results. In many ways he is living in the shadow of Foot, because he does not have the intellect or the formidable oratory of that wonderful man. The 1983 manifesto advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament, higher personal taxation, interventionist policies (nationalisation), Out of the EU, Nationalisation of banks, and a great deal more far left socialist policies leaving Labour isolated from the middle ground of politics and from what the British Electorate wanted. It was rightly dubbed “the longest suicide note in history.” The Labour Party lost in one of its heaviest defeats at the polls. We grow weaker every day at the polls, our defence of the realm seen as laughable, is just one example of how the general population regard Corbyn and the Labour party.

All members of the Labour Party and the PLP should get behind elected leader to fight the Tories and win the election in 2020.

 

No speaky English then the establishment will take action


I decided to include this on my blog as it has a serious message on it and I would all to watch the youtube:

 

 

If people thought that a Labour Government was bad then obviously the lessons have not been learned anything as the likes of Thatcher, Major, Conservatives and Libdem, and Cameron Government has been far worse than a Labour Government both in the past and present time.

History can be both kind and crude towards government(s) yet I like many will recall when Labour Government implemented the National Wage the argument from the Conservatives, Libdems, SNP and others were it will drive business down and their will take their businesses elsewhere to places like India, and China where there are cheap labor although some big multinational companies did leave UK only for them to return to UK still under a Labour Government.

No we all have learn to our surprise that David Scameron wants Muslim Women to learn to speak English and to top it off the likes of Theresa May trying to outdo her commandeering chief by claiming the upper hand by putting him in his place. Could it be that Hameron days are coming to an end and all his successors are doing their best to impress their leader to seek his nomination to be the next leader of the nasty party.

As a former corporate PR man, Cameron understands how to create a public image while pretending to take a different stance and his Leeds speech was a prime example.

The PM insists that his intention is to unify society by integrating Muslims into it, but his highlighting of radicalisation and extremism in the context of some Muslim women’s inability to speak English well serves only to divide communities.

The tendency for some women to concentrate on home life and to socialise only with family or people from the same geographical and linguistic background was not invented by Muslim communities.

It has existed within, for example, some Indian or Greek Cypriot families, but that did not prevent these families’ children from being educated and fully integrated into social lives with their school friends and workmates.

The same applies to the children of Muslim families, as is self-evident wherever they have settled and grown up across Britain.

Where there have been difficulties the least credible explanation for it is that some Muslim women’s English is not up to scratch.

Assisting new citizens to improve their English and thereby help their education and employment prospects ought to be uncontroversial, yet Cameron’s government slashed spending on this essential area of public provision.

Apparently saving a paltry sum was more important to the Tories than risking what he now affects to see as a consequent risk of rampant extremism.

Better communication in English is in the interests of us all and free lessons should be universally available to achieve this.

Cameron’s thirst for pretexts to blame Muslim communities and families for the disturbing but marginal problem of hundreds of young people leaving Britain to join Islamic State (Isis) in Syria or Iraq is also whetted by his obsession with excusing Western imperialist wars for any role in increasing alienation. While individuals bear full responsibility for their own actions, especially criminal deeds, politicians’ efforts to deny that murderous invasions of several Muslim states and support for Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinian people have been contributory factors cannot go unchallenged.

That belief is not confined to Muslims but to large sections of society as a whole and even arch-war criminal Tony Blair has accepted that a link exists.

Cameron’s readiness to visit mosques and discuss matters there is positive, but it will be viewed as another hollow PR gesture if he persists with his carrot-and-stick approach designed to placate his back-bench backwoodsmen.

What world is he living in if he believes that a veiled threat to deport people because of inadequate linguistic skills is a reasonable position?

Does he really imagine that breaking up a family on this flimsy pretext — a penalty imposed exclusively on Muslims is the way to encourage national unity and cohesion?

It’s a nonsense and he knows it, but he feels the need to portray himself as tough to appeal to Islamophobic elements in the media and in his own party.

Until he accepts that this approach contradicts his proclaimed goal of a society at ease with itself, he and his party will be part of the problem not the solution.

As if this was not bad enough now we have seen what Nicky Morgan Education Minister has given Sir Michael Wilshaw the support to say that  Schools should be able to decide whether or not to ban Muslim girls from wearing veils, as they cause communication problems in the classroom, the education secretary and the head of Ofsted have said.

Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief of the education watchdog, said he wanted to see women treated fairly, and society “mustn’t go backwards”.

During an appearance on BBC2’s Newsnight, Wilshaw was asked if he would back the banning of veils in school.

“Yes I would,” he answered. “The Prime Minister’s view that we have got to make sure that our liberal values, our liberal West values are protected, people need to listen to that.

“The Muslim community needs to listen to it as well. We have come a long way in our society to ensure that we have equality for women and that they are treated fairly. We mustn’t go backwards.”

He added the veil also posed communication problems between teachers and students.

“My inspectors say on occasions they go into classrooms where they see there are problems about communications.”

Education secretary Nicky Morgan backed Wilshaw’s view, saying individual schools should have the freedom to decide they don’t want people to wear the “full-face veil”.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Morgan commented on David Cameron backing institutions that “needed to see someone’s face”.

“The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say, and we have a very clear view in this country, we are not going to tell people what they can and they can’t wear, that would cut across the values we are talking about that we want everybody to follow.

“But there are times, there are institutions and organisations where it is right – schools will be one of them – where the school leaders want to have a clear uniform policy they want everybody to observe and they may decide that point, that they don’t want people to wear the full-face veil.

“It very much is up to the schools, schools will have a uniform policy.”

Speaking on the same radio station on Monday, Cameron said: “I think in our country people should be free to wear what they like and, within limits, live how they like and all the rest of it.

“What does matter, if for instance a school has a particular uniform policy, sensitively put in place and all the rest of it, and people want to flout that uniform policy, often for reasons that aren’t really connected with religion, I think you should always come down on the side of the school.”

He added: “Going for the French approach of banning an item of clothing, I do not think that’s the way we do things in this country and I do not think that would help.”

Then there is the rumour that is going around that the rules obliging refugees to register in the first European country they enter look set to be abolished under a radical revision of the European Union’s asylum system. The move could be problematic for David Cameron ahead of Britain’s EU referendum.

The EU’s system, part of the so-called Dublin regulation, has been widely ignored during the migrant crisis in which more than a million refugees have streamed into Europe.

However officials say the rules were never properly applied anyway, as most refugees landed on deserted beaches in Greece and Italy, and made their way over land to other countries such as Germany and Sweden.

The move for reform, reported in today’s Financial Times, comes after Greece, in particular, came under criticism for failing to set up basic facilities for refugees.

However, it will mean that the richer countries of final destination, like Germany, will have to establish major registration and fingerprinting infrastructure to cope with the hundreds of thousands of expected refugees.

It could also mean that Britain may find it more difficult to send refugees back to neighbouring EU states. One of the main arguments of the British campaign to remain in the EU is that the Dublin regulations allow the UK to deport asylum-seekers if Britain is not the first European country that they arrived in.

If those regulations were to be changed the UK might be forced to accept refugees who have managed to enter the country from across the Channel, regardless of where they first arrived in Europe. This could further encourage migrants to head for Britain.

The Out campaign was quick to make capital over the planned change.

“This change would appear to provide an incentive for asylum-seekers to get across the Channel,” said a spokesman for Vote Leave.

“This is further evidence that as part of the EU the UK does not have control over migration or asylum policy.”

Much will depend on the detail about how the new rules will work. With no land border with any other country in the passport-free Schengen zone, Britain is not expected to see a strong surge in migration.

The Dublin system was already undermined last September when German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, lifted her country’s right to return Syrian refugees to the first country of entry. Ms Merkel has already called for the EU to revise the Dublin rules to cope with the refugee challenges.

The Dublin rules date back to a 1990 convention in the Irish capital, and came into force for the first 12 signatories in 1997. However, officials have long criticised them, suggesting they could not be applied in countries like Greece and Italy with long, unprotected coastlines. “It looks like Dublin will have to be sacrificed if we want to save the Schengen system,” an EU official said.

The EU Home Affairs Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos told MEPs last week that a revision of the Dublin system would be unveiled in March. “Dublin should not just be a mechanism to allocate responsibility, but also a solidarity instrument among member states. It must be revised deeply; it was adopted in a totally different landscape,” he said.

Six Europeans countries have already reimposed border controls and suspended their Schengen membership in an effort to contain the large influx of refugees.

In his state of the union address to the European Parliament last September, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker promised a reform of the Dublin system. “It is time we prepare a more fundamental change in the way we deal with asylum applications – and notably the Dublin system that requires that asylum applications be dealt with by the first country of entry,” he said.

The European Council President Donald Tusk said that the EU had “no more than two months to get things under control” or face “grave consequences”.

For this reason this is why David Cameron is not a very happy bunny and he is taking a hard-line on Muslim Women who can’t speak English.

well folks it’s like myself going to a Shoaling temple seeking some lessons from a monk to show me how to do shoaling Kung Fu without thinking through the process just to get one over my enemies. It’s no wonder why the shoaling grand master will laugh out a loud and the monk says “No Speaky English, speak Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, and the list goes on.

The point I’m making is which generation of Muslim women his David Cameron is addressing secondly Muslim women comes in all races and creed. This why many Bame, and Chinese communities will take issue with the establishment as most of them are happy to eat our native food, marry our women, and men as a form of tokenism.

 

To be or not to be sanctioned


This is a strong message that needs to be heeded

 

 

It’s a sad day when it’s been alleged that more than a million benefits claimants may be facing destitution after disappearing from the welfare system.

The scales of people are being sanctioned are being applied unevenly and the scale is unknown since the World War and the fate of at least a third of those is anybody’s guess.

The question for me and I’m sure for others is:

Why has the establishment not kept records

What age groups are being sanctioned and what are the reasons

What percentage has been referred to foodbanks since the sanctions came into force

I understand that the Universal Credit will be rolled out in 2016 onwards and I’m wondering how many more people who are on benefits will be sanctioned and what the reasons that DWP will give for implementing it as we already know that staff who are employed by the DWP are being forced to meet their targets to enforce sanctions or face disciplinary action from their immediate Line Manager which is being implemented by Iain Duncan Smith.

Checkout this to give you an idea how the sanctions have taken place since 2013:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223276/2013-788.pdf

It’s intriguing to read from Anita Bellows is a member of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC). who said:

For more information see dpac.uk.net.

Sanctions have been a feature of the welfare system since 1913, but in the past were applied in a narrow set of circumstances (such as dismissal for misconduct or voluntarily leaving a job).

They certainly did not extend to certain groups of people, particularly those one would expect to be protected against deliberate hardship and deprivation inflicted by one of the world’s richest nations.

Benefits sanctions have been the subject of many studies, although always viewed through the same prism: do they “help” jobless people move into work? Few studies have focused purely on the negative impact of sanctions, which is always fleetingly mentioned, although a 2002 one into the impact of welfare sanctions on the health of infants and toddlers in the US clearly shows a link between sanctions and a 30 per cent rise in hospitalisation of infants and toddlers. It also shows a 30 per cent higher risk of malnutrition at a critical age.

A 2013 Manchester Citizens Advice Bureau Service study called Punishing Poverty? reviews benefits sanctions and their effects on British clients and claimants. It details the severe impact of sanctions on the mental and physical health of many claimants, whose existing health conditions were exacerbated because of poor diet and stress. Some said they had attempted suicide or that they felt suicidal.

So it is unsurprising to learn, from information released following my freedom of information request, that of the 49 benefit claimants’ deaths (40 of which were suicides) peer reviewed by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), 10 claimants were at the time of their deaths sanctioned or had been sanctioned during the duration of their benefits claim.

And a freedom of information request made by Natalie Leal has just revealed that of those 49 peer reviewed benefit claimant deaths, 22 were claiming a disability related benefit.

One of the groups specifically targeted by sanctions since the Welfare Act 2007 is disabled people, and sanctions for this group have tripled over the past year, reaching 3,000 sanctions per month. Because of the DWP’s reluctance to release information (in spite of repeated freedom of information requests), it is not possible to ascertain whether the claimants who committed suicide belonged to this group, but what we do know from the DWP’s own statistics is that people with mental health conditions or learning difficulties are disproportionally sanctioned.

They are seen as soft targets, having the greatest difficulty navigating a system geared to trip them up. They are also the claimants least likely to cope with stress and pressure.

But the number of sanctions applied does not reflect the real scale of hardship and deprivation caused to claimants through sanctions. Because of DWP targets or implicit expectations and indiscriminate sanctioning, the number of claimants referred for sanctions has rocketed, and around half of them manage to successfully challenge a sanction decision and have their benefits reinstated. But they have to wait for up to one-and-a-half years for this to happen and survive in the meantime without any income, regardless of whether they are disabled, lone parents or unemployed.

And while claimants might be entitled to hardship payments — particularly if they can show that they are, or have, a family member who is vulnerable — these payments are only 60 per cent of the benefit usually payable and anedoctal evidence suggests that they are awarded sparingly.

This was confirmed by the Scottish Parliament’s welfare reform committee in a letter addressed to then employment minister Esther McVey in October 2014: “We believe that a weakness in the current system is a failure to make those who are sanctioned aware of the availability of hardship payments, resulting in few claimants receiving payments.”

This fits in with the only set of hardship payment figures available, published in 2012, which show that only 64,000 awards were made between April 2011 and March 2012, representing about 10 per cent of the number of sanctions applied during this period.

During the last work and pensions committee inquiry on sanctions in February 2015, the government made a commitment to publish these figures in May 2015, but has failed to do so.

It is also interesting to try to understand why the DWP started monitoring benefit claimant suicides in 2012. One particular internal DWP memo throws some light on this. It was sent to all DWP staff in operations by head of contact centres Paul Archer, head of benefit centres Mike Baker and work service director Paul Williams on April 25 2012, during the first month of delivery of employment and support allowance (ESA). This was the phase when decisions were made on revised benefits entitlement (a coded expression for cutting benefits).

The memo stated: “The complex nature of our business, however, means that sometimes, while procedures are followed correctly, something goes wrong. The consequences of getting this wrong can have profound results. Very sadly, only last week a customer of DWP attempted suicide, said to be the result of receiving a letter informing him that due to the introduction of time-limiting contribution-based ESA for people not in the support group, his contribution-based ESA was going to stop.”

So within the first month of implementing changes leading to benefit loss for people claiming contributory-based ESA and who had already been assessed as disabled and entitled to ESA, the DWP encountered its first suicide attempt. The main recommendation of the memo is to improve communications. And of course, nobody knows the number of benefit claimants, sanctioned or not, who have attempted to commit suicide.

Likewise nobody knows how many benefit claimants like diabetic former soldier David Clapson died because of sanctions, although he did not commit suicide but instead perished from a lack of insulin. Some cases capture the public imagination and make headlines, while many others are lucky to get one line in a local paper, and DWP does not appear to monitor the consequences of its policies.

What is clear is that the social security system which used to exist and which was based on social redistributive justice, to which each contributed according to their means and abilities and which was supposed to support everybody according to their needs, has turned into a monster.

Food deprivation and health decline, deaths and ultimately suicides are not aberrations but an intrinsic part of a punitive regime, which uses sanctions as a weapon in order to force compliance on some groups of people who have come to be seen as a financial burden on society.

The fact that there is so little evidence of the effectiveness of sanctions and that their use against claimants and deaths and suicides are so widely accepted by the British public should be a warning sign.

While the state’s intention was always to reduce the support hitherto awarded to people who needed it, in trying to make these cuts acceptable, the state has unleashed an unstoppable evil force looking for scapegoats. And by institutionalising violence against people in need of support, the state has knowingly driven them to their deaths.

It is further alleged that on 2014/15 financial year alone, half a million people were hit by penalties introduced by the Tories under new, punitive welfare rulings.

The report will be officially published on 11 Jan 2016 by think tank Civitas, calling for the government to immediately carry out a survey on the expelled claimants.

It also advises the Department for Work and Pensions to test out grace periods for vulnerable claimants facing acute difficulties or transition from welfare conditions.

However, it also backs a trial yellow card early warning system for claimants facing sanctions, which disabled campaigners believe will put unfair pressure on civil servants and applicants.

 

Dont be hoodwinked by Jeremy Hunt stand your ground junior doctors


Here is very good reason why we all should support our junior doctors:

 

 

 

According to Jeremy Hunt bible of those naughty junior doctors who went on the strike actions are unnecessary. This is what NHS England alleged that 10,000 junior doctors reported for work out of 26,000. I say that I beg to believe the figure of BMA instead of NHS England. BMA council chairman Dr Mark Porter said neither side wanted the dispute to go on “indefinitely” and urged the Government to “recognise the strength of feeling” among medics.

Oh dear me. A majority of the public support junior doctors strike action. The establishment are now officially in panic mode which goes to show David Cameron tries to use his influence to call on our junior doctors to call off the strikes. Well both Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron, I’m a patent of the NHS and proud of being born in NHS. I have to say both Scameron and Hunt stop scaremongering face facts doctors, nurses, and Careworkers works long hours and our National Health Services (NHS) are underfunded and with added pressures pile on to the work force means accidents will happen. The NHS is always open 24/7 and there is cover over the weekend. If you say can more be done to #SaveOurNHS the answer is yes by investing more into the service and offer a better term and conditions with the pay and increments.

In the West Midlands region Sandwell Hospital tried to order the Junior Doctors back to work alleging a level 4 incident after a very high number of admissions which was far from the truth as it turned out the local NHS did not follow protocol by liaising with the national BMA.  Great to see so much support for our young doctors strike on 12 Jan 2016. It’s about time they stood their ground and decided to fight for what they believe in. this is the reality of what is happening Junior Doctors work long hours without a break is asking for a problem to arise. Consultants and senior doctors should take heed of this, and also work longer hours rather than doing Private Consultations. Money doesn’t make the world go around.

It is further alleged that there are 70 names on this list of MPs (over 60 are Tories) who have links to the private healthcare industry – received donations , have shares in, worked for, on board of etc. The list is a year old, before the huge LibDem electoral debacle. So LibDem MPs are on it : they also had their noses in the trough.

I would call on all in concern who cares about our NHS and supports our Nurses, and Doctors to  join them on their day of strikes on 26 Jan 2016 to show solidarity and hand out leaflets in order to raise public awareness on what it is all about. Unfortunately the establishment will say it is just about pay, which is only a very small part of it. It is about the government removing safety measures that stop junior doctors from working excessive hours, which will add to their stress levels, threaten the quality of care patients receive and undermine the future of our NHS.

Doctors are frustrated about being undervalued, like the nurses, many already at breaking point, looking to work overseas, where countries like Australia are offering them much better pay and conditions or leaving the profession all together. This will not only impact on how timely patients are treated and looked after but on the next generation of doctors and the future of our NHS itself.

This sum it from Arun Takhar who I follow on facebook is a junior doctor who i follow who said this:
 “So I couldn’t strike today because I am providing on call emergency cover. I’m 15 hours in and waiting to take a patient to theatre who has life threatening bleeding. I am waiting because my junior doctor colleagues along with the theatre team have just saved the life of a young lady with internal bleeding and they’re still finishing off.

If anyone really needs us during this strike everyone is here for you. Don’t believe the crap the Murdoch rags will be touting about unsafe care and lives lost during the strike. It’s utter crap. No one moaned when we provided emergency only care (any bank holiday) for a bloody royal wedding.

And from August I’ll be getting £2.35 an hour for providing this service so I better stock up on the möet whilst I can”.

If anyone really needs us during this strike everyone is here for you. Don’t believe the crap the Murdoch rags will be touting about unsafe care and lives lost during the strike. It’s utter crap. No one moaned when we provided emergency only care (any bank holiday) for a bloody royal wedding.

And from August I’ll be getting £2.35 an hour for providing this service so I better stock up on the möet whilst I can…

It’s rich to think that our doctors are militant or irresponsible, anything but from my experience and the conversations I have with friends and relatives. They are hardworking dedicated professionals who are very concerned because Mr Hunt, bad decisions cost live.

If this was a private business (which no doubt it soon will be if the public do not do more to stop it) then as its CEO Hunt should immediately get the sack for creating chaos, mistrust, demoralising the workforce and imposing conditions that are dangerous and will adversely affect the wellbeing of the employees and the service users. This is the general idea that the Tories want to do for the long term. I’m proud to be born in the NHS at the point of need and not the few.

I would urge all do not delay going to hospital if you or your loved one is sick. During the strike action, hospitals will be safe. Junior doctors across the country have the support of their consultants, who will provide a safe emergency service for patients. In fact, evidence suggests that mortality rates usually fall when doctors go on strike. This is because many elective procedures, with small but real risks, are cancelled.

The government are proposing to remove the safeguards protecting how many hours a doctor can work each week, taking them back out of the European Working Time Directive . This means that hospitals will be able to ask their junior doctors to work more, and will potentially lead to tired over-worked staff. Ultimately a tired doctor is not good for patient safety. Adequately protecting the workforce that protect the public should be paramount. 
Compare this to the aviation industry or long distance truck drivers. These industries rightly recognise the need to protect their workforce in order to protect the public from harm. Nobody wants an over-worked, tired pilot. Why are the doctors that care for peoples’ lives any different?
This fundamental issue of patient safety is why 54,000 junior doctors are so angry.

Doctors are being asked to work more antisocial hours for less overall pay. Although there will be an 11% rise in basic rate pay, this is off-set by a 25-50% reduction in antisocial hours pay, which will occur due to the reclassification of normal working hours. These “normal” working hours will be from 7am-10pm Monday to Friday, and 7am-7pm Saturday. This means that working at 9pm on a Friday night is normal working hours, and is paid at basic rate pay. 
The net effect is a pay cut. Most doctors estimate they will lose out on 15-30% of their current earnings. At the same time, they will be expected to work more antisocial hours, and lose safeguards to prevent excess rostered hours.

The government’s tactic is to smear doctors as caring only about money, as evidenced by some recent media editorials. They are repeatedly misrepresenting facts in order to support their own political agenda. For example, Jeremy Hunt misquoted the Freemantle Paper which showed that a patient is more likely to die within 30 days after admission on a Sunday than a Wednesday. He used the paper to try to support his claim that consultants should not be allowed to opt out of weekend working. In fact, it is not surprising that more people would die after admission on a Sunday, as few elective procedures take place at the weekend, and no causal effect was drawn from the findings. But the headlines ran nonetheless, causing a worrying number of people to wait till after the weekend before presenting to hospital.

Only this week, did it become apparent that Sir Bruce Keogh’s statement about junior doctors strikes was amended by the DoH. The angle they wanted to emphasise was that if doctors went on strike, they would not be there to help in the event of a major incident. This is a low blow, and it is fair to say that all striking doctors would drop their placards to help in such a situation.
Healthcare should be a basic human right. If the government has its way, the NHS is going to be slowly dismantled by privatisation, and healthcare will be for the privileged and those that can afford it. Publicly, the government are saying this disagreement is about junior doctors pay. But most medics feel their hidden agenda is to privatise the NHS. Last year alone, nearly £3.45billion (or 40%) of NHS deals went to private firms. Private providers are able to pick the most lucrative deals to boost their profits, leaving the NHS with less money to provide comprehensive care.

Support amongst other healthcare professionals and other public services are high. They recognise that if the government wins the battle with junior doctors, they will be next. Nurses, consultants, GPs, hospital porters, radiographers etc are all in the line of fire. Nurses training bursaries have already been cut, leading to a protest march last weekend.

Recent reports show a worrying number of potential students have been put off pursuing a career in medicine. The Student Room conducted a survey of 1,550 students and found that 37% who had wanted to study medicine had changed their minds as a result of Hunt’s proposed contract changes. Likewise, the cessation of nurses training bursaries will discourage people joining the nursing profession. Large numbers of doctors have or are considering moving abroad, taking their skills and expertise with them. In a time when recruitment is already a huge problem across the country in many specialities (especially A&E, Paediatrics, General Practice), things are going to get even worse. We need to support and value our healthcare professionals to help recruitment and retention of staff. Without them there is no health service.

Many government ministers have a vested interest in the privatisation of the NHS, with links or shares in private healthcare companies. This is a clear conflict of interest. It is hard to imagine another business model where those deciding the fate of a company could have such a potential bias. They stand to make a lot of money if the private healthcare companies do well. Even more shocking, Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book on how to privatise the NHS before he took up his position in the Department of Health. Surely this gives huge cause for concern given he is now in charge of the NHS?

This so called establishment have pledged to implement a 24/7 NHS. But we already have one! While there are some elements that we all agree could be improved, there needs to be a clear distinction between providing seven day emergency care and five day elective care. We need to properly fund the existing services to improve them, before trying to create a 24/7 elective service.

The principles of the NHS stand as true today, as they did in 1948. Free healthcare for all society, from cradle to grave, regardless of wealth or status.

The public should know that strike action is a last resort. The BMA have tried to work with the government, but they will not compromise on the issue of safety of patients or doctors. This is the main sticking point in the negotiations process, and one on which the profession is standing its ground.

It is with a heavy heart but a clear head that doctors will stand at the picket line on 26 Jan 2016 . Please support them.

I would like to make very clear I have have some family and friends who are  junior doctors this what they say that they are standing up for:

It is about genuine lifesaving doctors versus spin doctors.

It’s about the future of NHS and about not pay

Refusing a contract that does not ensure the safety of patients.

Caring for those who care for us

Motivating and rewarding dedicated doctors so there is not a mass exodus to other countries

It is about one man’s extreme ideology Jeremy Hunt the Tory, Secretary of State for health, along with a government who want to privatise our NHS and make huge profits for their rich friends.

It is about decent public health not private wealth

It is about making people aware that our NHS is being destroyed and if you think privatisation is better than I hope you have lots of money stashed away, because a simple procedure will cost you thousands. A complicated one will cost you your home or your life.

It is about our duty to save our NHS the greatest social achievement for ordinary people, fought for with our own blood, sweat and tears, happening right here, right now, before it is too late.