Monthly Archives: March 2013

Coalition’s much dreaded welfare cuts with more to come

Quote of the day:

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.


My thoughts on the much dreaded welfare cuts: Welcome to UK 21st Century of austerity viz coalition as people are now waking up and beginning to realise what they were alleging that it was hard under a Labour Government turned out to be unfounded as people bagan to realise that the hardest are now being hit left, right, and centre under this regime. For the first time the younger generation are beginning to understand what is the true nature of politics of today which will affect them for generations to come I kid you not.

The coalition says that “ We’re All In it Together, and “The Big Society which is the code words for the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.  For example If “We Are All In It together as the coalition will have us to believe I say Peefoo as we are not equal in the eyes of society which does not address the social policies which we all face with our bread and butter issues some people instead would like to taste either jam, marmalade, or marmite on their bread to spread their cost of living be mortgage, rent, food, electric, gas, road tax or council tax. Let’s now concentrate on “The Big Society” many companies with charity status thought this would be the best thing since slice cake as they thought that this would open up the doors for opportunities but in reality this did not happen as we have seen some charity and third sector companies closing down owing to lack of funding by both Central and Local Government. The other side of the coin from the “Big Society” believe it or not was a large scale of attacks towards public sector and its workforce in favour of private companies to provide front line services. Hence frontline services like police, social work, hospitals and other front services being closed down and the list can go on.

photoIDS1The welfare reform has reminded us of the princess of darkness (milk snatcher) for those us who will recall the damage the so-called Iron Lady caused to the coal industries and public services which was one of the root cause of the large scale of strike action that the UK has been by the world of the 1970s -1980s this led to mass unemployment. Yet this coalition has the cheek to say that we are all in it together.

photoChrfisGayMost of us would agree that there be some reform that should move with the times but this must happen in stages with the right social reform that will not hit the hardest in society by attacking the very low paid is not the way forward let’s not forget the wise words of our founder Nye Bevan who said I would rather be kept alive in the efficient if cold altruism of a large hospital than expire in a gush of warm sympathy in a small one.

conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850This leads me to the next point I am not a religious person but I do acknowledge what four churches in a joint statement have to say see below:

Four churches have joined forces to accuse the government of welfare payment cuts they say are unjust and target society’s most vulnerable.

The Easter criticism has come from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, and the Church of Scotland.

They also want to see a change to “a false picture” of the poor as “lazy”.

The government said society suffered when people were paid more to be unemployed than to work.

A series of changes to benefits are being made in April – including capping rises on working-age benefits at 1% – which will affect hundreds of thousands of households across the UK. Ministers say they are necessary to tackle the rising cost to the taxpayer.

 Rising costs

But the churches accuse politicians and parts of the media of making the cuts easier to impose by misrepresenting poor people as lazy.

The Methodist Church’s public policy adviser, Paul Morrison, said the British public had “come to believe things about the poorest in our society which are just straightforwardly not true.

“The public believes that the major cause of poverty is laziness, yet the majority of people in poverty work. How can that be the case?”

And the Reverend Jonathan Edwards, general secretary of the Baptist Union, said “The one interesting fact I find is that the majority, the rise in poverty over the last decade, has been more amongst those on low income than on those who are unemployed.”

The government says it has always been clear that the system is failing people, not the other way around. The Department for Work and Pensions said in a statement: “It’s not fair that benefits claimants can receive higher incomes than families who are in work – in some cases more than double the average household income.”

 ‘Paying price’

Earlier this month, the Archbishop of Canterbury backed an open letter, signed by 43 of his bishops, criticising plans to limit rises in working-age benefits and some tax credits to 1% for three years. He said the current system recognised rising costs of food, fuel and housing by giving benefit rises in line with inflation.

“These changes will mean it is children and families who will pay the price for high inflation, rather than the government,” he said.

In response, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told MPs he did not agree that “the way to get children out of poverty is to simply keep transferring more and more money to keep them out of work”.

“The reality is what we’re having to do is reform a system that became completely out of control under the last government, get people back in work, for being in work is how you get your children out of poverty.”

He said the government was doing “the right thing” in bringing in the benefit caps because “people on low and average earnings will realise, at last, that those on benefits will not be able to be paid more in taxes than they themselves earn.”

Archbishop Welby later wrote on his blog that he was questioning one aspect of the government’s wide-ranging welfare changes, not condemning efforts to make work pay and improve people’s livelihoods which he said were, in general, “incredibly brave”.

He said Mr Duncan Smith had spent “hard years turning himself into a leading and principled expert on welfare, its effects and shortcomings”.

“He is introducing one of the biggest and most thorough reforms of a system that most people admit is shot full of holes, wrong incentives, and incredible complexity.”

‘Radical redesign’

Other changes to benefits being made in April include:

  • The introduction of a new benefit, the personal independence payment (PIP), to be rolled out across the UK from 8 April to replace disability living allowance (DLA) for people of working age.
  • Less housing benefit from the beginning of April for UK families living in council or housing accommodation judged to be larger than they need. Only those of working age will see reduced payments.
  • A cap from 15 April, in England, Scotland and Wales, on the total amount of benefit working-age people (16-64) can receive

Meanwhile, the government is scaling back some of its plans to test the new Universal Credit, which will gradually – by 2017 – replace five work-based benefits with one benefit, affecting millions of claimants across the UK.

Ministers planned to allow people to make the new claims in four areas of north-west England from April. But it has emerged that three of the pilots will not start until July.

Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps told the media the existing system had been “rather a cruel one” because “it costs you more, sometimes, to go to work”.

“You ought to be able to go out to work and know you’re better off without having to spend an hour-and-a-half in front of a Jobcentre Plus computer trying to do calculations as to whether you’ll lose this benefit or that benefit. “That’s what we’ll get with Universal Credit and, and it means that money that is there can be focused on people who most need it.”

Robert Francis Report Recommendations




Robert Francis

My thoughts on Robert Francis Report Recommendations:

For many years service users have called on successful governments to reform the NHS and many have gone unnoticed. Yet there are many in the health profession would concur that patient care is paramount.



Let’s look at the root causes of it like staff nurses are overstretched and in some cases have to depend on agency staff to cope with understaffing and not getting a fair deal. In any professions there should be accountability no matter how hard it may be as that is the only way that the NHS can have transparency.

Recently there has been a high level of negative press to our beloved National Health Service(NHS) which is enough to put the shivers down our spins and think of our families and ourselves when we are rushed through to the emergency department to be treated.

Let’s have a positive discussion about our NHS and be proud to know it is there at the point of need. Grant there are a few bad apples that bring the profession down by cutting corners and not acknowledging that cuts has a part to play in it and it open up another can of worms like unclean operating rooms and contracting out the cleaning to private contractors where as if they kept it in-house they would have done a better job than some of the private contractors.

Next is the sticking point of Health Care Assistants who are they are accountable there should be a clear accountability and transparency in place as some are employed by agencies who have won contracts and the agencies are quick to put the blame on the Health Care Assistants that tries to make ends meet and are under paid some don’t meet the national requirement for qualifications which I’m of the opinion that some are trained to NVQ level but only to be informed that it’s not worth the paper it is written on by some recruiting agencies.

As I former recruitment consultant manager who recruit Health Care Workers and nurses I note that there are some rouge nursing agencies that recruit nurses from oversees who came on student visas but do not meet the Royal Nurses Collage(RCN) or Registered Nurse(RN) standards then pass them off as Health Care Workers to work in private mental health, learning disabilities, and elderly Care Homes with a promise of work permits etc. those are the rough agencies that needs to be investigated.

Then comes another burning issue issue such as Westminster double standards  I am glad that many Labour MPs have stood up against these pay proposals and put down an early day motion (EDM 1177, Differences in pay for parliamentary estate staff). The response has been good, with 73 MPs signing up so far. Many signatories, as you might expect, are from Labour colleagues, but there are representatives from nearly all parties on the list – including two Tories.

With so many MPs backing this EDM it would be disgraceful if the proposal goes ahead.

You’d think with opposition on this scale and the obvious injustice that the proposals represent the Prime Minister might take more of an interest.

Like many of us was extremely disappointed when Jim Sheridan asked David Cameron what he planned to do about this during PMQs.

He refused to engage with the issue and rambled on about Labour’s approach to welfare.

I’d have liked to hear him say he would approach management directly and try to get to the bottom of this issue.

But instead he merely showed how out of touch he, and the majority of his party, is.

They have no concept of injustice because they get a better than fair deal themselves and look down their noses at people in Parliament who work hard to get vital jobs done, whether in clerical, catering or other roles.

We are facing difficult times but some are feeling it much more than others. A society committed to justice would acknowledge this and work harder to help those feeling the pinch.

But under this Tory-led government we do not live in such a society.

This rumoured proposal from the house authorities is an obvious example. Senior managers should be forced to bear the same level of sacrifice being demanded of others. And Parliament can hardly lead by example if it is treating its own estate staff in such an unjust way.


David Miliband Resignation

Chineese New Year004My thoughts on former MP David Miliband Resignation

Just a few weeks ago a group of us from both camps of the Milibands across the region met at a location in Birmingham as we do very month to discuss issues of concerns to all of us. I unwittingly joked to both camps what is the next step if elder brother left British politics and decided to pack his bags with his family to make that bold move to return to the United States and say take up an international job will it be a sad say day for British politics?

As usual the comments were trust you Gordon to come up with something like that. Well the moral of this story is be careful for what you wish for as you never know what will happen as a week in politics is a very long time and only time will tell. Yes I can say it in a light hearted way was my reply as there  may be a possibility that something will take place soon but what I did not anticipate that it would take effect before the end of this month.

I had the opportunity to have met a very canny person like David Miliband at a dinner fund raising event and this how I got to understand him from a socialist organisation called Chinese For Labour. What struck me about him was that he was very adverse in Foreign Affairs a person with a similar background to myself and could take you through the countries that he had visited and spoke with such intellect, and passion true to form I said to him that one day you will be the next PM he laughed it off.

miliband-bros_2127494cAfter Gordon Brown lost the elections in 2010 there were a number of names floating around instantly I knew who I would choose as the next leader but that was never to be as Ed Miliband won. So I come to straight to the point by saying the media would not have let David Miliband off the hook whilst he was a MP as he sat at the back bench he was being accused of sour-grapes towards his brother and damned if he was on the Front Benches as he would been seen as undermining his young brother. Myself and many others acknowledged that he has done a lot to shape the future of Labour Party and I say I am very clear that when former Labour leader Tony Blair stepped down that the word Blairism died with Tony Blair when he left office.

I can recall at another recent event where I saw and met the Leader of the Labour Party Ed Miliband and I thought that he has the makings of the next PM as his performance at Prime Minister Questions (PMQs) where being to improving. The real test will be who will win the South Shields seat by-elections then County and European Elections which comes before the General Elections 2015. There is an expectation that Labour will win but I say throw caution to the wind for the time being and let’s see the results of the rest of the elections. I call on our entire Labour Party activist to descend to the South Shields By-elections to give their support as we all cannot be complacent when Labour calls for the by-elections. As I write there are some movement from our political adversities are descending down to South Shields.

So folks I now come to another point here is the letter enclosed for your perusal:


I am writing after a great deal of thought to explain that I have been approached about, and accepted, the post of President and Chief Executive of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), a global humanitarian aid organisation based in New York that saves lives and protects people around the world. This means that with real sadness I will in due course be resigning my seat as MP for South Shields. I wanted to set out the reasons for this difficult decision.

In every job I have done, in and out of Parliament, I have sought to make a difference to the disadvantaged and vulnerable. The IRC does this on a daily basis and a large scale for some of the most desperate people in the world. Its 12 000 staff work in over 40 countries to help millions of people who have been displaced by civil conflict or climate stress and have no place, and in some cases no country, to call home. Its work from Mali to Pakistan to Jordan, as well as in the US, represents the best of humanitarian innovation and ideals. The organisation was founded at the suggestion of Albert Einstein in the 1930s for those fleeing the Nazis, so given my own family history there is an additional personal motivation for me. I feel that in doing this job I will be repaying a personal debt. It is a strong, innovative and inspirational organization, with the potential to change lives and help shape the global conversation about the growing challenge of displaced people around the world. Starting in September, this job brings together my personal story and political life. It represents a new challenge and a new start.

Of course it is very difficult for me to leave Parliament and politics, friends and colleagues. As you know, I see every day the damage this shocking government is doing to our country, and passionately want to see Labour back in power. After the leadership election, I felt I could be most helpful to the party on the front line, in South Shields and around the country, rather than on the front bench in Parliament. I felt this gave Ed the space and at the same time the support he needed to lead the party without distraction. He has done so with real success, leading a united team that has taken the fight to the Tories. I am very pleased and proud that our shared goal of making this a one-term government is achievable.

I have had the extraordinary privilege to represent my constituents in Parliament; to lead major change in schools, local government and environmental policy; and, for three years, to represent our country in the wider world as Foreign Secretary. I will always be committed to social justice in the UK, and I am determined to continue to support the work of Movement for Change, which is already making a difference in communities around the country. I will forever be Labour. But after writing two election manifestoes in 1997 and 2001, and serving as a Minister for eight years, I now have to make a choice about how to give full vent to my ideas and ideals. I hope you will understand that the opportunity to lead the IRC represents a unique chance to put my experience into practice on behalf of some of the least fortunate people on Earth.

It has been a genuine privilege to represent the people of South Shields in Parliament since 2001. The town is justifiably proud of its spirit, achievements, attractions and political history. It is a community I have come to know, respect and admire, and a place where I feel at home. There have been big changes in the last twelve years. When I walk into our new schools and see inspiring teaching and learning, I know what difference a Labour government makes. The reductions in crime have been real and improvements in housing pathbreaking. The vision for renewal of the local economy, despite the recession and its aftermath, holds out great promise for the future. The values and determination of local people have been an inspiration for all of my time as their MP. For Louise and the boys, as well as myself, South Shields and its people will always be a special part of our lives. It has been a home and a safe harbour, where we have made lifelong friendships and put down roots that will endure.

I am grateful for your support over the last decade. I look forward to discussing with you and the party the precise timing of my departure. I am writing to party members today, and will, of course, arrange to hold a meeting to thank them profoundly for their support.

Yours, David

David Cameron Speech on Migrant Benefit Cuts (Force Benefit Sanction)


photoMy thoughts on Migrant Benefit Cuts (Force Benefit Sanction)

Yesterday 25 March I was at home listening to Prime Minister David Cameron Speech on the above subject and my thoughts started to wonder if his speech is on the borderline of xenophobic, racism, or fascism so I put it to the readers what say you folks?
LFF-Tory-Tombstone-2Lets not forget that immigration cannot be controlled as such this is because of many historic reasons for this and the next question is should the three main political parties be pandering to the likes of UKIP Party based on their ideology or should we be looking at the root causes of why we have an immigration problem?
evt110307100500194Granted the UK boarders have been opened since agreeing to the Schengen Agreement this has been the sticking point for all the political parties. I don’t advocate to do away with it but to address it in a positive way.

Secondly I will continue to advocate that UK was built on immigration and our foreparents who came to this country started on jobs that most English men and women refused to do which helped to simulate this country which has led to the success of multiculturalism and diversity here today.

Granted there are a few bad apples that abuse our welfare system but they are far and few.  Most who came to the UK does invest in employment and create jobs. Thank god for that and let’s have a positive discussion about the benefit system. This coalition should look at ways on how to close the loopholes when they appear as many will continue to argue for.

Labour Party should stop continue to apologising for their pass misgiving on immigration and move forward as we have had many spin towards immigration.  Instead the party should be challenging or hold the coalition to account over the budget.
Budget 2013 - George OsborneWhich leads me to the next issue on the budget day the very reason why the coalition is on the attack on migrant benefits whether be it housing, council tax, using our NHS or other benefits. Lets not forget about this and I put this to my readers is it about time this coalition stop pandering to the likes of the far Right agenda to the outlet of the media which is promote scaremongering.

DavidcameronA speech by David Cameron on immigration has run into trouble after Downing Street clashed with the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on the cost of treating European patients on the NHS and No 10 struggled to back up the prime minister’s claims with hard statistics.

As the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) accused Cameron of increasing intolerance, the prime minister said it was right to tackle immigration that was “badly out of control” under the last government.

However, the speech was in danger of unravelling after Hunt directly contradicted Downing Street over the costs of treating patients from the European Economic Area (EEA) on the NHS. The EEA includes all 27 members of the EU plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

The prime minister’s spokesman said the NHS should recoup a further £10m to £20m towards the costs of treating EEA nationals on the NHS under reciprocal agreements. “We are looking at how you can better recoup costs from EEA countries,” the spokesman said. “It is a question of the NHS getting better at being able to take and follow-up the information it needs in order to recoup those costs.”

Amid criticisms that £10m to £20m was relatively small figure on which to make such a major policy announcement – the NHS budget is more than £100bn a year – the health secretary disputed the No 10 claim. Appearing on Radio 4’s The World at One as the prime minister was still speaking, Hunt said: “It is a huge issue. I don’t think those numbers are at all accurate.

“The reason is because hospitals, if they treat someone who is not entitled to NHS care – if they declare that person is a foreigner who is not entitled to that care then they have the responsibility to collect the money from that person. Whereas if they declare that person as a UK national then the money is paid for by the NHS. So we have created a strong incentive for hospitals in the system not to pick out the people who aren’t entitled to free NHS care. That is one of the things we need to change.”

Asked how much he thought the NHS was losing, Hunt said: “I don’t want to speculate on what that number might be. But the number we have heard is actually not £20m, it is £200m. I think it is significantly more than that.”

Downing Street also struggled as it emerged that:

• Of the two million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.

• A claim by No 10 that there has been a 40% increase in the number of social lettings taken up by migrants between 2007-08 and 2011-12 appeared to gloss over the fact that this was only an increase from 6.5% to 9% in the proportion of such lettings.

The prime minister said it was important to act on immigration as he set out plans to restrict access to benefits for immigrants from the EEA and beyond. He announced, as expected, that JSA would only be available to those genuinely seeking a job for a maximum of six months.

He also announced that EEA immigrants would have to show a decent command of English. Cameron said: “We’re going to make that assessment a real and robust one, and yes, it’s going to include whether your ability to speak English is a barrier to work. And to migrants who are in work but then lose their jobs the same rules will apply. Six months, and then if you can’t show you have a genuine chance of getting a job, benefits will be cut off.

“This means that EEA migrants who don’t have a genuine chance of getting work after six months will lose their right to access certain benefits. So yes, they can still come and stay here if they want to, but the British taxpayer will not go on endlessly paying for them any more.”

The prime minister was scathing about Labour’s record. “Under the previous government immigration was far too high and badly out of control. Net migration needs to come down radically from hundreds of thousands a year to just tens of thousands.

“And as we bring net migration down so we must also make sure that Britain continues to benefit from it. That means ensuring that those who do come here are the brightest and the best, the people we really need with the skills and entrepreneurial talent to create the British jobs and growth that will help us to win in the global race.”

Habib Rahman, chief executive of the JCWI, said: “This rhetoric may curtail rights to benefits on a minor scale, but relatively few migrants compared with ‘indigenous’ people actually claim benefit anyway. The real effect of this speech will be to further increase the intolerance and the hostile reception that immigrants are facing from some sections of society.

“There’s nothing new about people from these countries coming to live and work in the UK. This media hysteria denies the fact that immigration helps our economy and is a great boon to tackling the coming demographic imbalanced posed by our ageing population.”

The government will need to react quickly if a benefit cut for social housing tenants leads to rises in rent arrears and homelessness, MPs say.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge said it could have a “severe impact” on low-income families.

It is alleged that estimates supplied to the BBC by some of the largest housing associations suggest many tenants are not currently planning to move home to avoid the cut.

The government said better use had to be made of social housing stock.

From 1 April, changes to housing benefit (HB) affecting working-age social housing tenants deemed to have spare bedrooms will mean a 14% cut for those with one extra room and of 25% for those with two or more.

The controversial measure – which will see affected tenants lose an average of £14 a week – has been dubbed the “bedroom tax” by Labour, though the government has been at pains to argue it is not a tax but a curb on “spare room subsidies”.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expects 660,000 social housing tenants to be affected by the cut across Britain.

Ms Hodge said: “The DWP says it can’t accurately predict the effects of its housing benefit changes either on individuals or on the housing supply.

“Instead it will rely on a ‘wait and see’ approach and monitor changes in homelessness, rent levels and arrears so that, where there is a need, it can intervene and respond.”

The committee said this placed “greater responsibility on the Department to react quickly when the changes are made”.

Ms Hodge warned: “Even small reductions in housing benefit can have a severe impact on the finances of the poorest people.”

“The department must decide in advance exactly what actions it will take in response to increases in homelessness or rents.”

Stay or go?

The government says the change brings housing benefit for social housing tenants in line with its provision in the private sector, where size criteria already apply.

Intended to reduce a £21bn annual housing benefit bill, the measure is also supposed to encourage greater mobility in the social rented sector.

Of 50 housing associations across the UK contacted by the BBC, as well as a number of local authorities and ALMOs (arm’s length management organisations) providing housing on behalf of councils, 21 social housing providers supplied estimates on the number of tenants saying they were planning to stay in their home or downsize.

Among them was Riverside Homes, with 51,493 properties and an estimated 6,602 households affected by the cut.

It estimated that 5,018 – 76% of affected tenants – were currently planning to stay in their home.

Another respondent, Glasgow Housing Association – with 41,400 homes – estimated that of 6,100 affected tenants, some 4,800 – 79% – were currently planning to stay in their home.

Community Housing Cymru Group (CHC), representing 70 housing associations in Wales, estimated that of 40,000 affected claimants, more than 36,000 – 91% – would stay in their homes.

Wales is expected to see a higher proportion of working-age HB claimants hit by the cut – 46% – than any other region of the UK.

‘National shortage’

A number of housing associations said that moving large numbers of people considered to be under-occupying social homes was unachievable simply because there were not enough smaller homes available.

CHC said that 88% of housing associations in Wales would have a mismatch of properties if they tried to downsize all under-occupying tenants facing a benefit cut.

“Not because tenants are needlessly under-occupying larger homes, but because there is a national shortage of affordable homes, especially one and two-bed properties,” said CHC spokeswoman Bethan Samuel.

Angela Forshaw, director of housing at Liverpool Mutual Homes (LMH), said half of its stock of more than 15,000 properties comprised three-bedroom homes.

“We have just 2,800 with two bedrooms, so downsizing everyone affected – and most don’t want to move – is impossible,” she said.

With the vast majority of affected tenants expected to try to find the extra rental money themselves, housing associations raised concerns including:

  • Increased financial difficulty for tenants
  • Tenants running up rent arrears
  • Increased costs to housing associations of rent collection and evictions
  • A rise in doorstep lending
  • Damage to communities from increased turnover in social housing and less affordable, larger homes remaining empty

They also warned that people who responded to the benefit cut by leaving social housing could end up claiming more housing benefit in the costlier private sector.

However, for single mother Kellie Parsons the changes provide some hope for larger accommodation.

She lives in a one-bedroom flat with her three-year-old son, Dylan, in Dukinfield, Greater Manchester.

She shares the bedroom with her son, and has been trying to move to a bigger flat for three years – since becoming pregnant.

“The living room is just cluttered with stuff, it’s too small, and there’s no garden, there’s only a veranda which is too dangerous for him so we barely use it.

“There’s just no area for him to play, not even outside because there are just too many cars.”

She said she hopes that the changes will be an incentive for people to downsize from bigger properties, allowing her to exchange via home swap schemes.

“I’ve been trying to upgrade for three years. I’ve been doing it pretty much every single day.

“I think these change of benefits would actually help because people [will] downgrade, so it would help me to move quicker. I’m hopeful, positive about it.”

The DWP points out that with one third of working-age social housing tenants receiving housing benefit for homes larger than they need, that amounts to one million extra bedrooms currently being subsidised.

It hopes its measure will enable better use of available social housing stock, and improve work incentives for affected tenants.

“We expect people to respond in different ways to the changes to the Spare Room Subsidy – some will move and some will make up the difference in their rent by moving into work, or increasing their hours,” a DWP spokesperson said.

“But when in England alone there are nearly two million households on the social housing waiting list and over a quarter of a million tenants are living in overcrowded homes, this measure is needed to make better use of our housing stock.”

Are you a social housing tenant? Are you planning to move home to avoid the cut? Send us your comments using the form below.

Lastly to finished I enclosed a letter from the DWP which the coalition is applying the pressure to DWP staff to hand out to jobseekers if they refuse to attend the work programme sees below for details:

To help you back to work you have an interview then it goes on to say:

If you are due to sign on this day, you only have to come at the time above.

What will happen at the interview?

We will look at your Jobserker’s Agreement to see if it is still helpful. We will talk with you about jobs, training and other ways of helping you back to work. We will also tell you about help you may get when you find work.

To get Jobserkers Allowance and credits of National Insurance you must be looking for a job. At the interview you must tell us what have you done to find a job, it is easier if you write this down. Being any letters you have about jobs you have applied for and anything else to prove that you have been looking for a job. If you cannot show that you are looking for a job a decision maker may have to decide if your Jobseekers Allowance and National Insurance credits should be stopped.

We will refund your travel costs(the cost of travel by the cheapest way) if your interview is:

Not on the day you sign on; or
Not at the place you sign at and you have to pay more to get there.

Please telephone us immediately on 08456043729(textphone 08456088551)

Please notify us BEFORE the interview appointment whenever possible.

To get Jobseekers Allowance you must come to interviews when asked to do so unless you have a good reason for not coming. Please tell us as soon as you can before the interview the reason why you can’t come. Your benefit could be suspended unless we agree to postpone your interview. If you do not attend the interview we will have ask a decision maker to decide if you have a good reason for not coming. You must tell us within five working days of the interview if you want your reason to be considered by the decision maker. If they decide that you do not have a good reason your Jobseekers Allowance and National Insurance Credits may be stopped.

DWP Under Pressure To Force Benefit Sanctions


photo(4)My thoughts on Benefit Sanctions

Long queues at the job centre plus as many had been called in to only to be told that they are not doing enough to get back into employment. Recently a few former colleagues of mine who lost their job through a rouge employer(s) who did not pay him or her were forced back to sign on.

Appointment letters were sent out to selected few who is being grilled by the attitude of their Job Advisors even though they had produced their evidence that they are actively seeking employment. The advisor then turned around and suggests that they should seek employment at Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) or do a hotel porter job(s).

photo(3)Most of my former colleagues have 1 class degrees they studied hard and they were honoured to have gained such achievements. The problems arise when academics, and other professionals who lost their jobs turn up to the job centre plus they lack the skills to match the job accordingly when those job seekers challenge the issue(s) they are being informed that they are there to get people back to work with little or no support.

photo(2)Job Centres has been outsourced to other agencies that promise that they can get people back to work and produce grand presentation graph which hoodwinks the DWP Minister to win contracts to get the long term unemployed back to work at value for money.

jobcentrelogoThere are genuine concerns from both previous and present governments to address this problem but with little success. Job centres currently have been starved of funding and to put the icing on the cake many feels that anything can be done to address this problem but yet the government forces the DWP staff under pressure to force them to meet targets or join the scrap heap.

How can anybody work under those pressure to cut the welfare benefits already this coalition have introduced the Bedroom Tax which are targeted at the lowest paid and on top of it they are being forced to pay their fair share of council tax.

To be unemployed and treated by the DWP that you are lazy is bad enough, be outsourced to private companies (work programs ) who then tell your that your CV as an experienced individual in your field of work only to be told there’s a place in a franchise food chain MacDonald such as pound land were you don’t get paid or get a part time job that is under fixed target figures is an illusion to the mass media, and then there is tax , yes the bed room tax , only to find out that the tax man is going to part pay a lump to pay for Olympic stadium for west ham to move in as Cyprus and the rest of Europe pays this so call debt to private and corporate who don’t pay tax too off shore islands , who do we hold to account-for the state of the world eco.

I’m glad the shadow work and pensions secretary, Liam Byrne, is due to raise the matter in parliament. He said: “This explosive letter lays bare the climate of fear in jobcentres as league tables and threats of disciplinary action are used to perpetrate a culture of sanctioning innocent people to hit targets. That is just plain wrong and must be stopped now. Either ministers have no grip on their department or they misled parliament. Either way they must now face the consequences.”

I thank the Labour MP for Walthamstow, Stella Creasy, for saying “We have to get to the bottom of this. It is quite horrible that jobcentre staff feel they have to set people up to fail.”

The DWP maintained that this was an isolated case. Hoban said: “I’m clear there should be no chasing of targets because I believe we should be making the right and fair decisions.”

It’s a bit rich coming the Coalition government has launched an inquiry after it was forced to admit that jobcentres have been setting targets and league tables to sanction benefit claimants despite assurances to parliament this week that no such targets were being set. A leaked email shows staff being warned by managers that they will be disciplined unless they increase the number of claimants referred to a tougher benefit regime. A jobcentre adviser manager, discloses in the email that she has received “the stricter benefit regime” figures for her area, adding: “As you can see Walthamstow are 95th in the league table out of only 109” – the number of jobcentres in London and the home counties. The employment minister, Mark Hoban, had assured MPs on Tuesday: “There are no league tables in place. We do not set targets for sanctions. I have made that point in previous discussions.”

The league table could only have been drawn up through information provided by senior managers in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Hoban had told MPs that decisions on sanctioning claimants “need to be based on whether people have breached the agreements they have set out with the jobcentre, and there are no targets in place”.

Faced with the email, the DWP said: “We are urgently investigating what happened in this case. If a manager has set a local target for applying sanctions this is against DWP policy and we will be taking steps to ensure these targets are removed immediately.”

This is totally unacceptable answer given that there is high unemployment for both long term and youth. This will surely remind people of the 1980s Youth Training Scheme introduced by the Conservatives which was crticised from cross party.

To be unemployed and treated by the DWP that you are lazy  is bad enough, be outsourced to private companies (work programs ) who then tell your that your CV as an experienced individual in your field of work only to be told there’s a place in a franchise food chain MacDonald  such as pound land were you don’t get paid or get a part time job that is under paid. To fixed  target figures is an illusion to the mass media, and then there is tax , yes the bed room tax , only to find out that the tax man is going to part pay a lump to  pay for Olympic stadium for west ham to move in too. so as Cyprus and the rest of Europe pays this so call debt to private and  corporate  who don’t pay tax too off shore islands , who do we hold to account-for the state of the world economy

To be unemployed and treated by the DWP that you are lazy  is bad enough, be outsourced to private companies (work programs ) who then tell your that your CV as an experienced individual in your field of work only to be told there’s a place in a franchise food chain MacDonald  such as pound land were you don’t get paid or get a part time job that is under paid. To fixed  target figures is an illusion to the mass media, and then there is tax , yes the bed room tax , only to find out that the tax man is going to part pay a lump to  pay for Olympic stadium for west ham to move in too. so as Cyprus and the rest of Europe pays this so call debt to private and  corporate  who don’t pay tax too off shore islands , who do we hold to account-for the state of the world economy




21st century Coalition Budget Creates Slum Cities all over UK

conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850Song of the day by Willie Williams – Armagideon Time:

A lotta people won’t get no supper tonight,
A lotta people going to suffer tonight,
‘Cause the battle, is getting harder,
In this Iration, it’s Armagideon.

A lotta people won’t get no justice tonight,
So a lot of people going to have to stand up and fight yeah,
But remember, to praise Jahovia,
And he will guide you,
In this Iration,
It’s Armagideon.

A lotta people will be running and hiding tonight,
Said a lotta one gon’ to run and hide tonight,
‘Cause it’s your action,
You must get your fraction,
In this Iration,
It’s Armagideon.

A lotta people won’t get no supper tonight,
Said a lotta people won’t get no justice tonight,
I say remember, to praise Jahovia,
And he will guide you,
In this Iration,
It’s Armagideon.

A lotta people won’t get no supper tonight,
A lotta people going to suffer tonight.

So a lot of people going to have to stand up and fight.

George-OsborneMy thoughts on the coalition budget:

On 20 March 2013 was budget day which the coalition insulted by increasing public service workers with a 1% increase in their pay packet. Many public workers will remember when we saw the successive governments continue with the argument that’s all they could not afford to pay hard working people.

Many people not only want to see their bread with butter, many would like to taste not just jam, marmalade or marmite on whilst food, petrol, gas, crude oil, electricity, rent and mortgages has increased real terms.
50+year+old+Robbie+Crawley++from+Liverpool,+with+the+proceeds+of+his+vist+to+the+Food+BankMany depending on food banks to help make ends meet. So welcome to Slum City of the UK which this coalition is creating in the 21st century whilst the millionaires live in comfort.

The prospect of a triple dip economy which has been caused hardship from a number of factors lets not forgett his happened under the coalitions watch.

Here is another exmaple of the Bedroom Tand council Taxes see link

Councils and Town Halls striped of their grants to run council departments here is an example:

The government’s efforts to deal with the deficit so far have focused on cutting public spending. Since 2010, 1,500 fire fighters have lost their jobs; over 300 libraries and 400 Sure Start centres have closed; police numbers have been reduced by over 6,000 and there are 5,000 fewer nurses. The rise in people relying on food banks is a clear sign that many are facing high levels of economic and social distress. We believe the government should invest in growth. Local government is demonstrating its ability to drive growth by providing infrastructure investment and supporting local businesses. Allowing local government to borrow in line with prudential rules will enable us to invest in building houses and create desperately needed jobs.

Councils have been handed some of the deepest cuts in the public sector. Local authorities have seen their budgets cut by 33% in comparison to 8% across Whitehall departments. Further cuts to local government would only shift costs to other public services leading to more budget pressures overall on healthcare, policing and prison services. We believe the chancellor faces a clear choice. Rather than hitting frontline services, this Budget presents an opportunity to pool funding across public agencies and could save taxpayers up to £4bn each year. We are offering help to deliver this policy.

At a time of increased unemployment, the nation’s safety net has been seriously compromised. The bedroom tax, council tax benefit reductions and other cuts will mean that many people will struggle to keep their heads above water. We believe support should be given to those who are being hit hardest by the economic downturn. Scrapping the bedroom tax and looking again at the costs to families of all the benefit changes should be a priority before giving tax cuts to the richest people in the country.

I welcome that council and town hall leaders who are speaking out against the cuts they are:

Cllr Alan Smith, Leader of the Council, Allerdale Council

Cllr Paul Jones, Leader of the Labour Group, Amber Valley Borough Council

Cllr Robin Stuchbury, Leader of the Labour Group, Aylesbury Vale District Council

Cllr Liam Smith, Leader of the Council, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Cllr Alison Moore, Leader of the Labour Group, Barnet London Borough Council

Cllr Stephen Houghton CBE, Leader of the Council, Barnsley Council

Cllr Simon Greaves, Leader of the Council, Bassetlaw District Council

Cllr Susan Oliver, Leader of the Labour Group, Bedford Council

Cllr Chris Ball, Leader of the Labour Group, Bexley Council

Cllr Sir Albert Bore, Leader of the Council, Birmingham City Council

Cllr Kate Hollern, Leader of the Council, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Cllr Simon Blackburn, Leader of the Council, Blackpool Council

Cllr Eion Watts, Leader of the Council, Bolsover District Council

Cllr Clifford Morris JP, Leader of the Council, Bolton Council

Cllr David Green, Leader of the Council, Bradford Metropolitan District Council

Cllr Philip Barlow, Leader of the Labour Group, Braintree District Council

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, Brent Council

Cllr Mike Le-Surf, Leader of the Labour Group, Brentwood Borough Council

Cllr Gill Mitchell, Leader of the Labour Group , Brighton & Hove City Council

Cllr Helen Holland, Leader of the Labour Group, Bristol City Council

Cllr Julie Cooper, Leader of the Council, Burnley Borough Council

Cllr Mike Connolly, Leader of the Council, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Timothy Swift, Leader of the Council, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Lewis Herbert, Leader of the Labour Group, Cambridge City Council

Cllr Sarah Hayward, Leader of the Council,    Camden Council

Cllr George Adamson, Leader of the Council, Cannock Chase District Council

Cllr Jewel Miah, Leader of the Labour Group, Charnwood Borough Council

Cllr Justin Madders, Leader of the Labour Group, Cheshire West and Chester Council

Cllr John Burrows, Leader of the Council, Chesterfield Borough Council

Cllr Alistair Bradley, Leader of the Council, Chorley Borough Council

Cllr James Alexander, Leader of the Council, City of York Council

Cllr Tim Young, Leader of the Labour Group, Colchester Borough Council

Cllr Elaine Woodburn, Leader of the Council, Copeland Borough Council

Cllr Tom Beattie, Leader of the Council, Corby Borough Council

Cllr John Mutton, Leader of the Council, Coventry City Council

Cllr Tony Newman, Leader of the Labour Group, Croydon Council

Cllr Stewart Young, Leader of the Labour Group, Cumbria County Council

Cllr Bill Dixon MBE, Leader of the Council, Darlington Borough Council

Cllr Mrs Joan Butterfield OBE, Leader of the Labour Group, Denbighshire Council

Cllr Paul Bayliss, Leader of the Council, Derby City Council

Cllr Anne Western, Leader of the Labour Group, Derbyshire County Council

Cllr David Sparks OBE, Leader of the Council, Dudley Council

Cllr Simon Henig, Leader of the Council, Durham County Council

Cllr Julian Bell, Leader of the Council, Ealing Council

Cllr Trevor Webb, Leader of the Labour Group, East Sussex County Council

Cllr Sheila Carlson, Leader of the Labour Group, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Cllr Doug Taylor, Leader of the Council, Enfield Council

Cllr Julie Young, Leader of the Labour Group, Essex County Council

Cllr Mick Henry CBE, Leader of the Council, Gateshead Council

Cllr John Clarke, Leader of the Council, Gedling Borough Council

Cllr Kate Haigh, Leader of the Labour Group, Gloucester City Council

Cllr Trevor Wainwright, Leader of the Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council

Cllr Brian Jones, Leader of the Labour Group, Gwynedd Council

Mayor Jules Pipe, Executive Mayor, Hackney London Borough Council

Cllr Rob Polhill, Leader of the Council, Halton Council

Cllr Claire Kober, Leader of the Council, Haringey Council

Cllr Thaya Idaikkadar , Leader of the Council, Harrow Council

Cllr Christopher Akers-Belcher, Leader of the Labour Group, Hartlepool Council

Cllr Jeremy Birch, Leader of the Council, Hastings Borough Council

Cllr Caitlin Bisknell, Leader of the Council, High Peak Borough Council

Cllr Jagdish Sharma MBE JP,  Leader of the Council, Hounslow Borough Council

Cllr Miles Parkinson, Leader of the Council, Hyndburn Borough Council

Cllr David Ellesmere, Leader of the Council, Ipswich Borough Council

Cllr Geoff Lumley, Leader of the Labour Group, Isle of Wight Council

Cllr Catherine West, Leader of the Council, Islington Council

Cllr Judith Blakeman, Leader of the Labour Group, Kensington and Chelsea Council

Cllr Mehboob Khan, Leader of the Council, Kirklees Metropolitan Council

Cllr Lib Peck, Leader of the Council, Lambeth Council

Cllr Mrs Eileen Blamire, Leader of the Council, Lancaster City Council

Sir Peter Soulsby, Executive Mayor, Leicester City Council

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock, Executive Mayor,           Lewisham London Borough Council

Cllr Richard Metcalfe, Leader of the Council, Lincoln City Council

Mayor Joe Anderson OBE, Executive Mayor, Liverpool City Council

Cllr Hazel Simmons, Leader of the Council, Luton Borough Council

Sir Richard Leese CBE, Leader of the Council, Manchester City Council

Cllr Vince Maple, Leader of the Labour Group, Medway Council

Cllr Stephen Alambritis, Leader of Merton

Cllr Charles Rooney, Leader of the Labour Group, Middlesbrough Council

Cllr Nick Forbes, Leader of the Council, Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

Cllr Gareth Snell, Leader of the Council, Newcastle-under-Lyme  Council

Sir Robin Wales, Executive Mayor, Newham London Borough Council

Cllr Bob Bright, Leader of the Council, Newport City Council

Cllr Graham Baxter MBE, Leader of the Council, North East Derbyshire Council

Cllr Jim Allan, Leader of the Labour Group, North Tyneside Council

Cllr John McGhee, Leader of the Labour Group, Northamptonshire County Council

Cllr Grant Davey, Leader of the Labour Group, Northumberland Council

Cllr Brenda Arthur, Leader of the Council, Norwich City Council

Cllr Alan Rhodes, Leader of the Labour Group, Nottinghamshire County Council

Cllr Dennis Harvey, Leader of the Council, Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

Cllr Jim McMahon, Leader of the Council, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Lady Liz Brighouse OBE, Leader of the Labour Group , Oxfordshire Council

Cllr Nazim Khan MBE, Leader of the Labour Group, Peterborough City Council

Cllr Tudor Evans, Leader of the Council, Plymouth City Council

Cllr Jim Patey,  Leader of the Labour Group, Portsmouth City Council

Cllr Mrs Sandra Davies, Leader of the Labour Group, Powys County Council

Cllr Peter Rankin, Leader of the Council, Preston City Council

Cllr Jo Lovelock, Leader of the Council, Reading Borough Council

Cllr Colin Lambert, Leader of the Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Sam Souster, Leader of the Labour Group, Rother District Council

Cllr Chris Roberts, Leader of the Council, Royal Borough of Greenwich

Cllr Dr James Shera MBE, Leader of the Labour Group, Rugby Borough Council

Cllr Keith Dibble, Leader of the Labour Group, Rushmoor Borough Council

Mayor Ian Stewart, Executive Mayor, Salford Council

Cllr Darren Cooper, Leader of the Council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Eric Broadbent, Leader of the Labour Group, Scarborough Borough Council

Cllr Mick Lerry, Leader of the Labour Group, Sedgemoor District Council

Cllr Peter Dowd, Leader of the Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Steve Shaw-Wright, Leader of the Labour Group, Selby District Council

Cllr Julie Dore     , Leader of the Council, Sheffield City Council

Cllr Alan Mosley, Leader of the Labour Group, Shropshire Council

Cllr Andy Perkins, Leader, Labour Group, South Gloucestershire Council

Cllr Mark Wilson, Leader of the Labour Group, South Lakeland

Cllr Mrs Eleanor Hards, Leader of the Labour Group, South Oxfordshire Council

Cllr Iain Malcolm, Leader of the Council, South Tyneside Council

Cllr Richard Williams, Leader of the Council, Southampton City Council

Cllr Peter John, Leader of the Council, Southwark Council

Cllr Martin Leach, Leader of the Labour Group, St Albans Council

Cllr Marie Rimmer CBE, Leader of the Council, St Helens Metropolitan Council

Cllr William Kemp, Leader of the Labour Group, Stafford Borough Council

Cllr Kevin Jackson, Leader of the Labour Group, Staffordshire Moorlands  Council

Cllr Sharon Taylor OBE, Leader of the Council, Stevenage Borough Council

Cllr Mohammed Pervez, Leader of the Council, Stoke-on-Trent City Council

Cllr Sandy Martin, Leader of the Labour Group, Suffolk County Council

Cllr Paul Watson, Leader of the Council, Sunderland City Council

Cllr Victor Agarwal, Leader of the Labour Group ,Surrey

Cllr David Phillips, Leader of the Council, Swansea City and County Council

Cllr Jim Grant, Leader of the Labour Group,         Swindon Borough Council

Cllr Kieran Quinn, Leader of the Council, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Stephen King, Leader of the Labour Group, Three Rivers District Council

Cllr John Kent, Leader of the Council, Thurrock Council

Cllr Peter Box CBE, Leader of the Council,    Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

Cllr Tim Oliver, Leader of the Labour Group, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Chris Robbins, Leader of the Council, Waltham Forest London Borough Council

Cllr Rex Osborn, Leader of the Labour Group, Wandsworth London Borough Council

Cllr Terry O’Neill, Leader of the Council, Warrington Council

Cllr John Barrott, Leader of the Labour Group, Warwick District Council

Cllr Tod Sullivan, Leader of the Labour Group, Waveney District Council

Cllr Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, Westminster City Council

Cllr Kate Wheller, Leader of the Labour Group, Weymouth & Portland  Council

Lord Peter Smith, Leader of the Council, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Ricky Rogers, Leader of the Labour Group, Wiltshire Council

Cllr Phillip Davies, Leader of the Council, Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Cllr Roger Lawrence, Leader of the Council,    Wolverhampton City Council

Yet the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) cut the forecast for this year from the 1.2% it predicted in December to 0.6%.

The cuts were announced at the start of George Osborne’s Budget speech, in which he blamed the cuts on lower-than-expected exports.

The OBR also revealed that the chancellor had failed to cut the amount the government borrowed this year.

It predicted that the government would be borrowing £121bn in the financial year ending at the beginning of April, which would be the same amount as it borrowed the previous year, excluding certain one-off factors.

The OBR has cut its growth forecasts repeatedly since it was established in 2010, when it was expecting 2.8% growth for 2013.

The chancellor said he was going to “level with people about the difficult economic conditions we still face”.

The forecast for 2014 has also been cut, from 2.0% in December to 1.8%.

Predictions for 2015 to 2017 have been left unchanged.

The chancellor admitted that the recovery was “taking longer than anyone hoped”.

He particularly blamed problems in the eurozone, highlighted by the bailout discussions for Cyprus.

He stressed that 40% of UK exports still go to the eurozone.

The OBR does not expect the economy to contract in the first three months of 2013, which would have put the UK into recession on the generally accepted definition of two quarters of negative growth.

It is expecting the eurozone to stay in recession this year.

“While less than we would like, our growth this year and next year is forecast by the IMF to be higher than France and Germany,” the chancellor said.

The OBR said that employment “continues to surprise on the upside” and predicted 600,000 more jobs this year and 60,000 fewer people claiming benefits than a year ago.

The chancellor said in his speech: “The deficit continues to come down.” But that depends on the figures used.

The figures for government borrowing, excluding the effects of both the transfer of the Royal Mail pension scheme to the government coffers and gains from the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility, give a figure of £121bn for the current financial year, the same as it was in the previous year.

For the first time, the OBR also gave a figure excluding the effects of the special liquidity scheme, which has been reclassified by the Office for National Statistics and so, some would argue, should be excluded.

That figure shows borrowing rising from £121bn last year to £123bn.

On the other hand, the chancellor quoted figures in his speech that do not exclude any special factors, which see borrowing fall from £121bn last year to £87bn this year, before rising again to £108bn in 2013-14.

The OBR said that tax receipts had been lower than expected in 2012-13, but that had been offset by reductions in government spending, including pushing some spending into next year.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, told informed the media: “Of course, the borrowing numbers are not falling as much as we’d like.”

Stephanie Flanders suggested to him that it would be more helpful to think of government borrowing being basically unchanged last year, this year and next year at about £120bn.

Labour Abstention on Job Seekers (Work Programme) Bill

businessdesk__1359460624_Liam_ByrneMy thoughts on Labour Abstention on Job Seekers (Work Programme) Bill

After reflection the question is did Labour do right by their decision to abstain. If the party felt that they would not have enough support it was better to abstain rather than lose face choose your battles that you can win comes to mind.


Now here comes the part that many Labour activists and supporters were angry over all this bill does is restore the DWPs means of sanctions for those who breach benefit claim rules. This bill has existed since 1911 and was suspended following the court ruling. Nothing has changed with the Labour Party’s opposition to Workfare and allowed this bill to pass on condition that the whole system is looked at again, legislation reviewed and changed to make it fairer and clearer. Nothing significant has changed. That vote today was about a bill for 100 years. The party did put out several press releases but none were printed. Again the press misquote, misrepresent and blow it out of proportion to get a story. The official party position from the National Executive Committee, Parliamentary Group and National Policy Executive is opposition to the scheme and if you would have heard the debate you would get a clear picture of complete derision and contempt for that Coalition policy. If you want any more information, I am happy to source it. I hope I have cleared it up for you. Please look into what the debate is about and research a bit before jumping on the attack because of the usual press scaremongering.


imagesWell if this is the case the Coalition Government has Labour over a double shot-gun barrel in other words damned if you vote against damned if you abstain. Well done Labour.

In this case Labour took the decision to abstain which some will argue was wrong and some will say yes. Let’s not kid ourselves for one moment and look on the merit of the whole picture there was a recent ruling on a court case when a Birmingham woman took the Department of Work and Pensions to court and she won her case.
conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850The coalition was not happy with the outcome and as I understand it is currently appealing against it. Granted that is their right to do so but in order for them to do so they would have to revisit the Job Seekers (Work Scheme) Act to show the appeals court that they have correct the procedure.

Liam Byrne Shadow Dept of Work and Pension advised his fellow Labour it is better to abstain than lose face backfired as some Labour MPs went to the No lobby others abstained. Sure it caused anger with some of our member of the party but truthfully I was not angered but more disappointed to know that one of Labour core principle had been broken protecting the poor.

Rightly or wrongly this has played into the coalition hands. Granted there are many angry Labour supporters and party members who will be remembered this day. Then there are sounding for Liam Byrne to step down as he is doing more damage to the party. I DO NOT advocate that he should step down but let the leader of opposition to decide during the reshuffle.

For too long the third main political parties are more interested in protecting their political careers and their mortgages than looking after the citizens who voted them into office it’s no wonder why Joe Blog is pissed of with our politicians. I commend those Labour MPs who voted against the bill on 19 March 2013.

I salute the Labour MPs who took the decision to vote against.

And here’s the list of rebels at the third reading (36 rebels):

For those who abstained remember that some of you have a selection to come I urge all Labour party members to hold their Labour Members of Parliament(MPs)  to account at their selection meeting organised by your Consistency Labour Party and ask them to explain why they abstained in this debate then if you are happy then leave it the way it is or if you not happy then seek a full selection.

The hard realities of Bedroom and Council Taxes cause by coalition


conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850My thoughts on the hard realities of Bedroom and Council Taxes.

Coalition which consist of Conservative(Nasty Party)  and Liberal Democrats(Cockroach Party)  introduced the dreaded Bedroom Tax which brought back terrible memories of the Poll Tax to thousands who went on the National Day if Campaign Against the Bedroom Tax.
Oppose-the-Bedroom-tax-e1363101953740Here is another reality check if you live in rented accommodation from the council or housing association and receive housing benefits and you have a spare room then from the 1April 2013 your housing benefit cut will be by 14% a two or more spare rooms 25% cut housing benefits which means you will lose between £12-22 per week and if you receive council tax benefit you will have to pay your council tax on top of that subject to what band you are in. If you can’t make up the difference and get into arrears you will be evicted. This is what the coalition is instructing all councils and town halls to do.

photo(1)Whist I was on the demonstration I came across some folks who I have not see before I asked them why did they came to march in which the reply I got was they lived in a council housing and housing associations they are single who lives in a two bedroom flats they wanted to move and could not move because they did not live in a area where their tower blocks was not up for demolition they now have to pay both bedroom and council taxes and they are unemployed.
download1I suspect over the coming months many low paid, disabled and unemployed people who has a spare bedroom(s) will have to pay both bedroom and council taxes. Saturday’s demonstration highlight  a lot of anger throughout the UK this because the coalition wants to send a message that they are no soft touch for this reason they cut the grants to city councils and town halls hoping to make savings which will bring out the anger of citizens.
photo(4)The coalition enjoys the divide and rule and there is more to come so be ready for it as they know that there were many voters who are eligible to vote WILL not use it which allows them to get back into office via back door.

The only way to change history is to get off your hands and do something about by start voting in all the elections from now to 2015. There is no excuse for you all NOT to vote as this what the coalition is depending on YOU NOT TO VOTE.

67078_568951696450079_333548374_n1The other side of the coin is the coalition was to send a strong message to their European counterpart that UK is no soft touch as they expect of Europeans to enter the this country. Let me be very clear this Will happen as the signs are there for us all to see during the European Elections both Conservatives and UKIP are pandering to the far right national parties and the Conservatives right are not happy with David Cameron they have put up Theresa May as the next challenger to Cameron to put the pressure on him as their donors wants to see hard results from him.

As for the cockroach party they are so desperate for power that they will do deals with any political parties there is many examples just look out for Monday 18 March they have done a deal with Labour Party which will spit their coalition partner. After the vote they will crow back to their bed partners as if nothing thing has happened.

I am proud to see Labourleft, Labour Against Bedroom Tax, Labour Briefing and other organisations led the way against the Bedroom Tax I don’t normally say this lightly. I have always maintained when Labourleft, Labour Against Bedroom Tax, Labour Briefing  get their policies right I will praise them and like any political parties or organisations when they get their policies wrong I will criticise.

The unprecedented triple dip recession is almost upon us. Over four years on from banking crash, with unemployment across UK and Europe at record levels, the economy continues to flatline and various remedies failure. Recently UK lost its triple A credit rating, the one course that all the work of the chancellors austerity has gone down the drain.

Coalition continues to insist that the budget deficit is a problem and investment and growth will not pick up until its reduce. The increasingly desperate and odious measures to reduce public spending and restore profitability by driving down wages. This reminds me of the Margaret Thatcher ideology of welfare cuts, and more privatisation and union busting.

The pace at which our schools are being forced to become academies and the huge unpopular hospital closures programmes are striping away our welfare state. The benefit cap and bedroom tax are causing hardships people are being forced out of their homes often relocated to areas where housing is cheaper. We have witnessed this in some parts of London and Southeast which will eventually affect the whole country which amounts to social cleansing.

It is estimated that nearly a quarter of a million will depend on food banks for the next five to 10 years. 1 in 5 children are in poverty this shows that crime will be on the increase to steal food to survive if I’m reading this right from the police and charities reports.

Coalition continues with their austerity programme which is cutting too fast and it’s not working but hurting. Almost £500 bn has been handed over to the banks in a form of quantitative easing.

The problem that I have with the banks is they are the ones who created the problems in the first place no ifs or buts. They are NOT leading and the banks expect from us higher returns in the short term which does not work. Banks should be concerned at the long term investment however there is talk of some economists bypassing and injecting money into the economy directly.

I was glad of Labour front and backbenchers all opposed the benefit cuts which helped to unite its members this also increased the party’s popularity in all fronts.

Recently at Labour Party Local Government Conference Liam Bryne MP mentioned five million people are using payday loans to cope with every day bills. He called for Jobs, jobs jobs and said the Department of Works and Pensions was blocking investment into manufacturing and small businesses. But with seven million underemployed what is needed are real jobs. Lewisham Council spends as much money on Housing Benefit as they do on housing.

On a more serious note we all need to reorganise on our protest as this just the first stage. We all need to continue to lobby our MPs and Councillors from a cross party approach via letter, advice surgery and get more activity all the communities all over the regions to bring home the message which includes visiting the council estates


Nasty Party Pulls the plug Cross Party on Leveson Agreement Before Conservative Spring Conference

3A105495FB9596336938F34B0E0EFMy thoughts on Leveson Report

I fully believe that the Leveson Report should be implemented and stop pussyfooting around as we all aware that the Conservatives Spring Conference is due to begin today and their donors are impatient with Cameron.

I’m not surprised or shock that the Nasty Party pulled out the crossed party over Leveson Report on the grounds that they never had any intention of implement any of the recommendation of the report with the support of their coalition partner or Labour.

indexLet us all be clear if phones were not hacked this problem would not have happened in the first place. I have more time for the Hack Off Campaign group than this coalition. I believe that all campaigns hold members of parliament (MP) to account as they are voters just like you and me. My message to coalition is “Pick sense of nonsense”.
conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850I’ve come to the conclusion that the Conservatives donors are pulling the buttons of David Cameron to water down Leveson Report and they have to play the blame game on Labour again by accusing the Hack off campaign having a hold on Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg.

If there has been any hijacking, it was by the powerful interests whose publications conspired to breach citizens’ privacy in pursuit of higher circulation and profits and are now intent on promoting the mirage of regulation rather than its essence.

These mouthpieces for the rich and powerful are trying to pull the wool over their readers’ eyes by affecting to stand up against statutory regulation of the press.

Statutory underpinning of media self-regulation is far from statutory regulation of the press, but the media moguls propagate this myth to paint themselves as guardians of press freedom against “Stalinist” enforcers of uniformity led by the Hacked Off campaign and National Union of Journalists leader Michelle Stanistreet.

It beggars belief that these smug panjandrums can describe the media in Britain as “free of political control for 300 years,” when most of our newspapers offer a severely restricted right-wing viewpoint.

Absence of direct state control does not equate to freedom, as Rupert Murdoch’s dictatorial prescription of what is acceptable in his stable of newspapers illustrates clearly.

It would require the most abject betrayal of political principle by Nick Clegg for Liberal Democrat MPs to troop into the division lobbies next Monday behind David Cameron’s attempt to bury Leveson.

While such a possibility can never be discounted, Cameron’s decision to simply pull the plug on joint talks with Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband was sufficiently contemptuous to have forced even the Liberal Democrat leader to declare that this worm is finally for turning.

His party, in common with Labour, has insisted that Cameron’s Royal Charter without statutory underpinning is inadequate and an insult to the Leveson inquiry and the witnesses who testified.

To the surprise of no-one at all, Cameron has secured backing from major media transnational corporations including the Daily Mail Group, the Telegraph Media Group and Rupert Murdoch’s News International.

The executives of these capitalist conglomerates share Cameron’s misrepresentation of talks on regulation as having been “hijacked” by those demanding legislation.

If there has been any hijacking, it was by the powerful interests whose publications conspired to breach citizens’ privacy in pursuit of higher circulation and profits and are now intent on promoting the mirage of regulation rather than its essence.

These mouthpieces for the rich and powerful are trying to pull the wool over their readers’ eyes by affecting to stand up against statutory regulation of the press.

Statutory underpinning of media self-regulation is far from statutory regulation of the press, but the media moguls propagate this myth to paint themselves as guardians of press freedom against “Stalinist” enforcers of uniformity led by the Hacked Off campaign and National Union of Journalists leader Michelle Stanistreet.

It beggars belief that these smug panjandrums can describe the media in Britain as “free of political control for 300 years,” when most of our newspapers offer a severely restricted right-wing viewpoint.

Absence of direct state control does not equate to freedom, as Rupert Murdoch’s dictatorial prescription of what is acceptable in his stable of newspapers illustrates clearly.

His slippery “I remember nothing” performance before Leveson, together with his son’s “no-one told me anything” act, should caution acceptance of Cameron’s cosmetic variation of the discredited model of voluntary self-regulation that has served media proprietors so well.

However, it has not served the public interest, as the shameless treatment of countless individuals has revealed, most disgracefully and heartlessly in the case of Millie Dowler’s family.

Leveson’s proceedings provided a window on the misdeeds of sections of the media that believed themselves invulnerable because of wealth and political connections.

How that media operates in future is too important to be left to the rich and powerful and their parliamentary pawns on the Tory Party front bench.

This Cameron-supporting claque does not speak for all the media. Apart from the Morning Star, the Financial Times, Independent and Guardian groups all accept the need for statutory underpinning.

This is despite not having indulged in any of the illegal practices brought to light by Leveson, which have tainted the entire media in the eyes of the public.

Politicians who resist the tidal wave of propaganda in support of Cameron’s bid to circumvent Leveson can expect to be monstered as enemies of press freedom by the usual suspects.

So MPs will require political backbone and a thick skin to vote down the Prime Minister’s Royal Charter charade on Monday.

In regards to the Cockroach Party (Liberal Democrats) they have a history of being a turn coats when it suit them. Remember the 1970s coalition agreement see link

See article below:

A day of talks over implementing the Leveson report on press reform, including a joint meeting between the Hacked Off campaign and the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships, failed to achieve a breakthrough on Tuesday.

Hacked Off, which represents victims of press intrusion such as Kate and Gerry McCann, met with Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband to see if fresh proposals from the Conservatives took the complex negotiations to a conclusion that could satisfy all those involved.

There had been hopes that all three leaders, Clegg, Miliband and David Cameron, would meet to seal a deal on Tuesday evening, but in the end too many disagreements remained for them to come together.

A Hacked Off source said they were “still far apart on vital issues”, including whether the press would be able to write its own code of practice, and whether the industry would be able to veto appointments to a revamped Press Complaints Commission. However, the PM’s spokesman said progress was being made.

Talks on Monday night between Oliver Letwin, Cameron’s policy fixer, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, Labour’s shadow culture secretary, Harriet Harman, and Lord Wallace for the Liberal Democrats, led to fresh proposals on how a body enshrined in a royal charter to oversee the work of the PCC would be implemented.

Various ideas have been advanced to make the royal charter permanent, including the suggestion that a law could be introduced that does not refer to the oversight body specifically but says that any royal charter that a future government wants to change cannot be amended by the privy council alone.

“This would not be sector-specific,” the source said, but would be a statute about royal charters. The idea has been advanced by the barrister Hugh Tomlinson, one of the lawyers informally advising Hacked Off and an expert on press regulation.

The Conservatives had previously proposed a royal charter as a way of ensuring a permanent body is set up to oversee and verify the new press regulatory body proposed by Leveson. Cameron had resisted Leveson’s recommendation that a revamped PCC should be underpinned by a law.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats have been concerned the royal charter and the verifying body could be abolished in the future at the whim of a minister, unless they are backed by statute. There has also been disagreement over the extent to which the regulatory body should be chaired by an independent figure not employed by the press.

Cameron is caught between a need to satisfy a divided press industry and a desire to stick to his commitment to implement the principles behind the Leveson report.

The sticking points on Friday were that Conservatives were siding with newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, who wanted a veto over appointments to the new body, control over the code of practice, and restrictions on third-party complaints.

Liberal Democrats Voted against their own policy(Mansion Tax)


photo(2)My thoughts on Mansion Tax:

Yesterday members of parliament voted on Mansion Tax proposed by Labour Party. Why am I not surprised that the cockroach party( Liberal Democrats) voted with their coalition partners(Conservatives) against the motion which is very simple they could not afford to a split with their bed partners and cause a massive division in its ranks as the Cockroach chief whip had went around informing them not to vote with Labour.

Although the Mansion Tax was the idea of the cockroach party policy Labour wanted to put them on the spot which played into the Labour party hands which they could turn around to say to the public the cockroach party voted against their own policy which then puts them in a position to say to the cockroach party supporters that they cannot be trusted in 2015.

The interesting part is if the cockroach party went with Labour Party on this one then this would allow the 10p rate come into the backdoor of the mansion tax to help low paid with their income tax.


conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850I can remember when the Labour group in Birmingham West Midlands were in opposition the group put forward a motion on a local issue like wheelie bins the Birmingham coalition voted against it as that would have split the Birmingham Cockroach Party with the Nasty Party(Conservatives Party) that is one example there were other example but I chose to use the wheelie bins

See article below:

MPs have rejected Labour calls for a “mansion tax” on properties worth more than £2m to be introduced before the next general election.

Conservative and Lib Dem MPs joined forces to defeat the move by 63 votes after a Commons debate.

The Lib Dems, who support the principle of such a tax, said Labour were simply trying to exploit coalition differences over the issue in an “infantile” move.

But Labour accused the Lib Dems of “suppressing their principles”.

Labour recently adopted the idea of a mansion tax, first put forward by the Lib Dems in opposition but opposed by the Tories, saying it would pay for the reinstatement of the 10 pence income tax band scrapped by Gordon Brown in 2009.

Labour urged the Lib Dems to back it in a Commons vote, but its motion calling for a mansion tax to be introduced at the earliest opportunity to “fund a tax cut for millions of people on middle and low incomes” was defeated by 304 votes to 241.

A subsequent amendment put forward by David Cameron and Nick Clegg in which the coalition partners put on record their different positions on the issue but stated their agreement on other tax matters and achievements in office was approved by 55 votes.

Lib Dem housing minister Don Foster said this enabled the party’s MPs to “reiterate their support” for the idea without putting the coalition’s future at risk.

Labour, he argued, was “trying to drive a wedge” between the coalition partners in an “infantile” and “cynical” manner. “Both parties know where they stand (on the mansion tax) and the public is also clear,” he said.

Making his party’s case, Shadow Treasury Minister Chris Leslie said the mansion tax would narrow what he said was a growing gap between low and middle income workers and the “top 1%”, who were set to benefit from an income tax cut while others were “squeezed”.

‘Clinging to power’

Mr Leslie said it would be “astonishing” if the party did not endorse a policy from its 2010 manifesto and suggested it would demonstrate that they were “suppressing their principles in a bid to cling onto power”.

The Lib Dems originally announced the policy at their 2009 party conference but were quickly forced to rethink the threshold for properties that would be covered, raising it from £1m to £2m, amid concerns about the number of people who would be affected.

Chancellor George Osborne and other leading Conservatives have long opposed the idea and it has never become coalition policy. However, it remains Lib Dem policy and retains support among activists and MPs.

The Lib Dems said on Monday they would not be voting with Labour and would instead back an amendment stating that “the part of the coalition led by the deputy prime minister (Nick Clegg)” advocates the idea, while “the part of the coalition led by the prime minister does not”.

The amendment, also backed by Conservative MPs, set out the areas of tax policy that the two parties agree, such as their goal of raising the threshold at which people start to pay income tax to £10,000 by the end of the current Parliament.


According to Labour, there are about 70,000 homes currently worth more than £2m – half of which are second homes. Although the party acknowledges the detail of the policy will have to be worked out, it believes it could raise an estimated £2bn.

Speaking in Tuesday’s debate, Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams said he agreed property wealth in the UK was “woefully under-taxed” but he said Labour were wrong to link the mansion tax to the re-introduction of the 10p tax band, describing it as a “completely ineffective” measure.

Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said Labour had done “little or nothing” to increase taxes on expensive property transactions while in government but had now “converted” to the idea for “transparently political purposes”.

“It is pathetic, it is insincere and lacks any sense of credibility,” he told MPs.

Labour had not committed to including the policy in its next manifesto, he suggested, and he contrasted the coalition’s move to lift the starting point at which people begin paying tax with Labour’s decision to scrap the 10p tax band.

In last year’s Budget, the coalition raised stamp duty on sales of properties worth more than £2m to 7% and increased the levy on properties bought via a company to 15%. However, the Lib Dems say they want to do more to shift the burden on tax away from work to assets.