Monthly Archives: May 2013

Introduction of Communication Data Bill (Big Brother Bill)

nigel-cameronIntroduction of Communication Data Bill (Big Brother Bill)

Recently I went touring around the UK to have some idea or soundings as to whether our Communication Data Bill will help to prevent crime. This happened before the incident of Woolwich took place.  Interestingly both CCT TVs and social media came on top of the agenda.

big brother is watching you darth vaderI wanted weigh up what were the benefits of having CCT TV cameras being placed in the so called hotspot areas. Notable most CCT TVs were placed in city centres, some run down estates and where there were high population of black and minority ethic groups allegedly to monitor crimes.

The cameras monitored by staff who is recording the event(s) by watching the screen. Just imagine if a member of staff had to take a comfort break he or she leaves for just a few minutes a crime began and the person(s) are not on the desk to zoom in to alert the police of the crime in progress but most crime are recorded so the police can refer back to later.

big-brother-cameronMost of those people who attended the meetings were council and the third sector staff highlighted the police budgets were being cut and they have very little left to do more and some councils had to raised the council tax bills to meet the down fall from central government grants.

Labour introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Communication Act 2003 to monitor the movement of terrorist and mobile phones, Broad Band and which included Close Circuit Televisions unfortunately both acts was rushed through Parliament with not enough time to be debated which would have included to insight violence, and racal hatred on  social media. After seeking legal advice and soundings from the security services and arm forces to include social media was abandoned this is my interpretation of both Acts.

cameras_innercity_london_2005Tories would like to introduce the Snoopers Charter Bill to be passed by the Act of Parliament with the backing of Boris Johnson (another wannabe leader) and possibly with Labour’s support inciting compelling evidence to justify the case. Although I have mix views on the current bill I would love to see a comprehensive debate on this so-called charter not based on knee jerk reactions but with a positive way forward on how they intend to implement the bill.

Already we have seen hate crimes towards the Muslim communities increased by knee jerk reactions of the English Defense League(EDL) who continues to organize marches( demonstration) to case maximum damage to the wider community against  Muslims who are decent abiding citizens  who contributes to our economy. Under this bill it is alleged that they would be in a position to ban groups like EDL and any other religious groups that promote religious hate crimes via internet which the providers will have to keep a record of their monitoring progress. What this bill does not make clear how long it should last and how the internet providers will forward the information to ie the home office or police.

Will drive those groups underground and how does it affect Freedom of speech( Gagging Orders)  Lets look at the merits for and against the bill:

Tories has made it plan that they want introduce the draft communication data bill with or without the support of the Liberal Democrats(LibDems) see the proposal checkout this link:

Conservatives next round of melt down

285209_506484709397635_58011429_nIts very hard to change peoples mindset if they aren’t willing to think ‘outside the box’ People generally are too afraid to embrace ‘change’ and try new things just to experience the difference.

The following Memebers of Parliment who voted against the the Same Sex Marriage:

133 Tory MPs: Nigel Adams (Selby &Ainsty), Adam Afriyie (Windsor), Peter Aldous (Waveney), David Amess (Southend West), Richard Bacon (Norfolk South), GutoBebb (Aberconwy), Henry Bellingham (Norfolk North West), Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley), Andrew Bingham (High Peak), Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West & Abingdon), Peter Bone (Wellingborough), Graham Brady (Altrincham& Sale West), Julian Brazier (Canterbury), Andrew Bridgen (Leicestershire North West), Steve Brine (Winchester), Fiona Bruce (Congleton), Robert Buckland (Swindon South), Simon Burns (Chelmsford), David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate), Douglas Carswell (Clacton), Bill Cash (Stone), RehmanChishti (Gillingham&Rainham), Christopher Chope (Christchurch), Therese Coffey (Suffolk Coastal), Geoffrey Cox (Devon West &Torridge), Stephen Crabb (PreseliPembrokeshire), David Davies (Monmouth), Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire), Philip Davies (Shipley), David Davis (Haltemprice&Howden), Nick de Bois (Enfield North), Nadine Dorries (Bedfordshire Mid), Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock), Richard Drax (Dorset South), Philip Dunne (Ludlow), Charlie Elphicke (Dover), Graham Evans (Weaver Vale), Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North), David Evennett (Bexleyheath &Crayford), Dr Liam Fox (Somerset North), Mark Francois (Rayleigh &Wickford), George Freeman (Norfolk Mid), Roger Gale (Thanet North), Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough), Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest), Cheryl Gillan (Chesham &Amersham), John Glen (Salisbury), Robert Goodwill (Scarborough &Whitby), James Gray (Wiltshire North), Andrew Griffiths (Burton), Robert Halfon (Harlow), Simon Hart (Carmarthen West &Pembrokeshire South), Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden), John Hayes (South Holland & The Deepings), Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire North East), Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne&Sheppey), Philip Hollobone (Kettering), Adam Holloway (Gravesham), Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot), John Howell (Henley), Stewart Jackson (Peterborough), Gareth Johnson (Dartford), David Jones (Clwyd West), Marcus Jones (Nuneaton), Chris Kelly (Dudley South), KwasiKwarteng (Spelthorne), Andrea Leadsom (Northamptonshire South), Phillip Lee (Bracknell), Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford), Edward Leigh (Gainsborough), Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West), Julian Lewis (New Forest East), Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater& Somerset West), David Lidington (Aylesbury), Peter Lilley (Hitchin&Harpenden), Jonathan Lord (Woking), Tim Loughton (Worthing East & Shoreham), Karen Lumley (Redditch), Karl McCartney (Lincoln), Stephen McPartland (Stevenage), Esther McVey (Wirral West), Anne Main (St Albans), Paul Maynard (Blackpool North &Cleveleys), Stephen Metcalfe (Basildon South &Thurrock East), Anne Milton (Guildford), Nicky Morgan (Loughborough), Anne-Marie Morris (Newton Abbot), David Morris (Morecambe&Lunesdale), James Morris (Halesowen& Rowley Regis), Bob Neill (Bromley & Chislehurst), David Nuttall (Bury North), Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury), Matthew Offord (Hendon), Jim Paice (Cambridgeshire South East), Neil Parish (Tiverton &Honiton), Priti Patel (Witham), Owen Paterson (Shropshire North), Mark Pawsey (Rugby), Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead), Claire Perry (Devizes), Mark Pritchard (Wrekin, The), John Redwood (Wokingham), Jacob Rees-Mogg (Somerset North East), Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington), Andrew Robathan (Leicestershire South), Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury), Andrew Rosindell (Romford), David Rutley (Macclesfield), Lee Scott (Ilford North), Andrew Selous (Bedfordshire South West), Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet&Rothwell), Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills), Henry Smith (Crawley), Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge&Malling), John Stevenson (Carlisle), Bob Stewart (Beckenham), Mel Stride (Devon Central), Julian Sturdy (York Outer), Robert Syms (Poole), David Tredinnick (Bosworth), Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight), ShaileshVara (Cambridgeshire North West), Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes), Ben Wallace (Wyre& Preston North), Robert Walter (Dorset North), James Wharton (Stockton South), Heather Wheeler (Derbyshire South), Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley), John Whittingdale (Maldon), Bill Wiggin (Herefordshire North), Gavin Williamson (Staffordshire South), Rob Wilson (Reading East), Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth &Southam).

Labour MPs: Joe Benton (Bootle), Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston& Bellshill), Rosie Cooper (Lancashire West), David Crausby (Bolton North East), Jim Dobbin (Heywood & Middleton), Brian Donohoe (Ayrshire Central), Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South), Mary Glindon (Tyneside North), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Hall Green), Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe& Sale East), Ann McKechin (Glasgow North), George Mudie (Leeds East), Paul Murphy (Torfaen), Stephen Pound (Ealing North), Stephen Timms (East Ham).

4 Liberal Democrat MPs: Liberal Democrat: Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed), Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley), John Pugh (Southport), SarahTeather (Brent Central).

8 Democratic Unionist Party MPs: Gregory Campbell (Londonderry East), Nigel Dodds (Belfast North), Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley), Rev William McCrea (Antrim South), Ian Paisley Junior (Antrim North), Jim Shannon (Strangford), David Simpson (Upper Bann), Sammy Wilson (Antrim East).

One independent: Lady Sylvia Hermon (Down North).

Well I hope all had a wonderful Bank Holiday and look forward to going back to work. In one sense I am looking forward to see more infighting in the Conservative Party between the old divisions of Thatcher and Major I’m sure  they will be very intriguing.

A-joke-1There is contiune alleged allegation of a senior aide over comments which has caused split between their party activists crossing over to United Kingdom Independence Party UKIP which is hurting the Tories prompting their HQ to send out emails and letter convincing their membership to remain in the party as it causing the Conservatives heartache. Yet they have the cheek to continue to play the blame game of Labour Party. Er hello Labour is not in government and it’s about time that they get their own house in order before throwing stones in glass houses.

nigel-cameronConservative opponents of gay marriage have invited the House of Lords to reject the bill after 133 Tory MPs, including two cabinet ministers, defied David Cameron to vote against the measure.

As a Tory grassroots organisation warned of a “civil war in conservatism”, prompted in part by the legislation, more than half of the Conservative parliamentary party voted against the bill after one ministerial aide complained of a “sham consultation” process.

Owen Paterson, the environment secretary, David Jones, the Wales secretary, and the prime minister’s “envoy” to the right, John Hayes, led a group of ministers who formed a 133-strong bloc of Tory MPs who voted against the bill. A further two Tories acted as tellers for the opponents, whose numbers fell from the 135 no votes at the second reading in February. But the opponents were more numerous than the 126 Tory MPs who voted in favour of the bill, which was given a third reading by 366 to 161

The vote came after David Burrowes, the Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, who is Paterson’s parliamentary private secretary, said that peers had every right to oppose the bill because it was not included in the coalition agreement and was not promoted clearly in any of the party election manifestos.

His comments came after Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, said: “The unusual position we have is none of the political parties put this in their manifesto. Would [you] agree that [the House of Lords] has the complete legitimacy to reject this bill because there is no Salisbury Convention?” This says that peers cannot reject legislation pledged in a winning election manifesto.

The MP said he feared for people who feel uncomfortable about the bill. “Intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of becoming fomented by the state orthodoxy in this bill about this new gender neutral meaning of marriage. Those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they won’t get the protection they deserve under the equality act.” But other Tories spoke in favour of the bill. Charles Walker, the MP for Broxbourne, said: “I didn’t come into politics to be defined by what I am against. I want to be defined by what I am for. And tonight is a good night.”

Stuart Andrew, the gay Conservative MP for Pudsey, hit back at his fellow Tory Sir Gerald Howarth who warned on Monday of an “aggressive homosexuality community”. Andrew told MPs: “I am not an aggressive man, but I have had the misfortune of facing aggression in a violent, physical form … In 1997, I was attacked and beaten unconscious by three men because of who and what I am.

“That had a profound effect on me at that time, but in time I fought back, and what helped were the decisions taken in this place. Through a series of acts, this house brought equality nearer. Where legislation led, society followed, and over time that balance changed and our society became more tolerant. Each small step forward felt like a huge leap forward for me personally.”

The bill moved to a third reading after a final threat was removed when Labour withdrew its support for an amendment to allow humanist wedding ceremonies to be included in the bill’s provisions. The government had warned this could over-complicate the bill and threaten its parliamentary journey. It was a similar warning that prompted Labour on Monday to drop its support for an amendment that would have extended civil partnerships to heterosexual couples.

Burrowes said: “I am grateful. Certainly the other place is looking in great detail at the way we have handled this bill.” He added: “We are in an extraordinary position on the third reading of a bill which redefines marriage, one that I never thought our government would have done, one where there was no clear manifesto commitment, no coalition agreement, no green paper – just a sham consultation.”

In her concluding remarks the equalities minister, Maria Miller, pleaded with MPs to support the bill. She said: “I accept that for some colleagues their beliefs mean that the principle of this issue is an insurmountable barrier to supporting this change. But to other colleagues I say, now is the time.

“Let us not be side-tracked nor distracted. Let us not expand the remit of this bill beyond its original intention. Let us make equal marriage possible because it is the right thing to do and then let us move on.”

But Tory divisions were highlighted as it emerged that the arch-Eurosceptic John Redwood is to be given a formal role in helping to formulate the prime minister’s economic policy. Downing Street has decided that a series of policy groups run by the backbench 1922 committee should report to the prime minister’s policy board. This means that Redwood, who chairs the 1922 economic committee and who unsuccessfully challenged John Major for the Tory leadership in 2005 over Europe, will have a formal input into the prime minister’s policy board on economics.

One rightwinger praised Downing Street for deciding to include the 1922 policy groups in its work. The MP said: “Credit where credit is due. Downing Street is trying hard to reach out. It really is time to end the Tory civil wars. We can’t stop gay marriage, we have got a referendum on the EU so we should just get on with it and support the prime minister.”

But the Conservative Grassroots organisation warned that Cameron would pay a high price for pressing ahead with gay marriage and for refusing to launch an investigation into the remarks by the Tory co-chairman, Lord Feldman, who was alleged to have called party activists “mad swivel-eyed loons”.

Miles Windsor, chairman of Conservative Grassroots, said: “This week has begun a civil war in conservatism, it may rumble on for years – but as things stand, Nigel Farage is winning it at a stride.”

I’m sure we all have not seen the last of the Conservative Right whom continue with attack on their beloved leader which most will want a change of leadership. They regard David Cameron as a weak leader as the rumour continues to spread over Europe and Gay Marriage. Nick Clegg I’m sure he will have his revenge by telling their coalition partners they will not stand by to see a break up of this coalition which will no doubt annoy the rebel conservative backbenchers further as they will try to find different ways to see an end of the coalition. The rebel backbenchers conservatives would love to see Mrs Theresa May or Mr Micheal Gove to replace David Cameron as their new leader of the conservatives as Boris Johnson is out of the race for the leadership challenge unless he decided to stand down as Mayor of London to become a member of parliament.

Whilst all this happening with the coalition, Labour must be mindful not to fall into the same trap as the media will continue to argue the country is better off with a hung parliament. I am sure will not will go down well with any political parties except of course for the Liberal Democrats who are so desperate for power that they will be bed partners with anyone who will share it with them.

Over the coming weeks many our Labour activists will be engaging with voters on the doorstep for the next set of elections come rain or shine to gain a Labour victory but most of us will not celebrate until we all see a Labour Government in power. Like it or lump it comes mind to all who don’t support Labour Party.

Henchmen(Bailiffs) come knocking your door on behalf of council

henchmenHenchmen(Bailiffs) come knocking your door on behalf of council.

Recently made unemployed by a company that could not pay its staff  I was forced to claim benefits and in the process had to downside owing to the tower Block I lived in up for demolition. Everything seemed okay so I thought how wrong I was. Council Tax bills started to arrive at new abode I informed the Council Tax Department that there must have been some mistake thinking that they would agree.

eric-picklesCouncil Tax department informed me that the bill was indeed correct. Mentioned that I was receiving benefits they informed me that the law had changed and I had to pay my fair share of bill. Wrote to the department indicating I could not pay the instalments in concern not heard anything from them for sometime then had a threatening letters from bailiffs stating that I owed x amount of £££.

Informed the council bailiffs I could not pay the upfront request that they were seeking which was unreasonable the cheek of Bailiff to say that they will take the value of goods for the sum that I owed. I continued inform the bailiffs that he or she will need to contact their employers to inform them that I could not pay the bill owing to the fact I was on benefits and I could not afford the telephone digits. The fact I had not received any notification from the council that they would take me to court over none payment and that I did not have opportunity to attend a court hearing to state my case was unacceptable.

A-joke-1Bailiff informed me that he or she had done many cases and he knows the law. Naturally I informed the bailiff that he was in breach of his or her own contract as he or she did not convey my concern to his employers for them to advise the bailiff. Looking back at it now I can say it was a good thing that I had made contact with my local Councillors and Member of Parliament in regards to my case.

Many people who are on benefits will now face the full force of the council over their Council and Bedroom taxes. If people cannot pay then they should contact their local councillors, MP or citizens advice bureau(CAB) for advice.

Then there is the issue of  the communities secretary told MPs the wealthiest councils face average funding cuts of 8.7% for 2013-14.

He did not give a single national figure for funding cuts, but said other measures meant overall that councils’ “spending power” would be 1.7% lower.

Labour’s Hilary Benn insisted that local services in England’s poorest areas would be hit hardest by the cuts.

Mr Pickles was “living in world of his own”, he said.

In a Commons statement, the communities secretary said “this is a fair settlement, fair to the north and the south, fair to rural and urban”.

“All councils have a moral duty to freeze council tax,” he told MPs, announcing that any attempt to raise council tax by more than 2% would result in a local referendum.

From April 2013, local authorities will retain half the amount of business rates raised within their boundaries, rather than transfer them to the Treasury.

This would contribute towards the “biggest shake-up of local finance in a generation”, Mr Pickles said, “based on self-determination”.

“For the first time in a generation, striving councils now have licence to go full steam ahead and grab a share of wealth for their local areas, to stand tall and seize the opportunity of enterprise, growth and prosperity,” the secretary of state concluded.

But Mr Benn replied: “He simply does not understand the impact that his decisions on funding are having on the services and local people who use and rely upon them.”

A total of 230,000 council staff had lost their jobs, while libraries, sports centres, sure start centres, and women’s refuges had closed, the Labour frontbencher said.


“The Audit Commission has found that, ‘the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than councils in less deprived areas’,” Mr Benn told MPs.

“Does he have any idea how local councils’ efforts to grow their local economies, to encourage apprenticeships, to build more homes, are being undermined every single day by the chancellor’s disastrous economic policies?”

He told the Commons that Tory-led West Somerset Council had already been declared by the Local Government Association to be “not viable in the longer term”.

The Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, Louise Ellman, said Mr Pickles had displayed “contempt for the people of Liverpool”.

She added: “The cuts announced today are an added blow to a city already reeling from cuts in local public services as a consequence of government decisions.”

Mr Pickles had argued that “committed local authorities have protected front-line services”.

Funding was now set to “fall in a controlled way”, he told MPs, with the “overall reduction in spending power” of 1.7%.

This “represents a bargain to local authorities”, Mr Pickles said, which he insisted had plenty of scope to make further savings while “safeguarding vital public services” and “ending the something-for-nothing culture”.

“Spending power” takes into account both the core “formula grant” which councils get from central government and other income – council tax and other grants.

In an open letter to Mr Pickles sent the day before his Commons statement, the leaders of city councils in Liverpool, Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds warned that “the cuts we are now being asked to make in the years ahead will go far beyond the level at which we can protect vital local services”.

The letter concluded: “It has become clear that amongst the worst hit areas are the core cities and our city regions, where we are facing some of the most intense pressures on services and where the sheer scale of the cuts will be most apparent.”

The government announced council funding details for each financial year until 2012-13 in December 2010, when the Local Government Association described the 2011-12 funding settlement as the toughest “in living memory”.

Council funding elsewhere in the UK is the responsibility of the devolved institutions.

Please see link below to which i am referring to

Most condemn the killing that took place in Woolwich

‘Muslim Patrol’ Infuriates UK MuslimsI support the call of the Muslim Council of Britain condeming the act see pasage belew:

The Muslim Council of Britain has condemned the alleged beheading of a British soldier in Woolwich, calling the attack “barbaric” and one that has “no basis in Islam”.

The man, who is believed to have served in the armed forces, was hacked to death in broad daylight by alleged Islamist extremists who reportedly raised religious slogans. Witness accounts confirm a strong political and religious motive to the brutal attack, but authorities have not yet officially responded.

“This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family. We understand that the victim is a serving member of the armed forces. Muslims have long served in this country’s armed forces, proudly and with honour,” said a statement from the Council.

It adds: “This attack on a member of the armed forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder. This action will no doubt heighten tensions on the streets of the United Kingdom. We call on all our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do no prevail.”

Meanwhile, anti-Muslim sentiments are surfacing in certain parts of the UK and two men have been arrested for attacking mosques in separate incidents.

A 43-year-old man has been detained by the police on suspicion of attempted arson after allegedly entering a mosque with a knife in Braintree, Sussex.

Another man was also arrested in Gillingham, Kent, for allegedly smashing windows and bookcases, which contained copies of the Quran, in a mosque.

edlbadge2Yesterday many would have seen on all the Television stations the act of horror of what I can only see fit to call two insane people who has abused the religion Islam to justify the killing of an innocent person who was going about his daily life. Nobody has the right to kill in the name of Islam nor do any decent Iman will preach the word of hate.

What followed on yesterday night from a group of thugs or rent a mob who called themselves English Defence League(EDL)  did not help the situation by marching down South East London to cause further tensions. Let the both the family of the solider be given the time to grieve and let the police carry on their investigations and bring those in concern to serve the full extent of our legal justice system that the law allows. granted tensions maybe high at the moment I continue call on both community leaders, politicians and Police to call for calm and report any activity that the EDL carries out most do not want to witness anymore hate crimes which credit their propaganda .


Conservative Party over an olive branch to Labour Party to head off rebels wrecking motion over Gay Marriage

13242_188244684659921_1609709078_nConservative Party over an olive branch to Labour Party to head off rebels wrecking motion over Gay Marriage
Last night was very entertaining to see that the Conservatives actually offering an olive branch to Labour in return to help them save the bill. Lets not forget it was the Tories who introduced Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the controversial addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986 (affecting England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland), enacted on 24 May 1988. The amendment stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.[1] It was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland as one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003 in the rest of Great Britain by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.[2]

As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.[3]

While going through Parliament, the amendment was constantly relabelled with a variety of clause numbers as other amendments were added to or deleted from the Bill, but by the final version of the Bill, which received Royal Assent, it had become Section 28. Section 28 is sometimes referred to as Clause 28 – in the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament have sections, whereas in a Bill (which is put before Parliament to pass) those sections are called clauses.[4] Since the effect of the amendment was to insert a new section ‘2A’ into the previous Local Government Act, it was also sometimes referred to as Section 2A.

To save face from the rebels to introduce a wrecking motion senior members of the Conservatives approach Labour to save the bill by introducing an amendment to which the coalition had no choice in the matter. I am glad that the coalition saw sense and realized that they did not have the full support from their rebel backbenchers. So on this occasion Labour has held a double barrow shot gun over the Conservative Party for a change.

In another interesting twist Conservative HQ send out emails and letters to all its party activists to head off another revolt from leaving the Conservative Party to join UKIP see letter below


After the news this weekend, I wanted to write a personal note to members of our Party.

I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party for 25 years. Some time after I joined I became Chairman of my local branch and was one of the volunteers dedicated to getting Conservatives elected to the local council. Since then I have met thousands and thousands of party members. We’ve pounded pavements together, canvassed together and sat in make-shift campaign headquarters together, from village halls to front rooms. We have been together through good times and bad. This is more than a working relationship; it is a deep and lasting friendship.

Ours is a companionship underpinned by what we believe: that everyone should be able to get on in life if they’re willing to work hard; that we look after those who cannot help themselves; that it’s family and community and country that matter; that a dose of common sense is worth more than a ton of dry political theory; that Britain is a great and proud nation that can be greater still.

Above all, we Conservatives believe you change things not by criticising from your armchair but by getting out and doing. Across the country, at charity events and voluntary organisations, you will find people from our Party quietly doing their bit. Time and again, Conservative activists like you stand for duty, decency and civic pride.

That’s why I am proud to lead this party. I am proud of what you do. And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise. We are a team, from the parish council to the local association to Parliament, and I never forget it.

Does that mean we will agree on everything? Of course not. The Conservative Party has always been a broad church – one which contains different views and opinions – and we must remain so today. But there is also much we must do together. We can shout from the roof-tops about how far we’ve already come. The deficit has been cut by a third. We’ve seen 1.25 million new jobs created in our private sector. 24 million working people have had their income tax cut.

And we can be clear about where we are going, too. We are engaged in a great fight to rebalance our economy, to bring excellence back to our schools, to fix the welfare system. And yes, we have a policy on Europe that is right for our country. Amid all the debate, remember this: it is our Party that has committed to an in-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017. Not Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, but the Conservatives who are committed to giving the British people their say.

So to those reading this, here is my message: there will always be criticism from the sidelines. But we must remember what this Party has always been about: acting in the national interest. Our task today is to clear up Labour’s mess and make Britain stand tall again.

We have a job to do for our country – and we must do it together.

David Cameron

Why has Conservative board fail to take action to investigate alleged remarks made by a senior aide which has led some Tory Councillors and activists decided to take their bat and ball over to UKIP which suggest to me that they rather join a right-wing party which many of us were not surprise.

Well not only have they shown that they join a party which has no policies in local government do they have anything on social housing, social care and health, street lighting, education, and highways. They only have one agenda get out of Europe and Immigration.

I support  the campaign group called Hope Not Hate which has been monitoring both  UKIP and BNP for sometime they have reach the conclusion that about UKIP see below:

UKIP have replaced the BNP as the party of choice for those disaffected voters wishing to register a protest vote at election time.

They are a right-wing, populist party who like to describe themselves as democratic and libertarian. Their main policy is withdrawal from the European Union, but immigration has become an all important factor, one that Nigel Farage and UKIP knows strikes a chord with the average voter on the doorstep.

But now it would appear that we all have to take them seriously. UKIP’s second place in the Eastleigh by-election is sending shockwaves through the British political establishment. Their 27% of the vote follows on from the 22% they polled in Rotherham and the 14.3% they received in Corby. In opinion polls they are battling for third place with the Liberal Democrats, with their popularity fluctuating between 9-12%.

Long dismissed as simply an anti-European Union protest party their political rivals are now gearing up to life with them for the foreseeable future.

Not racist?

Farage insists that UKIP is not an extremist organisation and says it is not racist to discuss immigration.

Of course, he is correct but for many of their supporters criticism of immigration often slips into outright racism.

In fact, at a local level, UKIP material is often far more extreme than that produced by the BNP. It is as if their anti-establishment and slightly quirky image in the media means their extremist and racist comments by local councillors and organisers are not held to the same scrutiny or outrage as would happen if a BNP activist said the same.

“The contrasting treatment of BNP leader Nick Griffin and UKIP leader Nigel Farage over the past decade provides an example of this effect in action,” says Rob Ford, from Manchester University.

“Griffin’s efforts to appeal to a more mainstream audience were hamstrung by his party’s legacy of fascism and violence, which lead the media, other politicians, and the electorate to treat him as a pariah. Farage, by contrast, has been able to raise similar contentious questions about immigration, Islam and identity in mainstream political forums such as Question Time without being attacked as a racist or a fascist thanks to his roots in a more legitimate tradition of ‘Eurosceptic politics.’

The racism and Islamophobia of its supporters is not hard to find. Abhijit Pandya, a UKIP parliamentary candidate, said on his website that Islam is “morally flawed and degenerate” and that he backed the controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders who has called Islam “a retarded ideology”.

The former UKIP leader Lord Pearson claimed that some of “our people were strangers in our own land” and that Muslims were “breeding ten times faster than us” Pearson also invited Wilders to screen the controversial film about radical Islam, Fitna, at the House of Lords.

In 2012, UKIP candidate Steve Moxon from Sheffield was stripped of his candidacy after writing on his blog that the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik’s thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate.

The chairman of London UKIP Paul Wiffen denounced Muslims as “nutters who want to kill us and put us under medieval Sharia law”.

UKIP’s former leader and founder of the party Alan Sked recently told The Huffington Post that the party he launched in 1993 has become “extraordinarily right wing” and is now devoted to creating a fuss, via Islam and immigrants”.

When asked if UKIP was xenophobic , Sked replied:  “It seems to be anti Islam and anti immigrant. If that adds up to xenophobic, then yes.”

UKIP is a member of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Union alongside a whole host of xenophobic parties and its Yorkshire and Humber MEP, Godfrey Bloom, ran the European Alliance for Freedom group alongside well-known far right politicians such as Marine Le Pen of the French National Front, Philip Claeys and Peter Kleist of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Kristina Morvai of the Hungarian far right party Jobbik.

In 2012, UKIP candidate Steve Moxon from Sheffield was stripped of his candidacy after writing on his blog that the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik’s thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate.

Another UKIP official to hit the headlines recently was Oxford UKIP chair Dr Julia Gasper. Last year Gasper compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, said the holy book was “fascist” and compared those who defend Islam to holocaust deniers.

Six months later Gasper resigned as Oxford UKIP leader after making homophobic comments where she branded gay rights a “lunatic’s charter” and claimed some homosexuals prefer sex with animals. Dr Gasper added:

“As for the links between homosexuality and paedophilia, there is so much evidence that even a full-length book could hardly do justice to the ­subject.”

Following the vote in Parliament on gay marriage, Olly Neville, leader of UKIP’s youth organisation, Young Independence,  was sacked after giving a radio interview claiming he supported gays having equal marriage rights. Richard Lowe, prospective parliamentary candidate for Chester was also forced to resign over the issue.

UKIP have a strict policy banning former BNP members from joining the party yet a former BNP candidate Andrew Eccles stood for UKIP in 2012 in Bury, Lancashire. Eccles was the BNP’s parliamentary candidate in the Hyndburn constituency in the General Election of 2010.

A clear space

One of the major factors for UKIP’s rapid rise is that they are operating with greater freedom on the right of British politics. The Conservatives are being restrained by the realities of governing and the compromises they are having to make as part of their coalition pact with the Liberal Democrats. Conversely, the electoral collapse of the BNP has left UKIP as the only actors on the right in British politics.

“UKIP now faces no competitor on the extreme right, leaving it free to recruit heavily from the 20% of the electorate who hold radical right views on a broad range of issues,” says Rob Ford. “In recent local elections some of UKIP’s strongest performances have come in areas where the BNP has recently collapsed, suggesting it is already reaping these benefits.”

Here to stay

UKIP are here to stay and we all need to start getting used to that and prepare accordingly. In May UKIP leader Nigel Farage is boasting that the party will stand 2,000 candidates in the county council elections. In June 2014 they could well top the poll in the European Elections. Coming just six months after Romanians and Bulgarians are given the right to work in the UK and just 11 months before a general election, this will send shockwaves through the Conservative Party who are increasingly worried that UKIP could prevent them winning the general election.

While UKIP will probably struggle to make gains in the 2015 General Elections, when our electoral system and the focus on who runs the Government makes it a two-horse race, their success between now and then is likely to shift the centre of political gravity to the right.

Britain finally has the type of anti-immigrant, anti-EU and anti-establishment party that many other countries across Western and Northern Europe has grown accustomed to over the past 10-15 years. And while UKIP is not a far right or fascist party many of its members and supporters hold views little different from those held by the BNP and it is for this reason the party should be monitored and opposed.

The racism crisis surrounding Nigel Farage’s UKIP Party deepens as our investigation exposes yet another UKIP racist.

Alan Jesson the newly elected UKIP County Councillor for Spalding South posted a series of vile posts earlier this year on the social networking site Facebook.

Spouting xenophobic abuse towards a Polish woman Jesson writes “what u gonna do when we pull out of the EU and repatriated [sic] you and your friends to give full employment to British workers.”

He continues “Fuck off we don’t need you sweetheart we get along just fine without you”.

Using an extract from the well-known Martin Luther King speech Jesson writes “I have a dream, as each day passes I hope and pray that one day soon Britain will be free of the corrupt EU and a day when the migrants are persuaded or forced to return to their countries of birth.”

Jesson quotes wildly exaggerated figures on future immigration, commenting on an article referring to Romanian and Bulgarian immigration “Just there’s 14 million more coming”.

In a series of other disgusting posts he writes of “how true it is that the biggest threat to the UK way of life was Islam and its followers”. “Mosques need banning until they adopt sexual equality and gay relationships and conform to British culture” he writes in a comment from January.

In November 2012 he wrote ” No Mosques should be entertained in this country. Islam is anti Gay [sic] and anti women [sic] . It can never be part of English culture.”

His apparent ‘concern’ for gay rights is merely a façade for his thinly veiled hatred; Alan Jesson also harbours homophobic sentiments. In a repulsive comment from February he claims “Gay people have no rights to marry in church as God does not recognise this action. It would just be a farce. Just because a growing number of people have had it with the Gay community doesn’t make them frightened of Gays in fact I believe most gays are indeed Hetrophobic.”

Demanding vigilante patrols, Jesson writes “Spalding needs a night-time voluntary civil protection patrol”. Unsurprisingly he also has some extra-tough views on crime, “4pm the river Welland Spalding most days the bit that runs through the town come see the EE s fishing for their tea. I’m going to start pushing them in and then the Police might take a bit of notice of these thieves”.

Ominously and in what seems to be a reference to Enoch Powell, he writes “I really do think soon there will be rivers of blood”.

The newly elected UKIP councillors on Lincolnshire County Council appear to be blighted with hatred and bigotry, but we seriously doubt Nigel Farage and UKIP will take any action.

A leading member of UKIP has appeared in court accused of breaching an injunction obtained by his ex-wife.

Piers Wauchope a Tunbridge Wells borough councillor and member of UKIP’s National Executive Committee pleaded not guilty at Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court on Monday to a charge of breaching a non-molestation order.

Wauchope, UKIP’s failed Police Commissioner candidate for Kent was charged after allegedly damaging a number of doors at the home of his estranged wife, after he went to pick up some of his possessions in January.

Patricia Wauchope Shaw obtained the injunction against her ex-husband in August 2012 after they originally separated.

Wauchope told the court he believed he had not broken the injunction but admitted to police that he was in the house and had caused the damage. His defence has asked for the case to be committed to the crown court for trial at a later date.

The case was adjourned with Wauchope currently on conditional bail.



Tory Rank and File Rebellion Continues over alleged comments

Tory Rank and File Rebellion Continues After Alleged Comments .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Coalition In turmoil with their Bedroom Partners


Coalition In turmoil With Their Bedroom Partners Libdems:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pension Power speaks out

1341419122-pensioners-groups-protest-at-westminster--london_1315248Pension Power:

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

_53837007_jex_1096008_de01-1getlostThe other concerns were Care Funding an existing problem. Despite the recommendations by Andrew Dilnot in his 2011 Government commissioned report, of implementing cap of care cost to the sum of £35,000 the coalition government has announced a £75,000 cap. This cap is for individuals and does not cover hotel cost meaning a couple could be facing care cost of well over £150,000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






More Cuts to Police Frontline Services

Cuts to police force:

Police officersMore government cuts in our police force in West Midlands Region around 2,700 jobs including 1,100 officers post, to be cut by the force for the year 2015 to save the sum of £126 million. If this continues the force may lose a further sum of £100 million by 2028.  I feel for our police force provides an excellent job on the beat. For every cut that takes place they are on duty in many conditions which many would not do. For the coalition to cut the police budget is wrong. I note when there is a triple dip recession or flatling and high unemployment hate, and general crimes are increased.
crime-01The coalition should do more to ring-fence the police budget but they are on a course of cuts, cuts. People are fed up with the spin coming from the coalition it’s Labour fault and voters are saying on the doorsteps what is the coalition to address this as it happened on their watch. In light of the cuts to the police budget I can see the councils increasing council taxes to recuperating back into the budget which in effect means those who are in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance housing, council tax benefits will get around 25% of their council tax which the claimant will have to pay the rest from their benefits.

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

200px-David_Cameron's_visit2On the other hand cuts in the police force has some cases led to redundancies which means redundancy payment on top of their pension taking into account to the number of years service they have provided. “Across the country over 12,500 police officers and thousands more support staff are being lost and it is local communities that will pay the price. “The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary claim these cuts won’t affect the frontline. But they are completely out of touch. Neighbourhood policing, CID, domestic violence units, fraud, burglary and murder squads are all being affected already. Many forces are losing some of their most skilled and experienced crime fighters.

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

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


Return of Blue Labour



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

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



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


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



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


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

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

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

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