Here is that we all should be reminded by this about this establishment why we should vote them out:
The arrogance of this establishment grows by the day. Welcome to the capitalist party of Tories they would rather trade damn right insults towards refugees and immigrants which plays into the hands of the Far-right elements of EDL, BritainFirst, LionheartGB, Pegida and UKIP oh what hypocrites David Cameron has become since being leader of the nasty party. Well done.
Cameron speaks his entourage pushes further; the media responds; and on the streets, the abuse and attacks kick off. Sadly, Cameron and the Tories seem to believe that the answer to a broken nation is to break it some more. During the last election David Cameron made great headway with his slogan about Labour and the SNP wanting to “break up Britain”. It’s been a theme with him. As leader of the opposition, David Cameron declared Britain is broken under Labour and claims that he will fix it.
It’s ironic, then, that few people in the past decade have done more to break apart the bonds that hold Britain together than the Tory party leader. Responding at Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions on 27 Jan 2016 to Jeremy Corbyn’s visit to the refugee camp at Calais last weekend, Cameron joked: they met with a bunch of migrants in Calais. They say that they all can come to Britain.
Fancy this a Conservative Peer says that he could not live a £300:00 day for attending the House of the Lords. A millionaire peer appointed by David Cameron is describing the £300 daily allowance as “inadequate”.
Lord Farmer, a hedge-fund boss and Conservative donor said people would consider the current payment to be “modest and even inadequate” if they knew how hard peers worked.
And he argued that peers deserved higher pay because attending the House of Lords “restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere”.
Lord Farmer – who is also a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party with a reported personal fortune of £150 million – said he, personally, did not claim the £300 allowance when he attends debates, “because I do not need to”.
But he added: “Some depend on the daily allowance to make ends meet because they give so much of their time.
“If this were made clear to the public, who, of course, pay garage and plumbers’ bills per hour, or per day, they might think the daily fee is in fact rather modest, and even inadequate, particularly if they understood there are many peers whose work here restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere.”
The 71-year-old peer, who is reported to have donated £6.5 million to the Conservatives, also backed calls for a beefed-up Lords press office, to trumpet the chamber’s successes.
He said: “Crucially, however, if their [peers] contribution is to be considered worthy of public funding, the public need to value and understand the work we do.
“There is so much to shout about every day that would actually encourage all who pay taxes, whether individuals, or businesses, that they are in fact getting great value for money.
“We might even see public support for higher daily allowances, which I would endorse wholeheartedly.”
In another development the establishment lost their defence on two cases of bedroom tax the Government loses Court of Appeal cases followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.
The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a “spare” room.
Ministers have said they will appeal.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.
The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.
Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would “look very carefully” at the judgement. “But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don’t subsidise them in the private sector.”
One of the cases – brought by a woman identified as “A” – concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.
The second case – brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren – focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.
There are believed to be about 300 such victims of domestic violence and thousands of severely disabled children in this situation.
The Court of Appeal ruling comes after a judicial review brought by the Rutherfords was dismissed in the High Court in 2014.
Housing benefit changes – dubbed the “bedroom tax” by Labour – were introduced in April 2013. Since then families claiming housing benefits have been assessed for the number of bedrooms they actually need.
Families deemed by their local authorities to have too much living space have received reduced benefits, with payments being cut by 14% if they have one spare bedroom.
Both “A” and the Rutherfords claimed that the policy change discriminated against them unlawfully.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Vos ruled in their favour, saying the “admitted discrimination” in each case “has not been justified by the Secretary of State”.
Mr Rutherford said he was “absolutely delighted” with the ruling, adding: “I couldn’t have had a better start to the day.”
“It was so unfair that somebody had to do something to get the law changed.”
As if this is not bad enough David Cameron dear Buddy Rupert Murdoch has publicly attacked the conservative leader over Google. Remember he was the same person who spat out Tony Blair to the pack of wolves when he no longer wanted Labour in power now he is doing the same to David Cameron as a warning shot Rupert Murdoch is having a laugh at David Cameron expense by accusing the “posh boys in Downing Street” of being too easily awed by Google as the government came under fire over its £130m tax deal with the technology giant.
Murdoch, the multibillionaire executive chairman of News Corp who ultimately controls the Times and the Sun newspapers, sent a series of tweets on Wednesday suggesting Downing Street was too close to Google and accusing the company of “paying token amounts for PR purposes”.
He made the pronouncements after facing accusations over phone hacking scandal that he and his executives were too close to senior politicians in the UK and had too much lobbying power. Murdoch’s company tax affairs have also come under scrutiny in Austria.
How many of us remember Student Grants or student maintains grants defeat and conservatives jumps up and down for joy. Grants designed to support students from the poorest backgrounds through university will be abolished today, but if you plan to tune in to BBC Parliament to watch a fiery political exchange you’ll be sorely disappointed. There will be no Commons debate, no Commons vote and no sign of the mass demonstrations that shook the government that chose to treble university tuition fees five years ago.
Down the corridor and up the stairs, the Third Delegated Legislation Committee will meet in committee room nine. A small group of MPs will gather to consider the innocently titled ‘Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951)’. The numbers will be stacked in the Tories’ favour and even if the committee did want to quash the proposals, they will have no power to do so.
No doubt clever government whips hoped that using an obscure parliamentary process would minimise the political damage to the Tories’ reputation, but it is scandalous that such a major decision is being taken in this way.
The poorest students will be hit hardest. Currently, eligible students can receive a non-repayable grant of up to £3,387. This money helps with essential costs like rent, foods, bills and study materials. These grants were won as part of a hard-fought deal by previous generations of student leaders and parliamentarians who convinced successive governments that, if they were going to ask graduates to pay more for their university degree, it was only fair to help those from the poorest backgrounds to meet the costs of studying with a grant. When the Coalition government trebled university tuition fees to £9,000, students were told that the increase in maintenance grants for students ‘should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately’. Thanks to David Cameron, George Osborne and Tory MPs meeting in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee today, the poorest students will now be saddled with the highest debts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the poorest 40% of students in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 for a three year course, rather than £40,500 at present. Worryingly, another study from the IFS found that a £1,000 increase in grants created a 3.95% increase in university participation, so there are serious questions for the government to answer about the impact that abolishing grants could have on fair access to higher education.
Because the government is ducking the usual parliamentary scrutiny, MPs from all parties will not have the chance to ask ministers difficult and important questions. There has been no proper consultation with those affected and there was no mention of this major policy change in the Conservative Party manifesto.
The government’s behaviour is underhand and undemocratic. The poorest students will lose out as a result, making the policy unfair. Students, and the general public, should not stand for it.
Don’t be hoodwinked by Jeremy hunt and company he is not telling us the full story about our NHS. The Conservatives have allegedly blocked legal documents that may show the impact of a controversial ‘free trade’ agreement on the NHS.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, known as TTIP, is a US-EU trade deal currently under negotiation, and are avidly supported by the likes of the establishment and Obama. The blocked legal documents, campaigners have cautioned, may contain the extent to which, under TTIP, private NHS contractors could sue the government for introducing policies that negatively impact their profits.
The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is the most controversial element of TTIP. It allows corporations to sue governments or public bodies before an arbitral tribunal, for policies that are perceived as harmful to their profits. An ‘arbitral tribunal’ is an international hearing, out of the courts and behind closed doors, which decides how much money these companies should get.
The supposed motive is to encourage foreign investment, despite there being no empirical evidence for this (There is no ISDS in any trade agreements Brazil has, or between the US and China). ISDS is exclusively to foreign investment; US companies gain the right to these international arbitration tribunals, but EU companies must stick to national courts. Thus, ISDS can discriminate in favour of US companies.
Cameron has been in charge of the country for six years. If he hasn’t got it sorted by now, he never will!! It’s not rocket science, The clown is a waste of space and one of the big question is will we all see the return of legal aid which is a hot potato as it is alleged that conservatives about to do a uturn. Justices secretary Michael Gove is to ditch plans to completely overhaul legal aid, reversing yet another policy by his controversial predecessor Chris Grayling.
The minister repealed pledges to create a ‘two-tier’ contract system for cases affecting criminal legal aid in a move described by one journalist as “another humiliation” for Grayling. Legal aid is government money that helps pay for legal advice or representation for those accused of crime.
The coalition government approved plans for a drastic reduction – from 1,600 to 527 – in the number of legal aid contracts for duty solicitors attending magistrates’ courts and providing round-the-clock cover at police stations. Solicitor firms wiped from the duty-cover phonebooks would have been forced to rely only on clients who referred themselves to their practices.
Changes to legal aid under Grayling enraged lawyers, who argued the cuts would limit poorer peoples’ access to justice.
But in a written statement published on Thursday afternoon, Gove said he was scrapping the planned contracts cull.
“I have decided not to go ahead with the introduction of the dual contracting system,” he said.
Gove, who took over the justice brief from Grayling after the election in May last year, also declared he would suspend the second-half of a 17.5% fee cut for those providing legal aid at state expense.
“I have also decided to suspend, for a period of 12 months from 1 April 2016, the second fee cut which was introduced in July last year,” he added.
Explaining the move, Gove wrote: “By not pressing ahead with dual contracting, and suspending the fee cut, at this stage we will, I hope, make it easier in all circumstances for litigators to instruct the best advocates, enhancing the quality of representation in our courts…
“Thanks to economies I have made elsewhere in my department, HM Treasury have given me a settlement which allows me greater flexibility in the allocation of funds for legal aid.”
It signals the fifth serious reversal of Grayling policies by Gove, following the lift of a ban on friends and family sending books to prisoners, dplans for a £100 million youth ‘mega prison being axed, a U-turn on Saudi prison contracts and criminal court charges being scrapped.
This is what happens when ‘cost-saving’ measures are taken – the impacts of ‘efficiency’ in one area often results in another area picking up those costs. So while the police budget may be more protected, it doesn’t mean that austerity for the rest of services doesn’t result in more stress for the police. UK police are spending as much as 40% of their time dealing with incidents triggered by some kind of mental health issue, against a backdrop of severe cuts in social and health services, the Guardian has learned. Research by the Guardian shows that the overall number of incidents recorded in police logs as being related to mental health rose by a third between 2011 and 2014, a trend that looks set to continue.
It comes after warnings that a perfect storm is gathering over already overstretched police forces as they try to cope with the knock-on effects of cuts to mental health services.
Figures for mental health “qualifiers” – identifiers used by the police to mark incidents in which mental health has been a factor – were obtained for the period from 2011 onwards under the Freedom of Information Act. A total of 35 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland provided complete and consistent data.
The research found that the overall number of incidents with a mental health aspect rose by 33% between 2011 and 2014, the last full year for which data is available. This was despite the overall number of incidents recorded by the police forces falling by 10% in the same period.
The College of Policing estimates 20-40% of police time and vast amounts of money are taken up dealing with incidents involving people with mental health problems. Metropolitan police officers have estimated in the past that mental health issues account for at least 20% of police time.
Joanne McCartney, chair of the London assembly’s police and crime committee, said local authorities and health services had less capacity and staff to deal with mental health issues as they came under pressure from cuts.
“As a measure of last resort the police are going to have to be the ones to respond to incidents,” said McCartney. “They will do their best and do now have training in how to deal with vulnerable people, but they are not best placed to do that. They are not mental health professionals.
Compared with other forces, South Wales and North Wales police recorded particularly large jumps between 2011 and 2014 in the proportion of incidents related to mental health.
Pressures are also particularly high in Suffolk, where police spent a month last year analysing how much police time was spent on responding to mental health incidents. The results were stark: in one month 37% of officers’ time was devoted to dealing with incidents involving some mental health aspect.
“I wasn’t surprised when we saw how high that figure was,” said Ch Supt David Skevington of Suffolk police. “We knew the profile of mental health was being raised significantly through the number of operational incidents we were dealing with where people were suffering from mental health issues, whether it is people suffering from alcohol or substance abuse, or people just struggling in life.
“It could be an angry man who is smashing a place up; it could be concerns for someone wandering around the streets or someone at the top of a multi-storey car park. Mental Health is a key part of policing and we needed to do more to better equip our police officers. We have to look at these people being at a point of crisis in their lives, not being criminals.”
It now transpired that fifty Tory Member of Parliament lining up to defying Scameron over town hall budgets Tory cuts mean that the poorest local councils face cuts 18 times higher than the country’s richest, new analysis.
In an analysis undertaken by the Labour party and seen by the Independent, figures show that between the years 2010 and 2015, when the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government were in power, funding for the 10 most deprived local councils have fallen on average by £681.04 per household.
Of the 10 wealthiest councils in the UK, four saw an increase in their funding, while nine of the most deprived saw cuts of more than £520 per household.
The government looks at several factors such as crime, health, education, living conditions and unemployment, when monitoring whether an area or council is deprived.
Kingston upon Hull
On the 5 May 2016 well be various elections for Local Government, Police Crime Commissioner, and London Mayoral Elections I would urge all to use all your votes for Labour party Candidates.