Category Archives: #Equalities

Don’t trust Conservatives to run our public services which side are you on public or private sectors

The chancellor or the prime minister could not give a flying monkeys if our growth goes up or down as long as they get pay cheque paid into their bank account(s) every month complements of the taxpayers and in return public service workers gets kick between the legs with less pay increase and more cuts to public services. The lower your income the more you will get smacked in the face with further increases in food, and energy prices and mobile bills which pushes people to join longer queues outside the foodbanks and junk food projects to feed their families just to make ends meet.

Who remembers who Ice Queen Theresa May first speech outside 10 Downing Street, here is the full speech she made:

I have just been to Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new government, and I accepted.

In David Cameron, I follow in the footsteps of a great, modern Prime Minister. Under David’s leadership, the government stabilised the economy, reduced the budget deficit, and helped more into work than ever before.

But David’s true legacy is not about the economy but about social justice. From the introduction of same sex marriage,  to taking people on low wages out of income tax altogether; David Cameron has led a one-nation government, and it is in that spirit that I also plan to lead.

Because not everybody knows this, but the full title of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that word ‘unionist’ is very important to me.

It means we believe in the Union: the precious, precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it means something else that is just as important; it means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the United Kingdom but between all of our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we’re from.

That means fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others.

If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.

If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university.

If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately.

If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand.

If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home.

But the mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone means more than fighting these injustices. If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise. You have a job but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about paying a mortgage. You can just about manage but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school.

If you’re one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly.

I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best, and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle. The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.

We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.

We are living through an important moment in our country’s history. Following the referendum, we face a time of great national change.

And I know because we’re Great Britain, that we will rise to the challenge. As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold new positive role for ourselves in the world, and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.

That will be the mission of the government I lead, and together we will build a better Britain.

If you ask the ordinary Joe Blogs out in the real world they would say the conservatives are not the party for the working class they are more for the rich and they have their finger in every pie and they will shaft you as soon as they get what they want form you. Look at what they did to the coal miners and manufacturing industries.

It is highly noticeable that childcare vouchers have been put on hold by six months by conservative ministers with the full support of bed partners DUP helped to secure voting against Labour motion here is the list of conservative and DUP who proudly voted against the opposition motion see names below: 

Here is the list of MPs who voted against the motion:

Conservative (304)

Adams, Nigel
Afolami, Bim
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Allan, Lucy
Allen, Heidi
Amess, Sir David
Andrew, Stuart
Argar, Edward
Atkins, Victoria
Bacon, Mr Richard
Badenoch, Mrs Kemi
Baker, Mr Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Sir Henry
Benyon, rh Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Blackman, Bob
Blunt, Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bowie, Andrew
Bradley, Ben
Bradley, rh Karen
Brady, Sir Graham
Brereton, Jack
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, rh James
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Robert
Burghart, Alex
Burns, Conor
Burt, rh Alistair
Cairns, rh Alun
Cartlidge, James
Cash, Sir William
Caulfield, Maria
Chalk, Alex
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Sir Christopher
Churchill, Jo
Clark, Colin
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clarke, Mr Simon
Cleverly, James
Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Costa, Alberto
Courts, Robert
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, rh Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Chris
Davies, David T. C.
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Mims
Davis, rh Mr David
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Docherty, Leo
Donelan, Michelle
Double, Steve
Dowden, Oliver
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duguid, David
Duncan, rh Sir Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellwood, rh Mr Tobias
Eustice, George
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, rh David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Sir Michael
Fernandes, Suella
Field, rh Mark
Ford, Vicky
Foster, Kevin
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Frazer, Lucy
Freeman, George
Fysh, Mr Marcus
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, rh Mr David
Ghani, Ms Nusrat
Gibb, rh Nick
Gillan, rh Dame Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Luke
Graham, Richard
Grant, Bill
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Chris
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hair, Kirstene
Halfon, rh Robert
Hall, Luke
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, rh Matt
Hands, rh Greg
Harper, rh Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Harrison, Trudy
Hart, Simon
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, rh Sir Oliver
Heappey, James
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Heaton-Jones, Peter
Henderson, Gordon
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, rh Damian
Hoare, Simon
Hollingbery, George
Hollinrake, Kevin
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Adam
Howell, John
Huddleston, Nigel
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hurd, rh Mr Nick
Jack, Mr Alister
James, Margot
Javid, rh Sajid
Jayawardena, Mr Ranil
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jenkyns, Andrea
Jenrick, Robert
Johnson, rh Boris
Johnson, Dr Caroline
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keegan, Gillian
Kennedy, Seema
Kerr, Stephen
Knight, rh Sir Greg
Knight, Julian
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Lamont, John
Lancaster, rh Mark
Leadsom, rh Andrea
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Letwin, rh Sir Oliver
Lewer, Andrew
Lewis, rh Brandon
Lewis, rh Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lopez, Julia
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Mr Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Mackinlay, Craig
Maclean, Rachel
Main, Mrs Anne
Mak, Alan
Malthouse, Kit
Mann, Scott
Masterton, Paul
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McLoughlin, rh Sir Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, rh Ms Esther
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Johnny
Merriman, Huw
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milling, Amanda
Mills, Nigel
Milton, rh Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, Damien
Mordaunt, rh Penny
Morgan, rh Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Murray, Mrs Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, rh Caroline
Norman, Jesse
O’Brien, Neil
Offord, Dr Matthew
Opperman, Guy
Parish, Neil
Patel, rh Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penning, rh Sir Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perry, rh Claire
Philp, Chris
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Dan
Pow, Rebecca
Prentis, Victoria
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Pursglove, Tom
Quin, Jeremy
Quince, Will
Raab, Dominic
Redwood, rh John
Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Robinson, Mary
Rosindell, Andrew
Ross, Douglas
Rowley, Lee
Rudd, rh Amber
Rutley, David
Sandbach, Antoinette
Scully, Paul
Seely, Mr Bob
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, rh Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, rh Julian
Smith, Royston
Soames, rh Sir Nicholas
Soubry, rh Anna
Spelman, rh Dame Caroline
Spencer, Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, rh Mel
Stuart, Graham
Sturdy, Julian
Sunak, Rishi
Swayne, rh Sir Desmond
Swire, rh Sir Hugo
Syms, Sir Robert
Thomas, Derek
Thomson, Ross
Throup, Maggie
Tolhurst, Kelly
Tomlinson, Justin
Tomlinson, Michael
Tracey, Craig
Tredinnick, David
Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie
Truss, rh Elizabeth
Tugendhat, Tom
Vaizey, rh Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, rh Mr Ben
Warburton, David
Warman, Matt
Watling, Giles
Whately, Helen
Wheeler, Mrs Heather
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, rh Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, rh Gavin
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wood, Mike
Wragg, Mr William
Wright, rh Jeremy
Zahawi, Nadhim

Democratic Unionist Party (10)

Campbell, Mr Gregory
Dodds, rh Nigel
Donaldson, rh Sir Jeffrey M.
Girvan, Paul
Little Pengelly, Emma
Paisley, Ian
Robinson, Gavin
Shannon, Jim
Simpson, David
Wilson, rh Sammy

Independent (1)

In further development Theresa May has been officially rebuked for misleading MPs and the public over false claims that the government is providing an extra £450m in funding to local police forces in 2018/19.

The chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, ruled on Tuesday that the claim made by May repeatedly at prime minister’s questions last month “could have led the public to conclude incorrectly” that the government was providing an extra £450m for police spending over the next financial year.

Labour MPs are expected to try to challenge May over her misleading statements about police funding at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday.

The shadow police and crime minister, Louise Haigh, who made the complaint to the statistics watchdog, said that in fact there had been a “flat cash” settlement for police forces in England and Wales that actually amounted to a cut in direct Whitehall grants to the police in real terms. Haigh said the “extra £450m” would only be found if police and crime commissioners pushed through an increase to council tax to raise £270m. About £130m of the £450m is to go directly to “national police priorities” rather than local forces and a further £50m is to be provided for counter-terrorism funding.

The prime minister’s claim that local police force budgets were being boosted by £450m was repeated by Home Office tweets and in a letter sent out by Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons.

“We have commented in the past about statements on police funding and emphasised the need for greater precision in the way numbers are used,” Norgrove told Haigh in his response to her complaint.

“In terms of the particular points you make, the prime minister’s statement and the Home Office’s tweet could have led the public to conclude incorrectly that central government is providing an additional £450m for police spending in 2018/19.

“The Home Office tweet also implied that the £450m sum is guaranteed. As the minister for policing’s statement outlined, up to £270m of the funding settlement will come from local council tax, if police and crime commissioners and mayors choose to raise these sums. In addition, the leader of the House of Commons stated that the £270m that can be raised locally was on top of the overall settlement of up to £450m,” wrote Norgrove.

The statistics watchdog said complex funding arrangements were difficult to explain in the “time compressed context” of PMQs but said the Home Office did not face this constraint in its tweet. He suggested the Home Office’s head of statistics made sure his colleagues understood the structure of police funding and the importance of making clear public statements.

Haigh called for the PM to apologise. She said: “The Tories are not being straight with the public on police funding and now they have been found out. See article below:

Council tax bills on the up. Public services neglected, outsourced, privatised. People are being let down by their local authorities across the country, and they are acutely aware of it. Whether their council is controlled by Labour or Tories, it’s likely that in May they’ll put the blame where it belongs – with the Tory government.

Over the last eight years, council budgets have been reduced by 50 per cent. The cuts aren’t evenly distributed either, with the most deprived local authorities actually being hit by deeper cuts than the rest.

The Local Government Association says children’s services need £2bn to plug the funding gap. Faced with a surge in demand, councils are having to surpass their budgets to protect children at immediate risk of harm.

Of course each problem is connected. A family becomes homeless and gets placed in temporary accommodation, maybe a single room in a hostel. The children have no space to do their homework, so their performance at school declines. They’re tired; there is drug-taking and anti-social behaviour in the building and the police are called out regularly. Their mother’s mental health worsens, she start taking anti-depressants.

I truly don’t mean to sound glib – I’m describing a situation that I encountered many times as a parliamentary caseworker. One isolated event, like a private landlord serving its tenants with an eviction notice, leads to pressure on housing, welfare, emergency services, health, education, and so on.

As Corbyn says, the May elections are a chance for people to send a clear message: “enough is enough”. See article below from Sienna Rodgers LabourList

How can you trust the Conservatives to run our beloved public services when the UK’s new homelessness minister has told the Guardian she does not know why the number of rough sleepers has increased so significantly in recent years. Heather Wheeler said she did not accept the suggestion that welfare reforms and council cuts had contributed to the rise.

On a visit to a housing project in Glasgow, Wheeler said she remained “totally confident” she would not have to act on her pledge to resign should she fail to meet the Conservative manifesto commitment of halving rough sleeping by 2022, and eradicating it by 2027. “We’re going to move heaven and earth to get that done,” she promised. See article below:

The question still remains who do you trust to run our public services I say “Don’t trust Conservatives to run our public services which side are you on public or private sectors” If you are thinking to vote Conservatives and care about Public services then the Conservatives is not the party for you. If you want a better future want to see improvements in services to public services then I would strongly suggest that you vote for Labour on 3 May to improve public services.



Conservative panic over Housing crisis for Local Government Elections 2018

Just before declaring a snap general elections Theresa May had a majority in government she thought she would not win and toyed with the idea of courting her knight and shining in armour Vince Cable to save her party if there was another hung parliament but as if by magic a tree appeared in her office with money glowing in a dark corner of her office in 10 Downing Street. She wanted more power thinking Vince Cable would be so gullible to accept but only for him to turn down her proposition of marriage on the grounds of that a divorce proceedings would be within a year and did she think he had muggings written on his forehead after what happened in the last coalition.

Theresa May decided to turn her affections towards on her second best choice to be her sweetheart and husband to be Jeremy Corbyn. She declared I have a confession to make to you my sweetheart I want to marry you oh Jeremy Corbyn for more power in Parliament but after a few drinks of port she had a change of heart then contacts Jeremy Corbyn to say I have to break my engagement to you as you’re a vegan and I’m a meat eater. Jeremy Corbyn replies “Theresa there is no love lost between us I’m here to serve my country as your government continues with the dreaded austerity plan that hits the lowest paid this includes people with disabilities and mental health this will end in divorce, nothing you say will gain my trust in you and I rather stick to my principles thank you”.

After deciding to call for a snap general elections Theresa May lost her majority her affections and attention moved towards to her third and last choice Arlene Foster who was so gullible who decided to agree to a honey trap of an arranged marriage in return to pour some magic money tree in her favourite country called Northern Ireland and a further agreement of a confidence and supply vote in parliament not withstanding Ice Queen Theresa May laughing at her and trying to stab Arlene Foster in the back at the same time over brexit.

Sajid Javid (Housing Secretary) issued a stern warning to councils in England failing to build enough new homes could be stripped of planing powers. Councils will be told how many homes a year they must build and a failure to do so will see independent inspectors step in and he will be breathing down the necks of local authorities to ensure targets is met. It’s very rich of this government trying to addressing the housing issue and forgetting about homelessness and rough sleepers when they had 8 years to deal with it and not failing to mention it increased in UK by 162 percent this doesn’t address sofa-surfing and people staying in hostels. Poverty and Housing experts say that this appalling raise has been caused by crude government cuts to Housing Benefits a fall in investment in affordable homes reduced funding for homelessness services and a refusal to help private tenants. The bedroom tax and Universal Credit are making matters worse.

Theresa May and Sajid Javid are both living on cloud coco-land it’s alleged income inequality has been reduced since 2010 what planet are they living on they really need to smell the coffee they fail to recognize it has increased on their watch by offering people long-term solution of three year tenancies.  That is not long-term this does not resolve any problems.  The main cause of the present housing shortage is the right to buy.  Like many of us we are frustrated that as tenants we will never be able to live in London because of high house prices. Not many could not afford to buy or rent in London and tenants are being forced out to other regions.

No doubt the conservatives will carry on playing the blame game by saying that the previous government had 13 years to address it under their watch. If you check the records homelessness and rough sleepers increased when the coalition came into power under the austerity plan introduced by David Cameron and George Osborne by using the sound bite of the time which was the “ Big Society followed by We’re All In it Together”. They conveniently seem to have short memories came to mind so I take no lessons from this government introduced the right to buy scheme and failed to build more council housing.

Here is the full transcript of Theresa May speech:

On my first day as Prime Minister, I spoke on the steps of Downing Street about my desire to make this a country that works for everyone.

A country where, regardless of where you live, your race or religion, or what your parents do for a living, you have a fair chance to get on and build a life for yourself and your family.

It’s a philosophy that shapes everything this government does, and, over the past 18 months, we’ve done much to help turn vision into reality.

We’re reforming schools, colleges and universities so that all children and young people get the education that’s right for them.

We’re addressing failures in the justice system, making it more transparent so that racial disparities can be identified and ironed out.

We’re raising the national living wage, increasing the income tax personal allowance, and capping energy bills so that people are able to keep more of the money they’ve worked so hard to earn.

And, as I said at Mansion House on Friday, we’re negotiating a Brexit deal that works for the whole of the UK, so that nobody feels they have been left behind.

It’s all about making this country a fairer place for all, breathing fresh life into the British dream that every generation has a better future than the last.

But we cannot fulfil that dream, we cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see, unless we tackle one of the biggest barriers to social mobility we face today: the national housing crisis.

The causes and manifestations vary from place to place but the impact is all too clear: in much of the country, housing is so unaffordable that millions of people who would reasonably expect to buy their own home are unable to do so. Others are struggling even to find somewhere to rent.

The root cause of the crisis is simple. For decades this country has failed to build enough of the right homes in the right places.

It’s a problem that has plagued successive governments of all colours since post-war housebuilding peaked under the first Wilson administration.

But it was from the mid-1990s that the failure to match demand with supply really began to push prices upwards. In 1997, the average home cost 3.5 times the average wage. By 2010, that ratio had more than doubled.

Higher prices brought with them higher rents, so prospective first-time buyers found themselves able to save less and less even as the size of the deposit they needed grew and grew.

The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the Bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home ownership is all too often locked and barred.

Talking to voters during last year’s election campaign, it was clear that many people, particularly younger people, are angry about this.

Angry that, regardless of how hard they work, they won’t be able to buy a place of their own. Angry when they’re forced to hand more and more of their wages to a landlord to whom their home is simply a business asset. Angry that, no matter how many sacrifices they make to save for a deposit, they’ll never be able to compete with someone whose parents have released equity from their own home to help their children buy.

They’re right to be angry. Income inequality is down since 2010, thanks in part to increases in the personal allowance and the National Living Wage. But wealth inequality continues to rise. And, as figures such as Matthew Rognlie argue, it is housing wealth – unearned, and offering huge returns – that lies at the heart of this growing disparity.

But the impact of rising prices goes beyond the simple division between housing haves and have-nots. This crisis of un-affordability is also creating a crisis of almost literal social immobility.

Think of the skilled, experienced worker who is offered a promotion but can’t afford to take it up because it would mean moving to a town or city where he can’t afford to live.

Think of the talented young woman from a working-class background who can’t afford to take an entry-level professional job because she wouldn’t be able to live nearby.

It’s not so hard to accept that door-opening internship in London if your parents own a large house in central London. It’s a much greater challenge if you share a room with your siblings in a North Wales terrace.

So the shortage of housing in this country reinforces inequality. It prevents social mobility and stops people fulfilling their potential. It creates and exacerbates divisions between generations and between those who own property and those who do not.

And it undermines something more, something less tangible but just as important. The sense of community, of belonging, of responsibility that comes with owning your own home or having an affordable, secure, long-term tenancy.

I still vividly remember the first home that I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but also the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice.

And because we had that security, because we had a place to go back to, it was that much easier to play an active role in our community. To share in the common purpose of a free society.

That is what this country should be about – not just having a roof over your head but having a stake in your community and its future. All that is put at risk by the mismatch between housing supply and housing demand and the soaring prices that have resulted.

Now, this Government is already taking action to help hard-pressed buyers. We’re putting an extra £10 billion into Help to Buy, giving another 135,000 families a step up the property ladder. We’re scrapping stamp duty for 80 per cent of first-time buyers, and looking at ways to make the whole process of buying and selling homes quicker, easier and cheaper.

But to stop the seemingly endless rise in house prices, we simply have to build more homes – especially in the places where un-affordability is greatest.

Doing so requires action on many fronts, and at the very heart of the matter is the planning process. Planning professionals may not be as visible as the bricklayers and carpenters and roofers. But we cannot build the homes we need without them.

Because if there’s one thing I learned from my time working on housing at Merton Council, it’s that good planning is all about detail. It’s very easy for a politician to stand up and say he or she will build however many homes in however many years. But it’s an empty promise if they don’t also address the hundreds of smaller issues that underpin it.

Where in the country will they be built? In which communities? On what sites? What kind of homes will they be? What infrastructure will be needed to support them? Will these plans be imposed from above, or will local people have a say on what happens in their area?

These are the kind of questions that need to be answered by anyone who is serious about getting homes built. They’re the kind of questions that are asked every day by planning professionals. And they’re the kind of questions this government is answering with the new, fairer, more effective planning rules that we’re launching today.

When used incorrectly, as was the case for so many years, planning policy creates barriers to building, tying up councils in red tape and allowing developers to game the system. But in the right hands it can be a powerful tool with which to shape, regulate and drive the construction of homes in this country.

So this government is rewriting the rules on planning. With the major overhaul being published today, we’re giving councils and developers the backing they need to get more homes built more quickly. More homes at prices that are affordable for first-time buyers. More homes for the NHS staff, teachers, firefighters and other key workers on whom all communities depend. More homes for rent on family-friendly, three-year tenancies.

We’re streamlining the planning process, so that much-needed homes aren’t held up by endless appeals and bureaucracy.

We’re making it easier for neglected and abandoned commercial sites to be turned into housing.

And we’re making sure councils do all they can to find sites, grant planning permissions and build homes. That includes creating a nationwide standard that shows how many homes authorities need to plan for in their area – making the system fairer and more transparent.

Our new rules will also see to it that the right infrastructure is in place to support such developments. When people oppose large-scale development in their area, it’s often because they’re worried their village or town simply won’t be able to bear the weight of hundreds of new arrivals.

Their schools are already full, their roads are already congested, the waiting list at their GP is already too long. They want to know that any new homes will be accompanied by appropriate new facilities and infrastructure.

Under our new planning rules, that’s exactly what will happen. And local communities will be put at the heart of the planning process by seeing to it that all areas have an up-to-date plan.

Yet we must not lose sight of the fact that planning for the homes we need is not the same as building the homes we need. After all, families can’t live in a planning permission. A well-designed local plan won’t keep your children safe and warm at night.

The reforms driven forward under our last Prime Minister led to a great and welcome increase in the number of planning permissions granted. But we did not see a corresponding rise in the number of homes being built.

All that is changing.

The Secretary of State for Housing, Sajid Javid, along with his ministerial team and their officials, are doing incredible work in tackling failings at every level of the housing sector.

And I’ve taken personal charge of meeting the housing challenge, leading a task-force that brings together ministers and officials from every corner of Whitehall to attack the crisis on every front.

Because, while planning reform is part of the answer, all the evidence shows that just reforming planning and expecting the existing developers to build all the homes we need is pie in the sky.

Of course they have a clear and vital role to play, but the government must also step in homes are going to get built.

So we’re committing at least £44 billion of capital funding, loans and guarantees to support our housing market. We’ve changed the rules so authorities facing the greatest affordability pressures can access the finance they need to build more council homes for local people.

We’ve given Homes England a more muscular, proactive role in the process of site assembly, bringing together patches of land to create a coherent site suitable for development.

We’re investing in innovative modern construction methods that get more homes built more quickly.

The £5 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund has already made its first awards, investing almost £900 million in the roads, cycle paths, flood defences and other essential works that will allow for the construction of up to 200,000 homes that would otherwise not get built.

And we’ve put an additional £1.5 billion into the Home Building Fund, helping smaller developers deliver homes that don’t attract finance from the private sector. As one builder put it after finishing a development in Derbyshire: “The banks were very sceptical and very unhelpful. The Home Building Fund finance made all the difference.”

The results are clear. In 2016/17 net additions to England’s housing supply reached some of the highest levels seen for a generation. More than 217,000 homes of all types and tenures providing a place to live for couples, families and individuals right across the country.

The number of people buying their first home has reached its highest level in more than a decade: 365,000 last year, with an average age of 30.

Yet there remains much to do. The gap between permissions granted and homes built is still too large. The new, fairer planning rules we’re publishing today will help to close it. But it’s also time for builders and developers to step up and do their bit.

The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price. In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.

Oliver Letwin is currently reviewing the causes of the planning permission gap. If he finds evidence of unjustifiable delay, I will not rule out any options for ending such practices.

That may include allowing councils to take a developer’s previous rate of build-out into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission. I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise.

Where councils are allocating sufficient land for the homes people need, our new planning rulebook will stop developers building on large sites that aren’t allocated in the plan – something that’s not fair on residents who agree to a plan only to see it ignored.

And, by ending abuse of the “viability assessment” process, we’re going to make it much harder for unscrupulous developers to dodge their obligation to build homes local people can afford.

The Government will make sure land is available for homes and make sure our young people have the skills needed to build them. In return, I expect developers to do their duty for Britain and build the homes our country needs.

Public investments in infrastructure and schemes such as Help to Buy have provided a real boost to house builders. If they want that to continue, they will have to raise their game.

But that doesn’t have to mean destroying the country we love.

This is not an overcrowded nation. Only around 10 per cent of England has been built on. We are not faced with a zero-sum choice between building the homes people need and protecting the open spaces we treasure.

That’s why the answer to our housing crisis does not lie in tearing up the Green Belt. Barely 13 per cent of this country is covered by such a designation, but it serves a valuable and very specific purpose.

Not protecting beautiful scenery, unique wildlife or accessible landscapes. For that we have National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, heritage coastline and more. Indeed, our new planning rules also include stronger protections for ancient woodland and historic coastlines everywhere.

No, the defining characteristic of Green Belt land is not its beauty or its greenness, but its openness. Green Belts exist not to preserve landscapes but to prevent urban sprawl. That is what they were created for in the 1950s and that is the valuable purpose they still serve today.

Where cities surrounded by Green Belts still need more homes, we can increase housing density, make better use of brownfield sites, build upwards rather than outwards.

Our new planning rules make it easier to do this, allowing for minimum densities around transport hubs and city centres so that more homes can be built in areas with the highest demand.

They also support conversions of empty spaces over shops and upward extensions, allowing planners to make the most efficient use of available space and helping families to extend their homes.

Planning rules already say that Green Belt boundaries should be changed only in “exceptional circumstances”. But too many local authorities and developers have been taking a lax view of what “exceptional” means. They’ve been allocating Green Belt sites for development as an easy option rather than a last resort.

To prevent this, we’re strengthening existing protections so that authorities can only amend Green Belt boundaries if they can prove they have fully explored every other reasonable option for building the homes their community needs.

In the handful of cases where land does have to be removed, councils and developers will have to find ways to offset the impact.

And our 25-year environment plan commits us to leaving the natural environment in a better state than we found it. So we’ll expect any development, whether in the Green Belt or outside it, to look first at sites that have previously been built on rather than opting immediately for virgin countryside.

I’d rather see an ugly, disused power station demolished and replaced with attractive housing than a wood or open field concreted over – even if the former is in the Green Belt and the latter is not.

This concerted action, in planning and beyond, will get more homes built and bring home ownership back within the grasp of ordinary people.

But while ownership is a wonderful thing, there is nothing inherently wrong with renting your home. More than a third of English households rent at present, and almost all of us will do so at some point in our lives – I know I have.

Yet the tragedy of Grenfell Tower shone a spotlight on experiences shared by too many tenants. The fire took place in a local authority tower block, but the stories we’ve heard from the people who lived there – concerns not being acted on, voices not being listened to, needs being ignored – were all too familiar to tenants in all kinds of homes across the country.

Whether you’re renting by choice or necessity, you’re not any less of a person for doing so and you should not be treated as such. But the rise in houses prices has helped create a rental market in which bad practice can flourish, where people can be exploited, and where tenants are all too often seen as an inconvenient commercial necessity rather than as individuals with rights and needs.

Private landlords play an important role in the housing market. Talk to tenants, however, and you’ll repeatedly hear complaints that people are paying more and more for less and less. So this government is taking action to clean up the rental market and bring down the cost of renting.

Too many tenants have got used to being hit with rip-off fees by letting agents, facing huge upfront bills to check references or sign contracts. That’s simply not fair, so we’re banning letting agents from charging most tenants any fees at all.

Families face being uprooted every six months when their leases expire, so we’re working to make longer tenancies the norm.

Rogue landlords have been flouting rules that protect tenants’ rights and safety. So we’ve given local authorities new powers to crack down on such behaviour, and we’re backing legislation that will ensure all rental properties are fit for human habitation.

With no regulation in property management, the door has been open to cowboy agents – with tenants, leaseholders, freeholders and honest agents all paying the price. That’s why we’re working with reputable property managers and their clients to clean up and regulate the sector.

Our new planning rules encourage providers to build more homes specifically for rent, so supply goes up and rents come down.

And, later this year, our social housing green paper will look at what more can be done to ensure everyone living in social housing is treated fairly.

Whether in the private or social sector, renting your home should be affordable, safe and fair – and I’m working hard to make sure that’s the case.

Just as Grenfell highlighted failings in parts of the housing sector, so the tragic deaths of rough sleepers have reminded us of the plight of those forced to live on the streets.

And let me take this opportunity to thank the thousands of council staff, charity workers, volunteers and members of the emergency services who have done so much to help rough sleepers during the recent cold weather.

In 2018, in one of the world’s largest, strongest economies, nobody should be without a roof over their head. This isn’t just a British problem – in recent years homelessness has risen across Europe – but it is source of national shame nonetheless.

That’s why we pledged in our manifesto to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it altogether by 2027. We’ve already committed £1 billion to help bring this about, and are piloting the Housing First approach in three of our great cities to see how it can work in this country.

We’re also implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act, to help more people sooner. We’ve changed the rules around funding so local government can use £400 million to help prevent homelessness, instead of just responding to it. And we’ve changed the law so councils can place families into private rented accommodation – meaning they get a safe, secure suitable place sooner.

But it’s not just about housing. Homeless people often have complex needs, so we’re taking unprecedented action across the board to help address them.

Here in London, 47 per cent of rough sleepers have mental health needs. That’s why we’re spending record levels on mental health support.

Forty four per cent need help to overcome alcoholism, so we’re spending around £200 million on treatment for alcoholism every year.

And 35 per cent need help for drug misuse, which is why our new Drug Strategy will protect the most vulnerable and help them turn their lives around.

There’s undoubtedly more to do. But we’re taking action that will make a real difference.

Because this is a government that isn’t afraid to uncover and face up to challenges. And that’s exactly what we’re doing with homelessness, and with the wider housing crisis.

More than 70 years ago, Anthony Eden told the world that “the ownership of property is not a crime or a sin, but a reward, a right and a responsibility that must be shared as equitably as possible among all our citizens.”

This country agrees with him. For decades after, home ownership steadily grew as more and more people acquired and passed on not just a patch of land but a stake in their communities, a piece of our shared society.

Yet ownership peaked in 2003. With prices rising and affordability falling, we became a nation where buying your own home went from a shared aspiration to a distant dream. Where rising rents led to an increasingly rootless population. Where housing wealth coalesced in the hands of those lucky enough to be on the property ladder, creating division, increasing inequality and undermining communities.

The British dream is about each generation being better off than the last, but today’s young people are forced to spend three times more of their income on housing than was the case for their grandparents.

The picture we see today is the result of many failures by many people over many years. Fixing it won’t happen overnight. But the size of the challenge is matched only by the strength of my ambition to tackle it.

More home ownership. A rental market that works for tenants. Greater fairness for all.

That is what the people of this country need.

That is what will make this a society that truly works for everyone.

And, as Prime Minister, that is what I am determined to deliver.

Whilst I concur it sounds very good with their new found sound bite on housing I can’t help thinking that there is Local Government elections on 3 May 2018 the Tory Government are in panic mode they seem to have forgotten they have cut funds to councils across the UK am I missing a trick or two here. Housing continues to be the problem of both successful governments. No doubt it still comes across as a talking shop and less action. Let’s see more action from this government it is highly noticeable this government has a very good track record of u-turns on a number of their so called policies since they have taken office. I have to say it needs more meat on the bone and is a feeble measure being proposed.

I’m afraid I’m not convinced of the proposal on housing and I would urge all to vote Labour on 3 May 2018

Where is the Conservative values, oh yes hit the plebs where it hurts who are on the dole

I salute all unsung heroines on the grounds of its a 100 years since women were first granted to the right to vote and proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with all women who use their right to vote, the downside of this women are still fighting for gender equality and equal pay. How long will they have to wait for another 100 years to achieve their aims and objectives surely this is not right. Women still face abuses and harassment from all walks of life even today which is wrong. Parliamentarians should do more to address this, sure there is legislation to address this but more needs to be done to address this in a form of zero torrence.

Debt crisis has increased by four times faster than wages in UK. Data published by UK Finance shows households had outstanding loans worth £37bn in 2016/17. It’s no surprise that Christians Against Poverty (CAP) said January 2018 was its busiest ever month for people seeking debt advice.

British companies are facing a recruitment crisis, with labour shortages hitting critical levels in some sectors, according to a business leader who has urged the government to produce details on a post-Brexit immigration system. The director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said the lack of candidates for some jobs was biting hard, and he warned ministers against bringing forward a “draconian and damaging” visa or work permit system.

Surveys by the BCC showed that nearly three-quarters of firms trying to recruit had been experiencing difficulties “at or near the highest levels since [BCC] records began over 25 years ago”, he said. Marshall said the failure of ministers to act swiftly could force companies out of operation. “The simple fact is that many businesses can’t afford to wait much longer for a clear UK immigration policy to emerge,” he said, pointing to further delays to the government’s immigration white paper, an early draft of which was leaked to the Guardian. Meanwhile, a spokesman for Angela Merkel has called for details on British demands after Brexit ahead of a meeting with Theresa May on Friday.

The prime minister went to Berlin for a bilateral session with Merkel, the German chancellor, which is expected to cover security cooperation and trading relationships. May is then due to give the next speech in the government’s “road to Brexit” series in Munich. Merkel’s spokesman said the EU27 wanted a close and deep relationship with the UK, but added: “It is important for us for Britain to make concrete its ideas.”

The moves by May and senior ministers to flesh out more details over the next fortnight, with a series of speeches and cabinet away-days at Chequers, has led to a spike in pressure for different outcomes after Brexit. Merkel’s spokesman said the EU27 wanted a close and deep relationship with the UK, but added: “It is important for us for Britain to make concrete its ideas.”

The moves by May and senior ministers to flesh out more details over the next fortnight, with a series of speeches and cabinet away-days at Chequers, has led to a spike in pressure for different outcomes after Brexit.

Well blow me over a Labour policy is being promoted by Nicky Morgan (Chairwoman of Treasury Select Committee) says the return of maintenance grants could also remove barriers. The Treasury Select Committee is unconvinced by questionable claims in support of charging up to 6.1 percent on loans that cover fees and living cost. The report comes as the government prepares to unveil its review of university funding in England. There is no justification for such high interest rates on student loans.

Very intriguing to see the Joseph Rowntree Foundation stating housing supply has falling short of demand by 30,000 every year since 2011. This cumulative shortfall could reach 335,000 by the end of this parliament trapping families in insecure housing as a result. The short fall of new affordable homes in England will soon be equivalent to a city the size of Leeds.

Theresa May is facing a growing revolt among party donors, with one senior backer warning that the Tories will be “decimated” at an election unless the prime minister ends her indecision and shows leadership. With mounting accusations across the party that May is dithering over Brexit and lacking an inspiring domestic agenda, Sir John Hall, the former owner of Newcastle United, told the press that the prime minister was facing a make-or-break period of her premiership.

The north-east businessman, who has given the Tories more than £500,000 since 2007 and helped fund May’s snap election, said the prime minister needed to make clear where she wanted to take the country, even if doing so led to her removal. “She’s got to take the bull by the horns and say, ‘this is the road we are going. Do your damnedest – if you want to vote me out, vote me out’,” he said. “But we have to appear stronger. And we have to appear that we are going to make change, because we are not even looking at domestic affairs.

“It is up to Theresa now to convince everybody that she can be the leader who can stay. I think that’s the way most people in the party are looking at it. Show us your leadership. This is the time to stand up and show it.”

He added: “If we tried to change the leader now, would there be a danger of having to have an election? If we had an election, I reckon we’d be decimated. To me as a donor, the Conservative party has to look at itself in terms of where we’re going. She has got to stay, in my view, to such time that someone else comes forward. A new leader has to emerge – or she has to come through very strongly.” Other senior Tory donors have become increasingly frustrated. Some who backed Remain are particularly concerned at the government’s performance during the Brexit negotiations. “It has been like a Premier League team playing their best against Tranmere Rovers playing their worst,” said one senior backer.

Queen May will attempt to deal with the accusations of indecision by making her long-awaited speech on her Brexit plans in three weeks’ time. She will deliver it after senior ministers set out Britain’s “road to Brexit” in a series of keynote speeches, beginning this week with Boris Johnson, who will attempt to make the case for a “liberal Brexit” designed to reassure Remain voters, followed by an address by May on security co-operation. Brexit secretary David Davis and trade secretary Liam Fox will also give speeches, but Chancellor Philip Hammond and home secretary Amber Rudd – the leading advocates of a soft Brexit – have not been included. David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister who campaigned for Remain, will give an address.

May’s allies said the speech would reveal more about the degree to which she wants Britain to diverge from EU rules. The speech will take place after senior ministers gather for an away day in Chequers, the prime minister’s country retreat, to hammer out a position they can all accept.

Concerns increased last week as government sources said little had been decided after two cabinet Brexit committee meetings designed to find a common position on leaving the EU. Britain’s relationship to the customs union remains a major sticking point. Attempts to find a solution tha removes the need for a hard border in Ireland have been deemed “unworkable” by some in government.

Hall said he was concerned by the lack of a domestic agenda and called on May to back “capitalism with a social conscience”. Having voted for Remain, he also said he would now back May walking away from Brexit negotiations if she believed the EU was trying to “blackmail” Britain.“When things are against you and you are carrying forward a lot of problems, which she has done, it may be time [for a new leader], but I’m not inside the party,” he said. “The way things are going at the moment, I am horrified at the way that we are destroying ourselves from within. I’ve seen it before with John Major’s government. We cannot have that.

“She’s got to convince myself as a donor that in a sense, she is going to take the party forward so we can get another four or five years. I’m thinking, ‘where is the party going to go’? They have to convince me they have the balls to win the next election. Labour does not have a big lead in the polls. It’s all to play for.”

A Tory donor has paid £55,000 to spend a day with Theresa May, in an auction at the party’s annual Black and White fundraising ball.
The event allows wealthy Conservative donors to spend time with cabinet ministers – as long as they stump up about £10,000 a table.
As well as the prime minister, senior ministers who attended the ball on Wednesday night at the Natural History Museum in South Kensington included the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, the chancellor, Philip Hammond, and the home secretary, Amber Rudd. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who recently topped a ConservativeHome poll on who should be the next party leader, was also there.
Stanley Johnson, the foreign secretary’s father and a former MEP, said a bidder had paid about £55,000 in the silent auction for the privilege of spending a working day with May. Other auction lots included a dinner at a restaurant hosted by Stanley Johnson and the Made in Chelsea star Georgia Toffolo – who appeared together on the ITV reality show I’m a Celebrity – which went for £15,000.  Johnson described the evening as a “wonderful event” and said he thought the prime minister’s speech about the benefits of Brexit was “very good”.

Frankly I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or bang my head on the wall, has our nation become a nanny state or a nation of dictatorship. According to a Conservative MP (Jeremy Lefroy) families should switch off their television(s) and play games together. TV and social media stopped families talking to each other. Family breakdowns were overlooked as a cause of mental health problems in children.

A million children whose parents claim Universal Credit will miss out on free school meals because of a new earnings threshold, it was claimed.  Children’s Minister Nadhim Zahawi has announced children in Universal Credit-claiming families with net earnings less than £7,400 will be entitled for free school meals. Zahawi said the move will see an extra 50,000 children entitled to help. But the Children’s Society and Labour have described the move as “a huge step backwards” that will see a million children who would have qualified miss out. Every child whose parent claims Universal Credit was due to qualify for free school meals from April, but the Government decided to make changes. While the new threshold is £7,400 per year, ministers say once benefits are taken into account, a typical family earning that amount will take home between £18,000 and £24,000. A million children whose parents claim Universal Credit will miss out on free school meals because of a new earnings threshold, it was claimed. Children’s Minister Nadhim Zahawi has announced children in Universal Credit-claiming families with net earnings less than £7,400 will be entitled for free school meals.  Zahawi said the move will see an extra 50,000 children entitled to help. But the Children’s Society and Labour have described the move as “a huge step backwards” that will see a million children who would have qualified miss out. Every child whose parent claims Universal Credit was due to qualify for free school meals from April, but the Government decided to make changes. While the new threshold is £7,400 per year, ministers say once benefits are taken into account, a typical family earning that amount will take home between £18,000 and £24,000.

Whilst I concur with the statement from a committee of MPs one thing comes to mind where is the magic money tree to fund this idea given that local government has been cut by around 80 percent in some cases. To me its just more lip service given our government keeps on harping on about austerity. A committee of MPs calls on government to develop a new national strategy to deal with older people’s housing needs. Proposals includes funding for handymen service age proofing all new build homes and a national helpline to offer advice on housing options. Older people should be given more help with housing to help them stay healthy and reduce the need for residential care.

The Government’s flagship welfare programme has been dealt another blow as it was revealed claimants who forget their log-in details for the website cannot easily reset them. Instead, universal credit online users have to attend a face-to-face interview at a job centre to receive a new password.

Ministers have been aware of the issue for more than a month but have refused to set a date to fix it. Ged Killen, Labour MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, said he was worried for claimants as his constituency was a “full-service” area for the universal credit programme. He had raised the issue at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, urging Theresa May to set a deadline for fixing the service.

She should delay closing any more job centres, he said, until welfare claimants could perform “basic online functions” to manage their benefits. Mr Killen added that HMRC and some banks already offer such services. Mrs May responded by promising to ask Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey to “look carefully at ensuring a date is identified when that change is going to be made”.

The answer failed to satisfy Mr Killen, who said it was “beyond satire” that a “basic ‘reset your password'” function could not be added to the benefits online portal. “If your bank didn’t let you reset your password online, you might leave and find another bank,” he chided. “Universal credit claimants however are not given that choice.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions have replied by saying We are looking at updating our systems to allow a password reset function that maintains the highest level of protection for people’s personal information.” A source added there were “security considerations” and that other online services with highly sensitive information did not easily let people request new passwords. It is the latest in a series of controversies that has befallen the universal credit welfare programme, which combines six benefits into one single payment. For this reason I would urge all to vote Labour on the 3rd May 2018 in the Local Government.



The tables have turned against Tory In disarray with infighting

Notice how Cabinet Ministers are not willing to speak out against injustice and as soon as they get their marching orders back to the back-benches they decide to speak out against the injustices. Well Justine Greening falls in this category, she decided that maintenance grants should be reinstated for poorer students after being scrapped by her government last year and she is saying that she raised concerns about the level of interest on student loans and any student finance system needed to be progressive. Does anybody think that there will be another u-turn approaching anytime soon? I think not.

It comes as no surprise there has been another u-turn from Government Ministers in a row over paying Higher Disability Benefits to 165,000 people by saying they will not contesting a high court decision. Work and Pensions Secretary said she will not appeal December’s judgement over over payments to people with mental health condition. Me thinks ministers would lose face and they are in fear of losing votes in the next general elections in 2020 with the disabled community. Another major U-turn by the Tories who previously scuppered two attempts by the Labour backbencher to achieve this reform. Housing Secretary Sajid Javid’s declared backing for Karen Buck’s private member’s Bill to empower tenants to sue landlords for failing to keep homes fit for human habitation could be an important step forward. Karen Buck’s first bid to amend the 1985 Landlord and Tenant Act to require residential rented accommodation to be “provided and maintained in a state of fitness for human habitation” was talked out by Tory MPs in 2015. There was a second bite at the cherry when Labour’s shadow housing minister Teresa Pearce took up Buck’s initiative, moving an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill 2015-16, and a vote took place at least.

Infighting between David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg has shown its ugly head in the Tories Cabinet over trade deal pledge for UK. It seems to me as I read into it, it sounds like whatever gives them the briefing they decided to take it out on each other instead singing the same tune. Conservative backbenchers line up to criticised Philip Hammond for saying changes to UK – EU relation could be “very modest”

According to another Conservative Member of Parliament (Theresa Villiers) a former cabinet member “A real danger” UK will sign up to an agreement with Brussels which could ‘keep us in the EU in all but name” this comes at a time when Conservative party over Brexit. The question I put it to all conservative members and their supporters who is in charge of the conservatives is Boris Johnson, Philip Hammond, Jacob Ress-Mogg, David Davis or Theresa May as it seems to me that the left and does not know what the right hand and who is ready to stab their leader in the front or in the back. To save face David Davis is now saying there is no difference between himself, Philip Hammond and Theresa May. Sure for the many and not the few believes you Philip Hammond could it be that you are likely to lose your job at the next cabinet reshuffle and you are running scared if so keep on running away.

Here comes the charm offence from a Conservative Cabinet Minister(David Lidington) Conservatives must come together in a spirit of mutual respect amid a row over Brexit negotiations. All hand on deck panic mode is on from another ex-minister Anna Soubry she said the PM must not let the 35 Tory MPs dictate the terms of UK’s EU exit. Theresa May has been warned the UK risks disaster unless she sees off hard brexiteers in her own party amid continuing Tory divisions over Europe. She is willing to leave if the likes of Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg take over. The Prime Minister’s red lines to leave the EU single market and customs union are wrong. I wonder what her constituents has to say about this and when last was she was seen in her constituency. A Tory peer (Lord Bridges) warned Britain can’t just muddle through brexit by keeping every option open is no longer an option. Ministers appeared unsure of what they wanted after leaving and the void was filled by conflicting confusing voices.

As much as I don’t vote or like any Tory policies I have to say that this chap has a point in a nutshell he is saying get your act together and bring forward a workable plan and stop pussyfooting around.

According to Robert Hannigan and Sir John Sawers the UK needs a data sharing deal with Europe to prevent serious problems for security and the economy the two former intelligence chiefs have said. It will be a mistake if the UK’s strengths in the field became a bargaining chip in Brexit talks. Former MI6 chief John Sawers said the talks were zero sum game. Ex-GCHQ head Robert Hannigan said it would not be ethical to threaten to withhold material which might stop terrorism.

It’s alleged that Treasury officials were trying to influence policy to stay in the EU Customs Union which a question was put to the Brexit Minister (Steve Baker) by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Is this some form of conspiracy theory I wonder, or is this another attempt to destabilise his dear leader Ice Queen (Theresa May) whilst she is touring China to drum up trade between the two nation.

Theresa May is under increasing pressure to set where she stands on Britain future trade agreements. She said Britain would not face a choice between a free trade deal with the EU after Brexit and striking deals with the rest of the world. This comes in light of Tory Eurosceptic MPs are claiming that she is heading for a Brexit in name only.

Another senior Conservative MP (Bernard Jenkin) alleged ministers are being vague and divided over Brexit and has singled out the chancellor for criticism urging him to back the Prime Minister to deliver a clean EU exit. Theresa May should stick to her present policy despite the Treasury having its own house view. This is in light of key ministerial meetings on the UK and EU relationship.

Michael Barnier was speaking in Downing Street the time had come for the UK to choose what it wanted after its 2019 exit. UK will face unavoidable barriers to trade if it leaves the customs union and single market.

A Facebook friend of mine Gary Hills sums it very eloquently in a nutshell when he said:

May is embarrassed – but I’m livid –

Even the British government is skeptical of Brexit, as it turns out. BuzzFeed News obtained a new government impact assessment gauging what life might be like after Britain formally leaves the European Union. It does not look pretty, according to the report:

“Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5 percent lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

“The ‘no deal’ scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8 percent over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2 percent.

“These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements…

“Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a [government] source told BuzzFeed News: ‘Because it’s embarrassing.’

It’s further alleged all Conservative members of a town council have resigned after bullying, abuse, and harassment of the former chairman and her family Jane peace stood down from Desborbough Town council in Northamptonshire 10 Tory Councillors have resigned from the 12 person council.

Intriguingly MPs are calling for government commissioners to take over the running of a county council which has banned almost all spending. Northamptonshire County Council has brought in a section 114 notice banning new expenditure. Despite this legal obligations have seen it issue a budget for 2018/19 allow a council tax precept to be set. The county seven MPs have confirmed they have lost confidence authority’s leadership.

This make a change that the press and social media are not gunning for Labour but instead they are more focus on the Conservatives. Lets hope this will continue to divide the Nasty Party. This year in some parts of UK there will be Local Government elections taking place this is the ideal time to make the changes in your community by voting Labour


My thoughts after Labour Conference came to end

Parliamentarians returned to parliament after the recess period only for party conference to take place from all the political parties to determine policies from party members which social policies they want to vote on or reject in the hope it will appear in the next Local Government and National manifestos or take a position on which will help influence our voters with their choice of political party which represents their views for the local government elections in 2018 and 2020 general elections. Don’t forget that all manifestos comes out nearer the time when the general, local elections are called by the government.
There were some good speakers and some of the speakers that stuck my mind is no doubt one of the speaker who spoke on homelessness and the affects it has on them, she highlighted some of the root causes and what she witnessed and the other speaker spoke of disabilities on how it affects the daily routine and urge conference to support disability awareness both speakers hit a raw nerve to delegates both of them were in my opinion were speaking about their experience and first time delegates.
No doubt there will be delegates and visitors that will be charge from #Lab17 and will be motivated to get the vote out for Labour. Campaigning is all year round and not just during election times as seasoned party members will inform us all, which true campaigning is all year round and not just during election times. Labour members will have to redouble their efforts to turn all the wards around from Blue,(Conservative) Yellow,(Fibdems oh I mean Libdems) and purple and yellow(UKIP) all to Red( Labour) across the nation I kid you not. Now is the time to do your bit for our party by getting active as soon as possible by knocking on every door leaving no stones unturned.
Just some of the highlights of Labour Conference which made my day and I include the YouTube which made progress and gained momentum during the course of conference which made it even more exciting starting with Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and followed by Tom Watson.

Jeremy Corbyn Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:


John McDonnell Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:


Tom Watson Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

They all have a message to all voters of all classes of race and creed, and no matter what your background labour is showing the way why you should vote Labour in all the elections all year round. To those who still have doubts in Labour I will be the first to acknowledge that Labour did not win the general elections 2017 and Labour activists have a lot of hard work to convince voters why labour is the party in waiting to be the next government. I’m sure the press will be siding with the conservatives by stating that Labour is going back to the 1970s -1980s they seem to be remembering the Kinnock years when he was over confident which cost him the general elections. Somehow they seem to overlook the eighteen years of underfunding of public services, attacks on cold miners, the riots that took place across the UK, and deaths in police custody just to name a few. I urge voters to remember that it was the Labour Party that cut the majority of the conservatives and in return they had to depend on the Democratic Union Party(DUP) for a confidence and supply agreement vote which it is placed on public record. Look at the conservatives record on u-turns they have made when they were in office only for some of Labour policies to be adopted by the government, heck they were willing to drop their own manifesto just implement our policies such as lifting the one percent pay cap, rent cap, living wage, energy cap etc.

It looks like Labour has done it again by having #Maybot on the hop during her visit Florence by reminding her that she either buckle up or move aside for a Labour government in waiting and this was her life saving response:

It’s good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began – a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European.

A period of history whose example shaped the modern world. A period of history that teaches us that when we come together in a spirit of ambition and innovation, we have it within ourselves to do great things.

That shows us that if we open our minds to new thinking and new possibilities, we can forge a better, brighter future for all our peoples.

And that is what I want to focus on today. For we are moving through a new and critical period in the history of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union.

The British people have decided to leave the EU; and to be a global, free-trading nation, able to chart our own way in the world.

For many, this is an exciting time, full of promise; for others it is a worrying one.

I look ahead with optimism, believing that if we use this moment to change not just our relationship with Europe, but also the way we do things at home, this will be a defining moment in the history of our nation.

And it is an exciting time for many in Europe too. The European Union is beginning a new chapter in the story of its development. Just last week, President Juncker set out his ambitions for the future of the European Union.

There is a vibrant debate going on about the shape of the EU’s institutions and the direction of the Union in the years ahead. We don’t want to stand in the way of that.

Indeed, we want to be your strongest friend and partner as the EU, and the UK thrive side by side.

Shared challenges

And that partnership is important. For as we look ahead, we see shared challenges and opportunities in common.

Here in Italy today, our two countries are working together to tackle some of the greatest challenges of our time; challenges where all too often geography has put Italy on the frontline.

As I speak, Britain’s Royal Navy, National Crime Agency and Border Force are working alongside their Italian partners to save lives in the Mediterranean and crack down on the evil traffickers who are exploiting desperate men, women and children who seek a better life.

Our two countries are also working together in the fight against terrorism – from our positions at the forefront of the international coalition against Daesh to our work to disrupt the networks terrorist groups use to finance their operations and recruit to their ranks.

And earlier this week, I was delighted that Prime Minister Gentiloni was able to join President Macron and myself in convening the first ever UN summit of government and industry to move further and faster in preventing terrorist use of the Internet.

Mass migration and terrorism are but two examples of the challenges to our shared European interests and values that we can only solve in partnership.

The weakening growth of global trade; the loss of popular support for the forces of liberalism and free trade that is driving moves towards protectionism; the threat of climate change depleting and degrading the planet we leave for future generations; and most recently, the outrageous proliferation of nuclear weapons by North Korea with a threat to use them.

Here on our own continent, we see territorial aggression to the east; and from the South threats from instability and civil war; terrorism, crime and other challenges which respect no borders.

The only way for us to respond to this vast array of challenges is for likeminded nations and peoples to come together and defend the international order that we have worked so hard to create – and the values of liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law by which we stand.

Britain has always – and will always – stand with its friends and allies in defence of these values.

Our decision to leave the European Union is in no way a repudiation of this longstanding commitment. We may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

Our resolve to draw on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development resources to lead international action, with our partners, on the issues that affect the security and prosperity of our peoples is unchanged.

Our commitment to the defence – and indeed the advance – of our shared values is undimmed.

Our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of our European neighbours and friends remains steadfast.

The decision of the British people

And we will do all this as a sovereign nation in which the British people are in control.

Their decision to leave the institution of the European Union was an expression of that desire – a statement about how they want their democracy to work.

They want more direct control of decisions that affect their daily lives; and that means those decisions being made in Britain by people directly accountable to them.

The strength of feeling that the British people have about this need for control and the direct accountability of their politicians is one reason why, throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union.

And perhaps because of our history and geography, the European Union never felt to us like an integral part of our national story in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe.

It is a matter of choices. The profound pooling of sovereignty that is a crucial feature of the European Union permits unprecedentedly deep cooperation, which brings benefits.

But it also means that when countries are in the minority they must sometimes accept decisions they do not want, even affecting domestic matters with no market implications beyond their borders. And when such decisions are taken, they can be very hard to change.

So the British electorate made a choice. They chose the power of domestic democratic control over pooling that control, strengthening the role of the UK Parliament and the devolved Scottish Parliament, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies in deciding our laws.

That is our choice. It does not mean we are no longer a proud member of the family of European nations. And it does not mean we are turning our back on Europe; or worse that we do not wish the EU to succeed. The success of the EU is profoundly in our national interest and that of the wider world.

But having made this choice, the question now is whether we – the leaders of Britain, and of the EU’s Member States and institutions – can demonstrate that creativity, that innovation, that ambition that we need to shape a new partnership to the benefit of all our people.

I believe we must. And I believe we can.

For while the UK’s departure from the EU is inevitably a difficult process, it is in all of our interests for our negotiations to succeed. If we were to fail, or be divided, the only beneficiaries would be those who reject our values and oppose our interests.

So I believe we share a profound sense of responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly, not just for people today but for the next generation who will inherit the world we leave them.

The eyes of the world are on us, but if we can be imaginative and creative about the way we establish this new relationship, if we can proceed on the basis of trust in each other, I believe we can be optimistic about the future we can build for the United Kingdom and for the European Union.


In my speech at Lancaster House earlier this year, I set out the UK’s negotiating objectives.

Those still stand today. Since that speech and the triggering of Article 50 in March, the UK has published 14 papers to address the current issues in the talks and set out the building blocks of the relationship we would like to see with the EU, both as we leave, and into the future.

We have now conducted three rounds of negotiations. And while, at times, these negotiations have been tough, it is clear that, thanks to the professionalism and diligence of David Davis and Michel Barnier, we have made concrete progress on many important issues.

For example, we have recognised from the outset there are unique issues to consider when it comes to Northern Ireland.

The UK government, the Irish government and the EU as a whole have been clear that through the process of our withdrawal we will protect progress made in Northern Ireland over recent years – and the lives and livelihoods that depend on this progress.

As part of this, we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.

We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland – and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland – to see through these commitments.

We have also made significant progress on how we look after European nationals living in the UK and British nationals living in the 27 Member States of the EU.

I know this whole process has been a cause of great worry and anxiety for them and their loved ones.

But I want to repeat to the 600,000 Italians in the UK – and indeed to all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country – that we want you to stay; we value you; and we thank you for your contribution to our national life – and it has been, and remains, one of my first goals in this negotiation to ensure that you can carry on living your lives as before.

I am clear that the guarantee I am giving on your rights is real. And I doubt anyone with real experience of the UK would doubt the independence of our courts or of the rigour with which they will uphold people’s legal rights.

But I know there are concerns that over time the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens overseas will diverge. I want to incorporate our agreement fully into UK law and make sure the UK courts can refer directly to it.

Where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law, I want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation. On this basis, I hope our teams can reach firm agreement quickly.

Shared future

At the moment, the negotiations are focused on the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. But we need to move on to talk about our future relationship.

Of course, we recognise that we can’t leave the EU and have everything stay the same. Life for us will be different.

But what we do want – and what we hope that you, our European friends, want too – is to stay as partners who carry on working together for our mutual benefit.

In short, we want to work hand in hand with the European Union, rather than as part of the European Union.

That is why in my speech at Lancaster House I said that the United Kingdom would seek to secure a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union.

And this should span both a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security.

So let me set out what each of these relationships could look like – before turning to the question of how we get there.

Economic partnership

Let me start with the economic partnership.

The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. We will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. For we understand that the single market’s four freedoms are indivisible for our European friends.

We recognise that the single market is built on a balance of rights and obligations. And we do not pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations.

So our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance.

But as we work out together how to do so, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper, like other external partners negotiating a free trade deal from scratch have done.

In fact, we start from an unprecedented position. For we have the same rules and regulations as the EU – and our EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure they are carried over into our domestic law at the moment we leave the EU.

So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes.

One way of approaching this question is to put forward a stark and unimaginative choice between two models: either something based on European Economic Area membership; or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada.

I don’t believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union.

European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home – automatically and in their entirety – new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote.

Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants.

As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU.

But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies.

Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.

We can do so much better than this.

As I said at Lancaster House, let us not seek merely to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. Instead let us be creative as well as practical in designing an ambitious economic partnership which respects the freedoms and principles of the EU, and the wishes of the British people.

I believe there are good reasons for this level of optimism and ambition.

First of all, the UK is the EU’s largest trading partner, one of the largest economies in the world, and a market of considerable importance for many businesses and jobs across the continent. And the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is in all our interests to find a creative solution.

The European Union has shown in the past that creative arrangements can be agreed in other areas. For example, it has developed a diverse array of arrangements with neighbouring countries outside the EU, both in economic relations and in justice and home affairs.

Furthermore, we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and that trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidising one’s own is a serious mistake.

So there is no need to impose tariffs where we have none now, and I don’t think anyone sensible is contemplating this.

And as we have set out in a future partnership paper, when it comes to trade in goods, we will do everything we can to avoid friction at the border. But of course the regulatory issues are crucial.

We share a commitment to high regulatory standards.

People in Britain do not want shoddy goods, shoddy services, a poor environment or exploitative working practices and I can never imagine them thinking those things to be acceptable.

The government I lead is committed not only to protecting high standards, but strengthening them.

So I am optimistic about what we can achieve by finding a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples.

Now in any trading relationship, both sides have to agree on a set of rules which govern how each side behaves.

So we will need to discuss with our European partners new ways of managing our interdependence and our differences, in the context of our shared values.

There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward.

There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means.

And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies.

And because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to European markets and vice versa.

To make this partnership work, because disagreements inevitably arise, we will need a strong and appropriate dispute resolution mechanism.

It is, of course, vital that any agreement reached – its specific terms and the principles on which it is based – are interpreted in the same way by the European Union and the United Kingdom and we want to discuss how we do that.

This could not mean the European Court of Justice – or indeed UK courts – being the arbiter of disputes about the implementation of the agreement between the UK and the EU however.

It wouldn’t be right for one party’s court to have jurisdiction over the other. But I am confident we can find an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes.

So this new economic partnership, would be comprehensive and ambitious. It would be underpinned by high standards, and a practical approach to regulation that enables us to continue to work together in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples for generations to come.

Security relationship

Let me turn to the new security relationship that we want to see.

To keep our people safe and to secure our values and interests, I believe it is essential that, although the UK is leaving the EU, the quality of our cooperation on security is maintained.

We believe we should be as open-minded as possible about how we continue to work together on what can be life and death matters.

Our security co-operation is not just vital because our people face the same threats, but also because we share a deep, historic belief in the same values – the values of peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Of course, there is no pre-existing model for co-operation between the EU and external partners which replicates the full scale and depth of the collaboration that currently exists between the EU and the UK on security, law enforcement and criminal justice.

But as the threats we face evolve faster than ever, I believe it is vital that we work together to design new, dynamic arrangements that go beyond the existing arrangements that the EU has in this area – and draw on the legal models the EU has previously used to structure co-operation with external partners in other fields such as trade.

So we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU.

This would complement the extensive and mature bi-lateral relationships that we already have with European friends to promote our common security.

Our ambition would be to build a model that is underpinned by our shared principles, including high standards of data protection and human rights.

It would be kept sufficiently versatile and dynamic to respond to the ever-evolving threats that we face. And it would create an ongoing dialogue in which law enforcement and criminal justice priorities can be shared and – where appropriate – tackled jointly.

We are also proposing a far reaching partnership on how we protect Europe together from the threats we face in the world today; how we work together to promote our shared values and interests abroad; whether security, spreading the rule of law, dealing with emerging threats, handling the migration crisis or helping countries out of poverty.

The United Kingdom has outstanding capabilities. We have the biggest defence budget in Europe, and one of the largest development budgets in the world. We have a far-reaching diplomatic network, and world class security, intelligence and law enforcement services.

So what we are offering will be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.

And it will be unprecedented in its depth, in terms of the degree of engagement that we would aim to deliver.

It is our ambition to work as closely as possible together with the EU, protecting our people, promoting our values and ensuring the future security of our continent.

The United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. And the UK will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or manmade disasters.

Taken as a whole, this bold new security partnership will not only reflect our history and the practical benefits of co-operation in tackling shared threats, but also demonstrate the UK’s genuine commitment to promoting our shared values across the world and to maintaining a secure and prosperous Europe.


That is the partnership I want Britain and the European Union to have in the future.

None of its goals should be controversial. Everything I have said is about creating a long-term relationship through which the nations of the European Union and the United Kingdom can work together for the mutual benefit of all our people.

If we adopt this vision of a deep and special partnership, the question is then how we get there: how we build a bridge from where we are now to where we want to be.

The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29th March 2019.

We will no longer sit at the European Council table or in the Council of Ministers, and we will no longer have Members of the European Parliament.

Our relations with countries outside the EU can be developed in new ways, including through our own trade negotiations, because we will no longer be an EU country, and we will no longer directly benefit from the EU’s future trade negotiations.

But the fact is that, at that point, neither the UK – nor the EU and its Members States – will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin this new relationship we seek.

Neither is the European Union legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union.

And such an agreement on the future partnership will require the appropriate legal ratification, which would take time.

It is also the case that people and businesses – both in the UK and in the EU – would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way.

As I said in my speech at Lancaster House a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU.

Clearly people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.

The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.

How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.

For example, it will take time to put in place the new immigration system required to re-take control of the UK’s borders.

So during the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK; but there will be a registration system – an essential preparation for the new regime.

As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.

But because I don’t believe that either the EU or the British people will want the UK to stay longer in the existing structures than is necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of that future framework such as new dispute resolution mechanisms more quickly if this can be done smoothly.

It is clear that what would be most helpful to people and businesses on both sides, who want this process to be smooth and orderly, is for us to agree the detailed arrangements for this implementation period as early as possible. Although we recognise that the EU institutions will need to adopt a formal position.

And at the heart of these arrangements, there should be a clear double lock: a guarantee that there will be a period of implementation giving businesses and people alike the certainty that they will be able to prepare for the change; and a guarantee that this implementation period will be time-limited, giving everyone the certainty that this will not go on for ever.

These arrangements will create valuable certainty.

But in this context I am conscious that our departure causes another type of uncertainty for the remaining member states and their taxpayers over the EU budget.

Some of the claims made on this issue are exaggerated and unhelpful and we can only resolve this as part of the settlement of all the issues I have been talking about today.

Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.

And as we move forwards, we will also want to continue working together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent.

This includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the UK and the EU’s joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture – and those that promote our mutual security.

And as I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.


When I gave my speech at the beginning of this year I spoke not just about the preparations we were making for a successful negotiation but also about our preparations for our life outside the European Union – with or without what I hope will be a successful deal.

And the necessary work continues on all these fronts so that we are able to meet any eventual outcome.

But as we meet here today, in this city of creativity and rebirth, let us open our minds to the possible.

To a new era of cooperation and partnership between the United Kingdom and the European Union. And to a stronger, fairer, more prosperous future for us all.

For that is the prize if we get this negotiation right.

A sovereign United Kingdom and a confident European Union, both free to chart their own course.

A new partnership of values and interests.

A new alliance that can stand strongly together in the world.

That is the goal towards which we must work in the months ahead as the relationship between Britain and Europe evolves.

However it does so, I am clear that Britain’s future is bright.

Our fundamentals are strong: a legal system respected around the world; a keen openness to foreign investment; an enthusiasm for innovation; an ease of doing business; some of the best universities and researchers you can find anywhere; an exceptional national talent for creativity and an indomitable spirit.

It is our fundamental strengths that really determine a country’s success and that is why Britain’s economy will always be strong.

There are other reasons why our future should give us confidence. We will always be a champion of economic openness; we will always be a country whose pitch to the world is high standards at home.

When we differ from the EU in our regulatory choices, it won’t be to try and attain an unfair competitive advantage, it will be because we want rules that are right for Britain’s particular situation.

The best way for us both to succeed is to fulfil the potential of the partnership I have set out today.

For we should be in no doubt, that if our collective endeavours in these negotiations were to prove insufficient to reach an agreement, it would be a failure in the eyes of history and a damaging blow to the future of our continent.

Indeed, I believe the difference between where we would all be if we fail – and where we could be if we can achieve the kind of new partnership I have set out today – to be so great that it is beholden on all of us involved to demonstrate the leadership and flexibility needed to ensure that we succeed.

Yes, the negotiations to get there will be difficult. But if we approach them in the right way – respectful of the challenges for both sides and pragmatic about resolving them – we can find a way forward that makes a success of this for all of our peoples.

I recognise that this is not something that you – our European partners – wanted to do. It is a distraction from what you want to get on with. But we have to get this right.

And we both want to get this done as swiftly as possible.

So it is up to leaders to set the tone.

And the tone I want to set is one of partnership and friendship.

A tone of trust, the cornerstone of any relationship.

For if we get the spirit of this negotiation right; if we get the spirit of this partnership right, then at the end of this process we will find that we are able to resolve the issues where we disagree respectfully and quickly.

And if we can do that, then when this chapter of our European history is written, it will be remembered not for the differences we faced but for the vision we showed; not for the challenges we endured but for the creativity we used to overcome them; not for a relationship that ended but a new partnership that began.

A partnership of interests, a partnership of values; a partnership of ambition for a shared future: the UK and the EU side by side delivering prosperity and opportunity for all our people.

This is the future within our grasp – so, together, let us seize it.

I have a funny feeling that there will be a change of leadership of the conservatives very soon so what this space.

Run,Madam May run, run, run away

Its about time that Theresa may take notice and do the nation a very big favor continue to run away.

Firstly, well done to Lewis Hamiltion for coming first place and took outright championship lead in the Italian Grand Prix for the first time in this season on Sunday 3 September 2017 with a four point lead and I wish him all the best for Hamiltion in the Singapore Grand Prix on 15 – 17 September. Now that I got this out of the way down to more serious business of the day.
Police morale is at a all time low among three in every five police officers. The Police Federation poll shown the treatment of the pay service as a whole pay and work life balance were having the biggest impact on morle. The proportion of officers planning to leave the service within two years was up from 11.8% last year to 12.3%. To top it off policing in England and Wales is facing a shortage of staff and raising crime. Policing services are based on fewer people working more hours and days. All the Home office can say in their defence policing offered competitive pay and a good pension. So in a nutshell take what you get from abusive public and get on with your job or else face the sack.
To be very frank, I whole heartily support the call from the NHS for a  bail out unless it is properly funded the service will be the worst winter in recent history if it does not receive an emergency bailout. The cash is needed to pay for extra staff and beds on the grounds of extra attempts to improve finances have failed. The conservative government has given councils an extra one billon pounds for social care strives to help relieve the pressure on hospitals. The feeble response from the Department of Health the “NHS has prepared for winter more this year than ever before” is unacceptable in my opinion as it is opening the floodgate of backdoor deals to privatisation on a large scale so be warned.
There comes a time to say enough is enough to Jeremy Hunt and a hat tip to Stephen Hawkings for speaking out against privatisation of our NHS. Keep Public Service public which side are you on. See article below:
Well we all guessed what the reply from Jeremy Hunt would be and I would not expect anything else from the toffee nose which goes like this Jeremy Hunt has accused Stephen Hawking of a “pernicious” lie after the physicist said it seemed the Tories were steering the UK towards a US-style health insurance system. See article below:

What a jerk Theresa May has become on the one hand she is trying to woo the working class by enticing them with left wing policies to make a convincing argument to gain our trust then using right wing arguments to win over natural conservatives its no wonder why she is under pressure from her backbenchers and she is doing what she can to keep her position and at the same time keeping her backbenchers at bay to maintain control of the Conservatives. Hence her speech in Japan she wants to stay as leader and Prime Minister into the next general elections. During her leadership for the conservative party in October 2016 she said that directors must be held to account and be transparent with their pay and under her leadership they will have to change alas this is not to be a sad day indeed. Sunday 27 August 2017 Theresa May took to the Sunday mail to write a hasty article by stating business who pay excessive salaries to senior executives represent the “unacceptable face of capitalism”. The “excesses” of some bosses was undermining confidence the social fabric of our country”. Firms should that face revolts over salaries and bonuses will be named on a new public register. If she thinks it will win over the minds of working class its no wonder that all the trade unions said it was feeble.
The nation is aware of a police are purportedly investigating the claims of a call centre in Neath to canvassing voters during the General Elections 2017 campaign. It’s no surprise the Tories quoting they don’t comment on a on going investigations.
Can anybody imagine United Kingdom divided over partition take for instance Pakistan, India, Bangladesh or Hong King are some clear examples which was part of British empire and dare I say it British imperialism. Whilst I acknowledge independence is important, there are nations are ruled by dictators and it’s citizens are monitored by the government. Citizens should not be afraid of its government but the governments should be afraid of its people. Governments continue to make promises and voters has to be reminded that a promise is a comfort to a fool.
It’s alleged that net migration has fallen to the lowest level for three years after a surge in the number in the number of EU nationals leaving the UK since June  Brexit vote. The net migration the difference between those entering and leaving the UK fell 81,000 to 246,000 in the year to march 2017. More than half that change is due to a decrease in net migration of EU citizens which is down 51,000.
High five and hat tip to Micheal Barnier the EU chief negotiator has raised concerns about the progress of UK Brexit negotiations. It’s just not good enough for Theresa May to appeal for unity from pro-EU conservative MPs as Commons is set to debate the government Brexit repeal bill. The bill seen as key plank of the government Brexit policy transfers EU law into UK legislation there will be proper scrutiny but some MPs fear it will give ministers sweeping new powers
I’m very glad of labour position of considering keeping the UK in the EU single market and customs union for a transitional period after leaving the EU. I’m even more intrigued by four articles by two Labour MPs and a Labour MEP see articles below:

My message to Theresa May on her return to Parliament is continue to run around like a headless chicken and do continue to run, madam Theresa May run so a Labour government can get on with the job for the many and not for the few in the interest of our nation.

My Thoughts on the Repeal Bill

Here is something that we should remember:

Who gives a flying monkeys about the outcome of European Union which has divided this nation of ours on political ideology. To those who continued not vote will always say they are all in each other’s pockets and they are the same and will continue to do more of the same. Or they seem to have this notion of a conspiracy theory no matter what you say to them. It’s only when people start to lose some benefits that they enjoy or the government starts to take some form of action that affects people who some thing has to give before people starts to come out to vote to change the system.
Staggering how many Brexit supporters have no basis for their arguments. When faced with facts they reply with a belief? Yet cannot say what it is that makes them believe. All European Nations can control their borders already, if they chose to do so. If a person has no money or job and has not succeeded in finding work they can if enforced be told to leave the nation. Yet in the UK we do not operate that EU law because the cost of deporting people would be high as you would need to invest in greater numbers of officers and admin to ensure happens.
Yet the argument that leaving the EU will take back control of borders is bogus, one because the EU law shows the EU nations already have ability to do just that. Two because leaving will not end migration and most of which comes from outside the EU, but because we need people to fill jobs in the economy.
Brexit was based on a dislike of foreign people, it’s no good pretending it was not because if that was not the case Brexiteers would be able to offer a principle case for their reason. Yes some will hate Europe for other reasons, but when faced with reality immigration was used by the Leave camp during the referendum as the driving issue, for everything else they called any concerns as project fear.
Well as stated then there was no project fear just reality. We have the worst performing economy out of the whole EU since the Referendum and it’s getting worse. At some point the penny will drop because Brexit is not going to happen. Regardless what May say the reality will take hold that there is no positives to leaving.
Not long now before Brexit becomes too hot for the Government or any political party that thinks it can ignore the real will of the people. In addition to this poll 54% want Brexit stopped and that is a far higher than the 37% who voted to leave. Brexit was never right, it was un-British and undemocratic in how the Referendum was run. Lies, distorted facts, the use of Twitter Bots to create fake accounts, trolling and deception was rife by the leave side. There was no balance and nobody was asking the real questions on what was causing the anger. Europe means values, shared culture and history, working and human rights, environmental law, animal welfare protection, joint operations to tackle international crime and terrorism, jobs, trade and a strength for the UK though its biggest export, influence. The fraction it cost is paid back many times and we all benefit from being part of something bigger. Free movement gives people opportunities that simply would never exist outside of the EU.
Europe is positive, Brexit is nothing but a negative that will greatly harm living standards and already is. Fewer jobs, higher inflation with goods costing more to buy and just more weak or stagnant wages. Nobody on the Brexit side has spelled out one single positive for leaving the UK. Time to get real, Brexit can be stopped because the real will of the people is far stronger than any political hijacking of what that means.
The Scottish and Welsh governments have threatened to block the key Brexit bill which will convert all existing EU law into UK law. The repeal bill published earlier is also facing from Labour and other parties in the commons. Ministers are alledged to be optimistic about getting it through and ongoing intense dialogue with the devolved administration.
Welsh First Minister(Carwyn Jones) said the Repeal Bill to convert current EU laws into UK law was a naked power-grab which he could not support. Theresa May has been warned of immense constitutional crisis if she goes ahead with a key Brexit bill without devolved governments consent.
Give credit where its due for Maybot to suspend a Conservative MP. The Tories are more worried that they have lost one MP over a racist remarks during a Brexit fringe meeting. I’m sure the MP in concern will not be losing any sleep over her remarks. Let me be clear about this for a moment, this government of ours wants a cross party consensus on the table in Brexit negotiations who are you kidding Maybot could it be that the minority government has crashed into a brick-wall as European Union will reject the current proposal submitted by the government and the Conservative Backbenchers want their pound of flesh by wanting their dear leader to fail and a change of leadership challenge. Although the conservatives won with a small majority on the grounds of “Maybot just realised she can not depend on her backbenchers and Democratic Unionist Party(DUP) if this is the case then she might as well step down as the leader of her party and let someone else lead the Conservatives. So much for the Conservatives spin on “No deal is better than a bad deal”. This comes as no surprise for the Foreign Secretary told MPs European Union can go whistle for any extortionate final payment from the UK on Brexit and the government had no plan for what to do in the event of no deal being agreed with the EU. The sums he has seen that they proposed to demand from this country appear to be extortionate. Go whistle seems to him an entirely appropriate expression.
Brexit Secretary has said the lack of a Northern Ireland is a slightly problematic in terms of trying to resolve the future of the Irish border. He further suggested that technology and trusted traders schemes could help maintain a frictionless boarder when the UK leaves the customs union. Work had begun these area but was nowhere near a solution. He was giving evidence to a House of Lords committee.
British Standards Institution gave evidence to Lords Committee that they were optimistic the UK would retain its current role determining global rules in areas such as product safety. They warned that countries could make life difficult if politically motivated. A desire to do deals may see the UK sleepwalk into problems. The UK’s membership of European bodies that set industry-wide business standards cannot for granted after Brexit.
Michael Banier(Brexit Negotiator) said “The British position does not allow those persons concerned to continue to live their lives as they as they do today. There is still major differences between the EU and UK on the rights of EU citizen living in Britain. The European Court of Justice must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizens rights. It was essential that the UK recognise it’s financial obligations.
Labour Leader said that Labour will set out visions for Brexit when he meets the EU’s chief negotiator in Brussels. He will tell Michael Barnier he is ready to take up the responsibility for Brexit negotiations if there is a change in government. Michael Barnier will hold separate meetings with the First Minister(s) of Wales, and Scotland but insists he will only negotiate with the UK government
Ed Vaizey former minister told members of parliament the UK was proposing to leave the body on technically when it was actually distinct from EU urging a rethink. The government should publish legal advice regarding its decision to leave the European nuclear regulator.
Bob Neill said it would not be the first time legal advice given to ministers was incorrect.
Sir Amyas Morse( UK’s Public Spending watchdog) said had to be more united or the project would fall apart at the first tap like the segments of the chocolate treat. It needs to be coming through as uniform, a little bit more like a cricket ball. The government’s vague Brexit plan has been compared to a chocolate orange.
Intriguingly Damian Green(the First Secretary of State) deputized for Theresa May for Prime Minister Questions Time(PMQ) said “ The risk of the UK leaving the EU without any kind of deal is overstated. Both sides wanted a successful outcome. In reply Emily Thornberry said the Tories were in a mess over Brexit and urged ministers to get a grip and there were contingency plans for any failure to get a deal but the public were left in the dark.

Some of the comments were taken of my Facebook page like Bill Lees and John Chapman made some valid points which the Leader of Labour Party need to mention if Labour is going to influence the debate on the repeal bill:

Bill Lees wrote: Brexit is an unmitigated disaster and it’s simply not possible to negotiate any sort of exit deal that means the UK would be better off by relinquishing our membership of the EU than it would be by remaining in. This is becoming more apparent to more and more people with every day that passes, and it seems obvious that the much fetishised “will of the people” is no longer represented by the gerrymandered, non-binding, lie-driven result of the vote over 12 months ago.  It’s high time Labour stopped trying to pretend otherwise and started to represent the 48% plus of the referendum electorate that voted Remain, or would have done had they not been disenfranchised, most of which are natural Labour voters. It may indeed, be a matter simply of timing. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn does indeed have a cunning plan, but his history of opposition to the EU makes me doubt it.  Interestingly though, the logic of Labour’s position, as outlined by Keir Starmer, implies that we actually are opposed to Brexit. Unlike the Tories, we have explicitly ruled out the possibility of departing the EU with “no deal”.  We also say that one of the key tests that we will apply as to the acceptability of any putative deal presented just before March 2019 is that the deal will have to deliver “the exact same benefits” (quoting David Davis!) as we currently enjoy via our membership of the EU, the Single Market, and the Customs Union. Which of course, is quite impossible to achieve, and would guarantee that any deal would be unacceptable and therefore rejected by Labour.  This does not seem to have been picked up, either by much of the electorate (hence Labour’s relative success/ avoidance of a massacre at the GE) , or much of the commentariat.  I’d like to see that position made more explicit. Again, it may simply entail biding our time until the disastrous true nature of Brexit is realised by more people and a detectable groundswell arises in favour of rejecting Brexit.  But the thing I really do find trying is the constant contortionism to try to demonstrate that we aren’t “going aganst the will of the people”) . We need to start characterising the referendum for what it was – a gerrymandered, non-binding opinion poll on a restricted electorate with no threshold built-in to ensure certainty for such a major constitutional change, the outcome of which was determined via blatant lies, distorted propaganda, and appeals to racist attitudes.

John Chapman wrote: Unfortunately, amongst a sizeable section of working class voters whom Labour needs to attract, there is no evidence that the dire results of Brexit are becoming more and more apparent. I quote in evidence swings from Labour to Conservative in last week’s local By-elections in Coleshill South and Middlesborough Ayresome. In both cases Conservatives hoovered up former UKIP votes. An approach that is more respectful of the EU Referendum result appears to be indicated if we are ever to achieve our objectives.  Well, Bill referring to the claim that in the GE former Kippers swung behind Labour in Northfield,there’s no way of knowing if that’s the case. Nationally, YouGov indicated  that the Tories actually had a a majority in social classes C2DE and Labour ( surprisingly) had a majority amongst ABC1 social classes, hence the actual anti-Labour swings in many mainly working class seats outside of major cities.. Hopefully, the march of events will change this situation, and open an opportunity for the approach you favour. However,the two recent By-elections that I quoted don’t seem to indicate that that’s happened yet

The leader of the Labour Party was right to say he can supply her with a copy of Labour manifesto in place of the Conservative manifesto and call for another early election. Don’t you just love it there are those who will be saying there is no magic money tree, if this is the case they find the magic money tree for the sum of 1.5 Billion pounds in favor of confidence and supply deal with the DUP and our public service workers are not receiving a proper pay deal(1% pay-cap) how is it fair to public sector workers and on the other hand the private sector get a 3.3 pay increase.