Category Archives: #Freeschools

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.

Negotiations

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.

Implementation

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.

Conclusion

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.

Advertisements

Only time will tell if the prime minister survives


Theresa May reminds me of the original song of Don’t Cry For Me Argentina

Wow don’t know, whether to cry or knock my head around a brick wall over Theresa May apology to her cabinet ministers for her incompetence and mismanagement of the election manifesto. This remind me of a song Don’t Cry For Me Argentina.
This is very rich coming from Gavin Barwell “Anger over Brexit and austerity caused the Tories to lose seats and Labour had tapped into concerns about the impact of years of years of public sector pay freezes and that his party must do more to listen to Remain voters concern”. Could this be his retaliation reply for losing his Croydon Central seat.
Got to hand it to May for wittingly delaying the Queen Speech on the grounds of she is afraid of going to the Queen to let Labour to form a government as her on ministers are very desperate to save face by wanting this sweetheart deal with Democratic Unionists Party(DUP).
It’s no wonder why Arlene Foster is alleged to say “deal between DUP and Tories could be a tremendous opportunity for Northern Ireland”. In other words kiss my arise first and give us more money to play with our voters and we will open up the heavens and bring forth rain to save you mam. This will come as no surprise that Scotland and Wales would want to benefit in a similar way for any cash boost as well.
Already we are seeing the cracks unfolded for ex-prime minister Sir John Major to say “he is dubious about the idea and its impact on peace process”.
John Major and Maggie Thatcher who were the former prime ministers were responsible for introducing and action PFI to sell of mental health homes, and hospitals, and ridding the cleaning services in NHS by introducing the private sector into the NHS to do the cleaning of hospital wards.
George Osborne also said “The government not to change its economic strategy after being left without a commons majority. A so-called end to austerity would lead to a loss of economic credibility”.
Cor blimey, I would never in a million years would I have thought that I would concur with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne calling “Theresa May   dead woman walking” who now is the editor of the Evening Standard.
David Cameron also said “Theresa May will have to listen to other parties as she reviews her Brexit strategy in the wake of the election. There would be pressure for a softer exit from the EU after his party did not win an election majority.
It’s very noticeable the former heavy weights of frontbenchers in Conservatives are coming out in force shooting warning shots to Theresa May to get her act together. David Cameron who gave the nation the referendum vote and he lost the vote decided to resign from politics and sucking up to EU by informing them he will win the referendum.It is said that a week in politics is a long time. I would like some answers from any Conservative members is what do you think of your dear leader, who is weak and wobbly leader, are you just waiting for the backstabbing Johnson to take the helm which he can always deny as much as he wants. He will still be keeping his eyes on ways how to stab his leader with the handle of the knife from behind the scenes.
What I don’t understand is during the campaign trail your dear leader did not want to have a face to face debate with her equal which made her look like a sausage am I missing something as some of your Conservative Supporters have said quietly that she should resign post general elections?
To put the icing on the cake because of a hung parliament they decided to go into a sweetheart deal with the Democratic Unionist Party(DUP) which already a representative is in Northern Ireland wittingly that the DUP has a anti gay and abortion policies and the Scottish Conservative leader is in panic mode with all the assurances in the world you can’t change a leopard spots it’s like eating very soggy rice.
The tide has turned again we have another hung parliament, Conservatives were eight seats short of an overall majority and they turned to DUP have concurred in principle a confidence and supply deal to support a Tory government. This maybe a conspiracy theory in return it looks like two of Theresa May advisors had to be banished into the wilderness or face a leadership challenge by her ministers.
Forgive me if I have my doubts I don’t have any confidence of a Conservative Government on the grounds of witnessing 18 years of underfunding in our public services and decimation of the manufacturing industries during my teenage years as it was more about loads of money to the private sectors and most of all greed.
Question needs to be answered as to why thousands of votes were not included in the results in Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, have I missed a trick or two or has the constituency have muggings written on their foreheads call me syndical for mentioning it in the public domain.
The Tories are on the ropes nationally and it looks like those who had previously refused to serve on Labour’s shadow cabinet under , are ready to serve now.
I don’t think Conservatives will last for very long it’s just not good enough to say “I got you in this mess and I will get you out of it”. Voters wants to see substances, job security, more investment in public services and local government.
Surely something must be done to address the rating cost of foreign package holidays and imported computer games help to push the UK inflation rate up to 2.9% last month from 2.7% in April. The latest inflation rate is the highest since June 2013, and above the Bank of England’s 2% target. The price of food and clothing also went up slightly but fuel is alleged to have fallen for a third month in a row. The pick up in inflation is likely to continue the squeeze on consumers. Theresa May need to address this urgently as foodbanks, soup kitchens, and homelessness continue to increasing rapidly people want action to be taken and not just giving the talk and not doing the walk.

The Guardian has been doing some analysis of the election result and has found some quite startling things:
Labour’s percent of share went up best in areas where the average income has risen the most since David Cameron’s Tories came to office in 2010. By contrast, the seats with the largest falls in income saw the highest increases in the Tory vote. The poorest seats in England saw the biggest Tory advances from 2015.
Turnout went up by the most in seats with a higher percent of young voters and students: this explains why Labour took Canterbury (For instance).
The education divide is also growing. Labour used to do much better with voters on lower education levels. However in 2010 and 2015, this pattern was reversed, and has continued to do so in 2017.
Give credit where it’s due, the Guardian puts it eloquently,” Britain’s class politics has been turned completely upside down in 2017. Wealthy professionals in leafy suburbs have swung behind a Labour leader who pledges to sharply increase their taxes, while it was struggling blue-collar workers in deprived and declining seats who were most attracted by the party of austerity cuts to public services and welfare.”
I would urge the Prime Minister should rethink its Brexit strategy, Social Care, more investments in public and civil services most importantly the disabled, mental health, learning disabilities, young and grey powers following last week’s election. For the PM to survive she should be more open and transparent to our nation if not she will not survive. On saying this I would rather have a Labour Government in power instead of a Conservative who are willing to do sweetheart deals with Democratic Unionist Party(DUP) only time will tell if the prime minister survives.

My thoughts on Local and Metro Mayoral Election results


It’s no surprise that Conservatives won four out of six new Metro Mayoral Elections which includes West Midlands, Tees Valley, Cambridge, and Peterborough. In kind, I take the view it’s better to have won two seats than none (Manchester and Liverpool). Some of our traditional Labour voters in some of our heartlands turned to UKIP as they were speaking their language then afterwards winning the Brexit argument they abandon them, they turned their attention towards the Conservatives which is very worrying times if Labour does not address this issue quickly.
There is no denying that the Conservatives have gained in council seats and mayoral elections by winning 11 new councils, and also holding on to their existing seats to form a majority, of course all the commenters will say that Labour will lose with high opinion polls indicating of high gains in the General Elections for the Conservatives. Intriguingly this reminds me of the old fart(Donald Trump) quoting fake news when he wants to promote positives and can’t get his way then he takes to twitter when he was receiving a battering in the opinion polls and the press. Well this is expected as the press and media are paid to sell their newspapers and to increase their readerships This brings me to the question how effective is any political parties with large membership if they don’t come out and help to get the votes for the political parties they are representing on the doorsteps to get any political party into power with a very clear message why they deserve your vote or have political parties gone very complacent to the extent they think that low turn outs is the business. Well I can put my hand on my heart and say this not acceptable and this trend needs to change now, not tomorrow. This election should have been about local issues such as street cleaning, investment in community centres, schools, parks, roadworks, nurseries, and street lighting but instead it’s been marred by national issues such as Brexit and personalities.

Here is a reminder to all feel free to watch this youtube:

It is alleged that local government elections count towards the results which party will hold the keys to number 10 Downing St, this is false on the grounds of its local parties decides what local issues that affect their wards which helps to build towards the local government policies to enhance to the quality of life in their wards. Most voters will vote on issues that impact on their lifestyles and what political party best represent them and when political parties get out of favour with the voters, voters are like marmite like it or not they get voted out to pave the way for a new government in waiting.
No doubt that there will be winners and losers in any elections which the democratic process has been resolved at the ballot boxes. The other side of the coin is some parties may continue to play the blame game and their lack of failures to look at the root causes of why they lost the elections and it’s just not good enough just giving a good talk and not taking action as voters will see through it they will vote for other parties with a heavy heart instead or they will refuse to vote. In all political parties there will be always be infighting between the so called left and right which really does not help as the public views it as a political party can’t get its act together. When this happens voters can only take so much before they vote for other political parties into office.
Not long ago the Conservatives were fighting amongst themselves and they were very unpopular at the time but they still managed to last for eighteen years in power. The voters in turn paved the way for New Labour to take office in 1997. They spoke in a language that the centre ground understood very well and they continued to vote Labour. About right now some people will be chocking on their breakfast, coffee, lunch, or dinner by mentioning this part of history that the Conservatives will want to bury and forget. (Nasty Party image)
Any political parties can have increase in membership, but does it really translate to influencing the voters to vote in a particular way. To the Jones and Smiths it means nothing to them unless it affects their bread and butter issues. Local turns out are different and normally lower than General Election turn outs.
I question what does taking back control of the UK means to you, as it mean different things to many things to all of us. Does it mean immigration or watering down workers’ rights, selling off our NHS, decreasing our Welfare System, more cuts to our public services or more of Brexit which are all vote winners depending which party will deliver.
The snap general elections was designed to cause maximum confusion for a Conservative win not just to the the traditional conservative heartlands but they had the intention of chipping away into Labour, Libdem, and UKIP heartlands, to win Local and Mayoral Elections Maggie Thatcher did very well during her time in office.
It is been alleged that more than 930,000 new voters have registered to vote in this forthcoming Snap General Elections of those, is said to be under 25s. The highest number of the registration online 147,000 and 3,364 paper forms being submitted was done during Theresa May speech and another surge on the day of local government elections on 4 May. Now is the time to go on Labour doorsteps to convince voters that Labour is the party for the many and not the few.
To put it very bluntly I don’t give a flying monkeys if you voted for Corbyn or not in the Labour leadership contest. What matters is we all have a duty to our party to get a Labour victory out to help form the next Labour Government on 8 June. Don’t let the Conservatives use the Ed Miliband’s tomb stone manifesto plan in 2015 to hoodwink the voters to gain a landslide victory for the Conservatives.

This is not intended to preach to the converted how to suck eggs, but to encourage the converted to take the message to the unconverted why it’s important not to lose their rights to vote in this snap General Elections called by the conservatives by stressing the importance of returning a Labour Government into office on 8 June as every vote counts for Labour leaving no stones unturned for this to happen both camps will have to work together for a Labour victory and don’t sit on the sidelines and play into the press and media just so they can sell their negative garbage to the electorates. Labour does have positive messages to promote and recognise they have a historical scale to win back power this can only happen when it’s members are united. It’s just not good enough taking selfies and thinking it’s good enough to win over voters or feeling safe over their comfort zone just being councillors or career politician. In a nutshell I urge all to put away your difference start to fight for the Labour Party. Remember “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”.
By my estimation we have four an half weeks to turn around some of the misfortunes that has accrued by learning from the lessons of Local and Mayoral Elections to convince voters that the Conservatives are for the rich and not for the working class and take the fight to the marginal seats to turn it into Labour seats. Let’s face it Ice Queen Theresa May is the reincarnation of Maggie Thatcher promoting Thatcherism in this election and make no mistake she will promote it for the 8 June Snap General Elections to gain a landslide victory. I’m sure as hell I don’t want to wake up on the morning of 9 June to see another Conservative in government do you, if not then now is the time to get active and do your duty for Labour by joining in our telephone banks, Branch Labour Parties, Constituency Labour Parties by actively helping out on Labour campaign trails for a Labour victory on 8 June

Satire:Time for Ice Queen Theresa May to change her tune


Here is something we all must be aware of which will make you cringe sitting in the comfort of your settee:

 

Notice how the establishment has immigration high on their agenda just like UKIP as the chancellor has suggested that foreign students and highly skilled workers. Funny enough this does not surprise me at all. Then the government release a statement stating the opposite by denying it and comes out with they are committed to bring net migration down below 100,000 I can only say that they don’t know what the left hand from their right hand is doing as it is a very sensitive issue to address. Somehow this smacks of Donald Trump by saying that he will build a wall the way to Mexico speech.

Michael Gove has been elected to a key body which will scrutinise the work of ministers in charge of Brexit.

The pro-Leave MP is one of ten Tories elected to the 21-strong Exiting the European Union Select Committee, which will have a wide remit to hold David Davis’ department to account.

This comes just months after Gove was sacked as Justice Secretary in the wake of Brexit.

Eight of the conservatives on the new committee backed Leave. Labour has put forward a team of five pro-Remain MPs, including the committee’s Chair, Hilary Benn, who will have a casting vote.

Along with Gove, the Tory team includes Alistair Burt, Maria Caulfield, Andrea Jenkyns, Jeremy Lefroy, Peter Lilley, Karl McKartney, Craig Mackinley, Dominic Raab and John Whittingdale.

Tory MPs Anna Soubry and Peter Bone were unsuccessful in their bids to sit on the committee.

Labour’s committee members include Stephen Timms, Emma Reynolds, Pat McFadden, and Seema Malhotra.

The committee will be almost double the size of nearly every other Commons select committee, a decision some MPs claim is a deliberate sabotage of its work, as it will be harder to reach consensus.

The SNP is to elect two members to the committee, while the Lib Dems, the Democratic Unionist Party, the SDLP, and Plaid Cymru will each chose one.

A major Lincolnshire employer has announced it is moving its headquarters to Europe as a direct result of the Brexit vote in June.nmbikghkp

Anxiety over the cost of a hard Brexit, which would see the UK drifting away from cooperation with the rest of the EU, has compelled Smiffys to open a new headquarters in the Netherlands.

Elliott Peckett, director of Smiffys, said 40 per cent of the company sales go to the European Union, its largest trading partner, and he needs to be prudent. “The Government proclaim that they want to encourage Britain to export, but pursuing this hard Brexit approach has simply pulled the chair from beneath us and left us dangling. The simple answer is that we cannot afford to wait.

“During that time [the negotiating process], not only will Smiffys have lost valuable EU sales due to this uncertainty, as we are already experiencing, but we will have lost the opportunity to have acted to protect what are vital sales to our company. “Moreover, the fact that the pound is now at a 168-year record low against the dollar, according to the Bank of England, sums up the outlook for the UK economy under the approach that the Government are taking on Brexit.” The company, a costume and fancy dress supplier which employs 250 people across its two sites in Gainsborough and Leeds, has been based in the UK for more than 120 years.

Mr Peckett said: “Smiffys have no choice but to protect our business by moving our headquarters to the EU. This will allow us to continue growing our trade to the EU, from within the single market.”

Prior to joining the Single Market Smiffys exported only a tiny fraction of their current sales to the EU.

“Both Smiffys and its European customers were then faced with bureaucratic and administrative barriers, not to mention the costly import duties that our products attracted, making us uncompetitive,” Mr Peckett explained.

“Going back to these times would feel like a step back in time and a lost opportunity to freely access a trading bloc of over 500 million people,” he added.

Another concern for the company is the uncertainty surrounding its workforce as it employs over a dozen European staff.

“All we have heard from the Government is that it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to stay and work for us. If this is the case, this will remove Smiffys’ ability to communicate as well as we currently do with our EU customers,” Mr Peckett said.

Smiffys’ announcement comes as banks and financial firms warned they could start making decisions to move assets out of the UK as early as 2017if there is no deal in place to maintain their rights to sell services freely across the EU.

Open Europe, which took a neutral stance on the referendum, warned that losing access to the single market could cost banks in the UK as much as £27bn, or a fifth of their annual revenue.

On Thursday, Nicolas Mackel, the head of financial development for Luxembourg, said a string of overseas banks and fund managers had explored moving London staff to the tiny country since the Brexit vote.

A senior Tory ally of David Cameron has suggested that Cabinet ministers and the public who back ‘Hard Brexit’ are “stupid”.

Lord Hill, a former EU Commissioner and Leader of the Lords under the ex-PM, warned that the UK had to decide if it wanted to leave the EU with most of its trade links intact, or preferred to make migration curbs a priority.

“I think we have this kind of false choice in the UK often between ‘hard Brexit’ and ‘soft Brexit’,” Hill told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“I think the choice is between stupid Brexit and more intelligent Brexit and that is what we need to go for.

“My whole approach to this would be that if we approach it in a sensible way, because the European system is a deal-based system, there is more scope for trying to resolve it intelligently than if we go at it in a way where we all end up shouting at each other.”

‘Hard Brexit’ is used in Westminster to describe a clean break with the EU’s single market tariff-free system on goods, while imposing strict visa controls on immigrants. Some MPs suspect that Brexit Secretary David Davis, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox are prepared to put the UK on World Trade Organisation tariffs rather than remain members of the EU market.

Lord Hill, who resigned as the EU’s Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union soon after the referendum vote, even claimed that many EU leaders felt Britain was too smart to really quit the EU.

The row came as Theresa May faced the humiliation of seeing Brexit discussed right at the end of a working dinner in Brussels at her first EU summit.

Lord Hill’s remarks followed an outspoken David Davis ( Brexit Secretary) by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis.

The former member of the left-wing government in Athens told the BBC’s Question Time that Davis was running a “Pythonesque department of exit, staffed by several people of very low IQ”. Lord Hill, a long-time ally of Cameron, announced his resignation from his Brussels post just two days after the Brexit vote on June 23.

His comments today sparked a swift backlash from one senior Tory MP, “Suggesting millions of British voters are ‘stupid’ didn’t work for the Remainers in the EU referendum, did it?

“Lord Hill threw his toys out of his pram in June, preferred to flounce off to make money. Hardly surprising as his EU steer to Cameron was so duff. Would you want strategic advice from him?”

On Question Time, Varoufakis refused to name any Brexit department staffers who might be of low IQ, saying these were already well known. UK establishment Brexit Minister (David Davis) to visit his counterpart Micheal Russell in Scotland what transpired his visit since the vote to leave the EU at the roundtable discussion with business figures. All I can say god help us all. As this is not enough embarrassment now transpired that that there is so much u-turn from the UK establishment’s Brexit secretary any arrangements to leave the EU would be a UK deal.

A former Treasury civil servant (Sir Brian Unwin) has eloquently put it by stating that the Brexit Minister (David Davis) is in cloud cuckoo land if he believes Brexit talks are heavily weighted in favour of UK, the Brexit Minister and other should rein back hard and unconstructive talk. The UK has said it will begin formal talks about existing the European Union (EU) by the end of March 2017.

It is alleged that thousands of High Street pharmacies in England could face closure after ministers confirm plains to after the funding system and make cuts. The Department of Health confirmed that they want to reduce the budget by £2.8 billion a year by more than £2 million over the next two years. It has been suggested cuts on this scale could lead up to 3,000 of the 11,700 pharmacies being closed.

We know that Ice Queen Theresa May is in Brussels to talk about Brexit and she is keeping the cards very close to her chest by giving little information to the 28 leaders. To be frank this leads me to strongly believe that she does not know how to move forward on this. The media and public are more focused on the infighting of Labour Party instead of looking at Conservatives who are also doing their infighting with the likes of the three brexiters who occupy the front benches of government. It is further evident that the establishment wants Britain to be part of EU decision-making until Brexit with our negotiating is completed with the summit affecting all 28 members’ states are being discussed.

Its alleged by a former senior police officer (Peter Sheridan) who is now chief executive at Cooperation Ireland warned that Brexit could lead to civil unrest in Northern Ireland and went further to mentioned about the a fragile peace process with the numerous agreements that made up Northern Ireland’s peace process show the brittle nature of its politics and less than a year ago, both governments had to step in to rescue the executives.

I wholeheartedly support the Welsh First Minister by saying for full and unfettered access to the single market. Leaders of the UK’s devolved governments must not undermine Brexit negotiations. Ice Queen Theresa May has offered the Welsh Government a formal seat in the talks to shape the UK’s EU exit strategy. The joint ministerial council which includes Carwyn Jones and the prime minister, met for the first time since 2014.

It’s no surprise that Ice Queen Theresa May has predicted that there will difficulties ahead with the summit leaders to Brexit. She felt it was like a deadlock over landmark EU-Canada trade deal.

Just when we thought we saw the end of George Osborne was parked to the backbenches and out of sight, he is like the prince of darkness read to take a bite by quoting he made mistakes in EU referendum campaign and failed to understand the anger felt by many leave voters. He went to say many voters felt completely disconnected and don’t feel part of the national economy that worked for them.

Establishment borrowing rose by more than expected to £10.6 billon in September according to figure from the Office National Statistics (ONS). The figure was £1.3 Billon higher than the same month last year. For the financial year to date between April and September, borrowing by £2.3 billon to £45.5 billon.

I support the call from the Local Government Association to hold talks with town hall bosses to give councils more building powers to build houses where they are needed and to be freed from restrictions on ability to borrow to fund new home building which includes powers to replace council homes that are sold off as quickly as possible. I’m not convinced that the establishment will grant it instead they rather give the talk but can’t do the walk, the walk. They rather stick to the line of the government is delivering on its commitment to replace all properties sold on a one for one basis.

Anthony Browne British Bankers Association (BBA) quotes leading UK banks are preparing to relocate amid fears over the impact of Brexit negotiations sometime next year over fears around Brexit and smaller banks could move operations overseas by 2017. Their hands are quivering over the relocation button. He further commented most banks had backed the UK remaining in the EU. The current public and political debate at the moment is taking us in the wrong direction.

It’s about time that Jeremy Corbyn challenged Ice Queen Theresa May over shambolic Tory Brexit by saying the establishment has no plan for UK departure and highlighted for clarity and warned of the effect of Brexit on the border.

Jeremy Corbyn took a swipe at the Prime Minister for her inaction over Brexit by saying that her so-called plan is akin to those Blackadder’s loyal dogsbody Baldrick would have devised.

The Labour leader mocked Theresa May’s “chaotic” lack of strategy by insisting that the hapless BBC sitcom character is the only “great philosopher” whose thinking he could detect in current Tory policy.

Mr Corbyn when he said: “On Monday, you told the House: ‘We have a plan which is not to set out at every stage of the negotiations the details.’

“I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of days. I think when searching for the real meaning and the importance behind the Prime Minister’s statement, you have to consult the great philosophers.

“The only one I could come up with is Baldrick, who says: ‘Our cunning plan is to have no plan.’

“Brexit was apparently about taking back control but the devolved governments don’t know the plan, businesses don’t know the plan, Parliament doesn’t know the plan.

“When will the Prime Minister abandon this shambolic Tory Brexit and develop a plan that delivers for the whole country?”

Ms May suggested it was “interesting” that Baldrick actor Sir Tony Robinson was a Labour member, implying that he had left the party.

Mr Robinson tweeted to confirm that he is still a member after 40 years despite being a vocal critic of Mr Corbyn.

The actor ridiculed the state of government by tweeting: “If [Brexit Secretary] David Davis needs any help with Brexit, Baldrick stands ready to serve.”

Ms May outlined a vague plan for Brexit for which the process is expected to start next March in invoking Article 50.

She said: “We’re going to deliver on the vote of the British people, we’re going to deliver the best possible deal for trade in goods and services with and operation within the European Union, and we’re going to deliver an end to free movement.

“That’s what the British people want and that’s what this government is going to deliver for them.”

So in a nutshell she has nothing to offer and it’s time she changed her tune and come up a Brexit plan.

 

 

Satire: Has tories fallen on their own sword


Just last night after reaching home from campaign trail I could not get a tune out of my head which I kept sing to myself. With this in mind I decided to share it with everybody as it is still relevant today as it was in yesteryear’s  See the youtube below:

 

Intriguing to put the blame on all immigrants like they take over our:

Public Services

They work on the cheap to undercut us

They claim benefits and they can afford to drive 4×4

They have two or three iPhone

They are at it like rabbits

They are now taxi drivers and fiddling the system

Well I can say without a doubt the majority of immigrants do work and they contribute to our economy.

It has been rumored by some quarters that lessons for Labour to learn from IDS and the Tory fallout-look outwards, not inwards. Factions fall out, and-like family quarrels, the hurt and disappointment lingers and poisons long after the cause of the quarrel is forgotten. Do what Dennis Skinner says find the Labour candidate and rally round them. And find comrades you can work with it does not matter so much if you disagree about some matters. Too many meetings looking inwards are destructive and harm ourselves. Voters do not just look at our policies what we have to offer. They look at how we behave with each other. Well I say that as much as I love Dennis Skinner and he some wonderful catch phase it needs more meat on the bones and remember that policies is one thing but it also the way how the policies are being delivered and the presentation of the package to sell to the voters that we mean business to tackle the Conservatives.

I’m sure most of us was watching Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) defending his position on the Andrew Marr show. He is arguing that the Conservative government has abandoned One-Nation Conservatism and is no longer trying to look after the people who won’t vote Conservative. This is something that Labour has been arguing for a long time. The fact that IDS has now said this clearly needs to be pushed out to the nation again and again and again.

Cameron and Osborne are trying to smear IDS as quitting purely for Brexit reasons. It is important that we don’t let the nation buy into that narrative.

The European Union (EU) Referendum is the actual reason Ian Duncan Smith resigned. His clap trap and that of his allies is pure fiction. All and every nasty policy against the sick and disabled the Government has enacted since 2010 has his name all over it because he set the policy. So let’s not be drawn in with the complete porkies that he resigned because he thought the policies are too cruel. He could not give a flying monkey about the suffering he inflicted for the past 6 years.

The Tory Party the real reason is an obsession and petty hatred of Europe and that was his motivation. He deliberately chose the moment to seek to undermine Cameron and Osborne because of the Referendum vote. Here is the issue, while I and others have no like or support for Cameron and Osborne, I and others will not let a vile man like IDS dictate to his view that we should leave the EU. Why on earth should anyone give time to what he thinks and who was obsessed in bringing fear and suffering to sick and disabled people.

The European Union and Britain being in the EU is important, despite the bogus spin against it the UK gets back almost £10 for every £1 it puts in. The views of IDS and those from the right screaming to leave and stamping their feet are not.

 

I say to all beware of the Conservatives bearing gifts and warned they give in one hand and take with the other hand. I’m not really convinced that we have seen the end of the welfare cuts with the replacement of Iain Duncan Smith. I kid you not as the next person who takes over IDS place is more right-wing conservative(Stephen Crabb) and they will argue that he is from a working class background to make it for Labour difficult to argue. I say what a load of clap-trap once a Troy always a Tory as he or she does not change their colors overnight. Just to be very clear the Tories always gives in the one hand and takes in the other hand with a nasty sting with this in mind don’t be hoodwinked.

The new DWP Secretary Stephen Crabb announced that:

The Government will make no further cuts to the social security budget beyond those already legislated for, ministers have said.

Stephen Crabb confirmed that cuts to the Personal Independence Payment would not go ahead  but also ruled out making any more broader welfare cuts.

The Government pledged to make £12 billion in welfare cuts before the general election as part of its plan to meet a self-imposed spending rule – and has already legislated to bring in significant cuts.

Cuts already legislated for that are yet to come in include £5 savings from less generous Universal Credit payments, cuts to the tax credit income disregard, and cuts to the Employemt and Support Allowance disability benefit.

“I can tell the House that we will not be going ahead with the changes to PIP that were put forward,” Mr Crabb said in a statement to the Hosue of Commons. “I am absolutely clear that a passionate and fair welfare system should not just be about numbers behind every statistic there is a human being and perhaps sometimes in government we forget that.

“I can also confirm that after discussing this issue over the weekend with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor  we have no further plans to make welfare savings beyond the very substantial savings legislated for by parliament two weeks ago which we will not focus on implementing.”

The new Secretary of State, who replaced Iain Duncan Smith, said he believed the Government’s total welfare spending cap was right in “principle” but that it would  be reviewed at the Autumn Statement.

How to people feel that George Osborne has told MPs he was “sorry” Iain Duncan Smith resigned and was “proud” of their work together was being sincere.

Defending his handling of the economy ahead of a vote to approve his Budget, the chancellor said Treasury talks with departments had often been “robust”.

But where mistakes were made he was ready “to listen and learn”, he added.

Labour said Mr Osborne would have to raid the welfare budget further or “ditch” his self-imposed cap on overall benefits spending.

George Osborne’s Commons performance came after Mr Duncan Smith’s post-Budget decision to quit, with a blast at “indefensible” changes to disability benefits.

How many of us really believe that George Osborne confirmed he had dropped planned cuts to Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) and said no further welfare savings were anticipated beyond the £12bn already approved by Parliament towards his target of balancing the books by 2020. To be honest I think only a hand full of people do compare to the many just don’t trust him.

However Angela Eagle wound up the opposition response to George Osborne’s shambolic Budget with a stinging assault on George Osborne which I thought good on her for doing so as all I could see that reaction of George Face which was not pleasant and the fact that Angela Eagles did a wonderful job I think made lot of people happy but there some you can’t please all.

Jeremy Corbyn was right to be in full throttle by seeking answers which the reply was half baked answers from the conservatives for this very reason I will never vote for a Tory Government let alone a Tory Council. Like him or loath him there must something about Jeremy Corbyn is attracting new blood back to Labour Party and it is on public record on how I voted during the leadership contest and I still think that for the cynicism in some quarters of the party it’s about time all in concern should unite as we have local govt, Police Crime and Commissioners, London Mayoral, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly Elections to contest and after that in June we also need to be unite over whether we remain in or out Europe.

Remember “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”

So let the Conservatives fall on their sword

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Satire: Who are kidding conservatives


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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Satire: David Scameron failures


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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the list of the 23 Conservative rebel MPs:

Sir William Cash

Liam Fox

John Redwood

Peter Lilley

Philip Davies

Sir Edward Leigh

Michael Fabricant

Sir Gerald Howarth

Bernard Jenkin

Steve Baker

Anne Main

Christopher Chope

Jacob Rees-Mogg

John Baron

Peter Bone

Tom Pursglove

David Nuttall

Sarah Wollaston

Richard Drax

Chris Philp

Andrew Brigden

Craig Mackinlay

Martin Vickers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government contractors Capita and Atos apologised over bungled disability tests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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