Category Archives: #HumanRightsAbuse

Aside

Sixty Church of England bishops along with leaders of other religious groups, are urging ministers to rethink the two-child benefits cap. In a letter to the Times, they say the policy is likely to tip an extra 200,000 children into … Continue reading

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative (304)

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

Democratic Unionist Party (10)

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

Independent (1)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/20/theresa-may-accused-of-misleading-public-over-extra-police-funding

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/09/britains-police-budgets-to-lose-700m-by-2020-amid-rising

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://labourlist.org/2018/03/pay-more-for-less-under-the-tories/

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

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

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/18/homelessness-minister-heather-wheeler-rough-sleeping-housing-first

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

 

The tables have turned against Tory In disarray with infighting


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May is embarrassed – but I’m livid –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

My thoughts after Labour Conference came to end


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

Jeremy Corbyn Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

 

John McDonnell Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

 

Tom Watson Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shared challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision of the British people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe we must. And I believe we can.

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

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

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

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.

My Thoughts on the Repeal Bill


Here is something that we should remember:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Tories sold their souls to the devils


Here is short verse of Shelley:

‘Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number—
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you—
Ye are many—they are few.’

I had fond memories of one of my uncles who would take a book of the self, the book was full of dust he would clean the cover of the book with a clean cloth then he would sit us down to read the poem.
Andy Howe sums it eloquently in his article in Labour Uncut about high Labour expectations http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/06/28/expectations-for-labour-are-high-policy-is-the-way-for-jeremy-corbyn-to-meet-them/
Tories voted against Labour amendment to stop cuts to police, firefighters and paramedics and to end the pay cap on public sector workers including nurses. The Tories and DUP cronies got their majority to block Labour. Result – 309 – 323 (Majority 14) These Tories are not worthy of your vote and their words mean nothing to our brave firefighters, police, paramedics, nurses and public sector workers, next time the Tories seek your vote use every opportunity remind them of our public sector workers. Remember when Theresa May told a struggling nurse there was no ‘magic money tree?’
The Prime Minister has scraped together £1bn to spend on a deal with the DUP – but just 24 days ago she told a struggling nurse money doesn’t grow on trees
In the closing days of the election campaign, Theresa May told anyone who would listen that there was no ‘magic money tree’.
Some noted that the Prime Minister appears to have found one, because she’s managed to scrape together £1 billion to help her cling on to power.
She’s promised the DUP vast sums of cash to spend on projects in Northern Ireland, in return for which they’ve promised to prop up her minority government.
But just 24 days ago, she told a struggling nurse – who had seen real terms pay cuts for eight years – there was “no magic money tree.”
During a special edition of BBC Question Time, the nurse asked the Prime Minister: “My wage slips in 2009 reflect exactly what I see today – so how can that be fair in light of the job that we do?”Mrs May replied: “I recognise the job that you do, but we have had to take some hard choices across the public sector in relation to public sector pay restraint.
“We did that because of the decisions we had to take to bring public spending under control, because it wasn’t under control under the last Labour government.
“And I’m being honest with you in terms of saying we will put more money into the NHS, but there isn’t a magic money tree that we can shake that suddenly provides for everything that people want.”
Tory Defence Secretary Michael Fallon denied the Prime Minister telling a struggling nurse that money doesn’t grow on trees was “patronising.”
He said: “She was honest about pay restraint within the NHS.”
He said using the phrase “magic money tree” was drawing attention to the “Christmas tree of presents” inside the Labour manifesto that are not costed.”
Hear Ye, hear Ye, on this day 26 June 2017 Conservatives sold their souls to the devil in return for a sweetheart deal viz Confidence and Supply for the sum of £1b to save face in parliament. Thou art a boil for doing this deal with the Democratic Unionist Party https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Unionist_Party
Thou art right to be outraged at the idea that such nasty, regressive bigots as the DUP should wield disproportionate influence over our government, but while people are waking up to how batshit northern Irish politics is, I feel they don’t realize how neglected and poverty stricken it is. Fully concur that the whole of the UK needs investment in its infrastructure, but it feels like dog-in-a-manger politics to begrudge investment that the poorest region of the UK so desperately needs.

I’m not surprised about May’s disgusting deal with the DUP. She thinks she has hoodwinked us all into believing she thinks that her deal is anything other than a shameful bribery to let her remain in power. £1bn for ten votes! Doesn’t that make you rage. Consider this it cost us around £16.66 for each individual UK taxpayer to fund the Tories clinging onto power. Theresa May said she wants EU citizens living in the UK to stay after Brexit as she announced plans designed to put their “anxiety to rest”. All EU nationals lawfully resident for at least five years will be able to apply for “settled status” and be able to bring over spouses and children.
Those EU citizen who come after an as-yet-unagreed date will have two years to “regularise their status” but with no guarantees. Prime Minister told the Commons that she wanted to give reassurance and certainty to the 3.2m EU citizens in the UK as well as citizens of the three EEA countries and Switzerland who she said were an “integral part of the economic and cultural fabric” of the UK.
However, she said any deal on their future legal status and rights must be reciprocal and also give certainty to the 1.2m British expats living on the continent after the UK leaves the EU. It’s all silent from Tory voters and members are they happy to purchase votes, and  that each vote from the DUP to prop up the Tories will cost the UK taxpayer £100 Million pounds to the DUP a BILLION pounds, yes a feckin BILLION pounds that could be used for education, or the NHS, or to invest in this country to get people back to work, and with Brexit coming up don’t we need that money for all of the UK. Tory members please tell us, is all this ok with you lot, and can you confirm that this Is what you voted for. So there is a magic money tree after all, but only if you’re a Tory buying votes from extremists..
One wonder how the Tories would feel if this £ BILLION pounds was going to the EU where at least we get something back for our money..
Honestly, whilst I feel like using stronger language I have to be mindful when a Government abuses its people in this way, a Government is so arrogant with YOUR money, when a Government buys votes for a BILLION pounds with money we so desperately need, when a Government takes the piss like this then there really is no other option, and it will be their own doing. People are sick of this constant abuse of our money by greedy arrogant Tory politicians.
Surely if the Conservative government were being honest and upfront, the other parties would by logic, support their efforts to govern, if it was in the Nation’s interest to do so. What is it that the Conservative minority government are afraid of when roughly half of the population are represented by other MP’s?
Why do they need to ruin their chances of a comeback at a subsequent general election by prostituting themselves to  the likes of the DUP-a party known for its links to protestant terrorism in Northern Ireland and for its anti LBG rights and its anti-abortionist views. Even the Conservative leader in Scotland has her reservations because of her own sexuality and those newly elected Scottish MP’s are now going to be in a dilemma when it comes to their government’s need for votes. The SNP will be having a field day with this over the coming weeks and months. It is a well-known truism that the Tories when faced with a problem they just throw money at it. One can see that behaviour in the antics of people like Johnson and other ex bullingdon club boys- I call them boys for that’s all they are in their level of maturity.
To resolve their dilemma at present the money they have slung in the direction of the DUP pales into insignificance when one looks at the amount of money they are going to have to dish out to appease the rest of the mainland populace. Their hope that they can ride out the storm of protests is likely to fail, as the security services, already hard pressed to contain society is bursting at the seams with discontent and skill and manpower shortages.
I expect that during the next few months, if they survive there will be emergency legislation passed and malcontents, disaffected and the like who strongly criticise this cuckoo government will see efforts to close down their avenues of dissent. Corbyn’s popularity has reached the point of no return and as long as he does not fall into the Beatles trap of becoming ‘more popular than Jesus’, his little red manifesto will stand the test of time.
He has some excellent people around him. I watched Keir Starmer yesterday with admiration at how he clinically destroyed the three Brexiteers and how he parried sniping from the tories so that their ammo puffed like damp squibs in the chamber. These people, rather than Labour will now feel the pressure as the Tory controlled main stream media begin their hatchet jobs. Corbyn, being the leader he is knows how they work and is no doubt primed and ready to keep opening that DUP sore until it festers in the body of the Tories and they become too weakened through the political infection that they finally capitulate.
They cling desperately to May’s apron strings but I fear that it will all be in vain as she herself is so weakened by her recent actions following on from flawed decisions. We just wait and adopt a siege mentality and sooner or later we will starve them out.
As you may know, the Conservative Party reached an agreement with the DUP today to ensure that they are propped up and kept in power. This has cost us £1.5bn. Questions need to be answered as to how much Wales will now receive outside of the Barnett Formula as well. It is unfair if one part of the country receives more funds just to prop up a minority government. Tim Connor wrote an excellent article about young people see article below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tim-connor/young-people-election_b_17321930.html

After weighing all the evidence I have to say it loud and clear that Tories sold their souls to the devils

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.