Category Archives: #NastyParty

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

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.

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

George Osborne is having the last laugh


I’m reminded of a song I listened many years ago on one of my hobbit journeys recently with some fellow travellers we were having a discussion on various subjects from good friends we had and lost along the way, social mobility, mental health, post war syndrome, food, mobile, gas, electric, and oil price increases and Brexit, the list goes on. Somehow ‘Share Values’ came up and it sums up what our so called shared values in U.K. means in my eyes in a nutshell it’s called a rat race. See lyrics below:

Ah! Ya too rude
Oh what a rat race
Oh what a rat race
This is the rat race

Some a lawful, some a bastard, some a jacket
Oh what a rat race, rat race

Some a gorgan, some a hooligan, some a guine-gog
In this rat race, yeah!
Rat race
I’m singing
When the cats away
The mice will play
Political voilence fill ya city
Yea-ah!
Don’t involve Rasta in your say say
Rasta don’t work for no C.I.A.
Rat race, rat race, rat race
When you think is peace and safety
A sudden destruction
Collective security for surety
Yeah!

Don’t forget your history
Know your destiny
In the abundance of water
The fool is thirsty
Rat race, rat race, rat race

Oh it’s a disgrace to see the
Human-race in a rat race, rat race
You got the horse race
You got the dog race
You got the human-race
But this is a rat race, rat race

What a lark and see the hypocrites going along their way as they look down on people who are on state benefits. However there are some arguments that suggest that some people through no fault of their own who happens to be in certain situations which is the root cause of why they have ended up on state benefits such as they lose their jobs and mental health issues which can happen to any one of us at any stage of our lives. To be frank nobody likes to be on state benefits and it’s still shocking some people they view people who are on state benefits are of lower class and dare I say it as a way how parents educate their children to use say to their children to encourage them to use a form of caste discrimination to encourage their children to do better in their education to get a better job. The truth is this is one of the worse way to teach their children to discriminate against people who receive state benefits. Yes we can encourage our children to do better by showing them to study harder and reward them when they get a good grades result in their school report.

Changes to benefit rules coming into force this week could push 200,000 more children into poverty, say campaigners.

From Thursday, payments for some benefits will be limited to the first two children in a family.

The Child Poverty Action Group and Institute for Public Policy Research say some families will be almost £3,000 a year worse off under the new rules.

Ministers say they are determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage and make work pay.

The changes affect families who claim tax credits and Universal Credit – which is in the process of being rolled out and is due to replace tax credits completely by 2022.

The new rules mean that children born after Thursday 6 April into families where there are already two or more children will no longer be counted in benefit payments to their parents, under either tax credits or Universal Credit.

And from autumn 2018, families making new claims under Universal Credit will only receive payments for their first two children even if they were born before Thursday.

However, children already receiving Universal Credit or tax credit payments will not lose them for as long as their family’s existing claim continues.

And child benefits which are separate will be unaffected.

The latest official figures show that 872,000 families with more than two children were claiming tax credits in 2014-15.

And a similar number of families are likely to lose out under the changes, the researchers suggest.

In 2014-15, two thirds (65%) were working families and 68% had no more than three children, say the researchers.

Based on those figures, the researchers calculate that once the new policy is fully implemented an additional 100,000 adults and 200,000 children could face poverty.

Among those affected will be families with more than two children who are not currently on benefits but who might need to claim in future because of unforeseen redundancy, illness, separation or death, the researchers warn.

They also suggest that the policy could:

  • Create an incentive for larger families to split
  • Discourage single parents to form new “blended” families
  • Penalise children in separated families who switch the parent with whom they live

“It may also leave women who become pregnant with a third child, for example through contraception failure, with a difficult choice between moving into poverty and having an abortion,” they add.

The researchers also criticise a lack of advance publicity about the change on the main universal credit website, particularly if the policy was intended “to inform parents’ choices about having children”.

Child Poverty Action Group’s chief executive Alison Garnham called it a “particularly pernicious cut because it suggests some children matter more than others”.

“It’s also illogical because no parent has a crystal ball,” she added.

“Families that can comfortably support a third child today could struggle tomorrow and have to claim Universal Credit because, sadly, health, jobs and relationships can fail.

“Surely children should not have their life chances damaged because of the number of siblings they have.”

It is claimed disabled people in the U.K. are ‘left behind in society’ and have ‘very poor’ life chances a report has found. 

This report by The Equality and Human Rights Commission said progress towards equality in the past 20 years was ‘littered with missed opportunities’.

It is reported on 25 June 2015 that the number of UK children classed as living in relative poverty remains 2.3 million, government figures suggest.

It’s been purported that the Department of Works and Pension annual estimate shows the proportion affected – almost one in six – was unchanged from 2011-12 to 2013-14.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said UK poverty levels were the “lowest since the mid-1980s” and showed government reforms were working.

But charities said proposed welfare changes would leave families worse off.

A child is defined as being in poverty when living in a household with an income below 60% of the UK’s average.

Average household income in 2013-14 – before housing costs – remained unchanged from 2012-13, at £453 a week – making the poverty line £272 a week.

Mr Duncan Smith told the Commons that government reforms of the welfare system were focused on “making work pay” and getting people into employment.

He said he remained “committed” to dealing with the “root causes” of poverty, saying employment was up by more than two million since 2010.

Shadow chancellor Chris Leslie accused the government of failing to make progress in cutting child poverty and raising incomes.

The figures represented a “depressing slow-down in the progress we should be making as a country”, he said.

Javed Khan, chief executive of children’s charity Barnardo’s, said every child living in poverty was a child that was being “let down”.

He said: “Government plans to cut struggling families’ incomes further by changing tax credits is deeply concerning… this government must ensure that change to the benefits system makes work pay for those on low incomes.”

Matthew Reed, chief executive of the Children’s Society, said there has been a “steady rise” over the last five years in the numbers of children living in poverty in households where parents work.

He said 200,000 more children have been pushed deeper into poverty over the past year.

Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said the figures made “grim reading”, adding: “The government is not going to meet the child poverty targets.”

It comes as the government has said it wants to change the way child poverty is measuredas it believes the current measurement is inadequate.

David Cameron’s official spokeswoman said the prime minister “remains committed to doing more work to eliminate child poverty and that is precisely why the government wants to look at having an approach that is focused more on tackling the root causes of poverty than treating the symptoms.”

It’s a sad day to every corner we turn we witness Junk Food Projects, Food Banks, Soup Kitchens and most of all the increase of homelessness, rough sleepers, mental health, learning disabilities, low income families depends on those new voluntary services to provide a service which in some cases lack funding and left to fend for themselves to raise the funding for a level playing field against big charities that receive the bulk of the funding from some councils.

What’s more disturbing is the government gives the talk but refuse to take action. It’s no wonder why some people who can use their votes refuse to hold both the government and the official opposition to account because of this, politicians are let off the hook and they are the ones who moan the most. To put it in a nutshell if you don’t vote, you don’t have a say.

There is a saying “People shouldn’t be afraid of their governmentGovernments should be afraid of their people.

I will continue to defend Labour Government record during 1997-2010:

  • Created the Future Jobs Fund, creating over 100,000 new job starts for young people, reducing youth unemployment.
  • Introduced Connections, a service for young people which gave advice and information on jobs, careers, learning and training.
  • Created the New Deal, which helped the long-term unemployed to find work.
  • Introduced the National Wage(NMW), now fighting for real Living Wage.
  • Introduced the right to 28 days of paid leave.
  • Equally of rights between full and part-time workers.
  • Increased paid maternity leave from 14 to 39 weeks, introduced 2 weeks of paid paternity leave.
  • 70% reduction in the number of people in the number of people sleeping rough.
  • 94% decrease in the number of families being placed into inadequate bed and breakfast accommodation.
  • Repaired and improved 1 Million council houses to meet the Decent Homes Standard for council houses.

Isn’t ironic Just over half of the people who have received taxpayers’ money to help them buy a home under a government scheme did not need it, according to research.

About 4,000 households in England earning more than £100,000 annually are in the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme.

Official figures to December 2016 show more than 20,000 households who are not first-time buyers have been helped.

The initiative, which started in April 2013, aims to make buying a home more affordable.

It is suggested that research for the Government found 57% of those who signed up to it said they could have afforded to buy without access to the scheme.

Help to Buy was launched by then Chancellor George Osborne to attempt to encourage more housebuilding.

The government offers a 20% equity loan to buyers of newly-built properties and 40% in London, on properties worth up to £600,000.

The buyers have to put down a 5% deposit and, when the property is sold, the government reclaims its loan.

This means if the value of the home goes up, the government will make a profit.

Similar schemes were set up and have now ended in Scotland and Wales.

Gavin Barwell, the housing and planning minister, said: “We’re committed to helping more people find a home of their own with the support of a range of low-cost home ownership products.

“Our Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme continues to make home ownership a reality for thousands of people, especially first-time buyers right across the country.”

The government said it had committed £8.6 billion for the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme to allow it to run in England until 2021.

Labour’s shadow housing secretary John Healey said: “While the number of younger people who own a first home is in freefall, the number of government-backed affordable homes to buy has fallen by two-thirds since 2010 and badly targeted schemes like Help to Buy are not focused on those who most need a hand up.

“Labour would change that and make helping first-time buyers on ordinary incomes the priority for Help to Buy.”

George Osborne faced a Tory rebellion on Thursday night which could block his plans to cut benefits to thousands of disabled people.

Scores of Conservative MPs warned the Chancellor that they will force him to roll back on controversial Government plans to cut the welfare claims of 640,000 disabled people to save £1.3 billion.

One prominent backbencher warned that Mr Osborne has “zero chance” of getting the measure through Parliament.

The rebellion is a blow to Mr Osborne’s authority and came as MPs also vowed to oppose the Government next week over European Union taxes on tampons, solar panels and home insulation.

George Osborne’s budget will disproportionately benefit the rich, with little if any help given to the poor, according to a review by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The richest 10% of Brits will benefit to the tune of £250 a year each from yesterday’s announcements alone.

And there was little or no benefit from yesterday’s tax and benefits announcements to the lowest 50% of earners – who will already be up to £1,500 a year worse off after tax and benefit changes introduced since May’s general election.

According to the IFS, some 43% of the population now don’t earn enough to pay income tax, and so will see no benefit from the Chancellor’s increase in the tax-free personal allowance.

But Mr Osborne tossed high earners a bung in the budget, by bumping the threshold for the higher rate of tax up to £45,000 a year.

Rich non-doms were given a year in which to sell or dispose of their UK based houses and assets before they have to pay tax on them.

Capital gains tax saw another cut, as did corporation tax which remains the lowest of any G20 country.

Those that can afford to save were given huge incentives to put money aside – with the Lifetime ISA offering a £1 bonus for every £4 saved up to £4,000 a year, and the upper annual limit on tax-free ISA savings lifted to a whopping £20,000.

And people living in social housing who have ‘spare rooms’ are still hit with the Bedroom Tax, owners of swanky second homes were told they could earn £1,000 tax-free by renting them out through AirBNB.

Child Poverty Action Group Chief Executive Alison Garnham said: “Yet again the independent evidence shows hard-up households are losing most while the better off gain from tax cuts paid for by all of us.

“And in the pipeline there are cuts to universal credit which will further clobber low-earners just as the cancelled tax credits would have.

“If it wants to be the party of working people, the Government needs to deliver a real living wage and help with high housing and childcare costs.”

And today it emerged that some 290,000 sick, vulnerable and disabled people will lose £4,100 a year.

To put this all into prospective it’s no wonder why that Phillip Hammond and other senior Tory MPs were hoping that Ice Queen Theresa May would call for early general elections that was never to be. This is why George Osborne is having the last laugh at disabled people and people who are on state benefits.

 

Tory Bexit Trojan Horse


I’m happy with Labour position that they took to amend any bill on the article 50 process to withdraw from the EU, this is to ensure Britain maintain access to Europe’s markets, workers’ rights, and environmental measures and continue respect the EU referendum.

Keir Starmer Shadow Brexit Secretary put forward a motion for debate 7 December 2016 calling for details of the strategy with some support from backbenchers of Conservatives. 10 Downing St started playing a game of cat and mouse by accepting Labour opposition motion to force the prime minister to publish a plan before Article 50 is triggered. So why am I not surprised by the establishment for putting forward an amendment to win back those conservative back benchers.

The vote from Labour opposition motion as amended is as follows: Ayes: 448   Noes: 75

Government amendments as follows: Aye: 461 Noes: 89

5 December 2016, the government went to Supreme Court to challenge the High Court decision brought by Gina Miller against the government which last four days on a ruling that it must consult MPs in parliament before triggering article 50. Its 11 justices heard the government appeal against November High Court ruling.

QC (James Eadie) representing the establishment argued to make a decision the ordinary folks would understand in the landmark legal challenge over Brexit. Ministers could trigger Brexit and that there was no basis for Parliament to get the final say. So in a nutshell the establishment can use executive powers to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and that parliament need not get the final say.

The QC for Gina Miller outlined their evidence that Parliament must be consulted stating that article 50 alone cannot be triggered without the consent of parliament and only Parliament can trigger Article 50. In a nutshell the EU referendum does not give ministers the power to trigger Brexit without consulting parliament. The political significance of June’s vote was irrelevant to the legal battle.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe the significance of June EU referendum was political not legal. He also implied any other Commons votes related to the case. Allowing ministers to trigger Brexit without consulting MPs would violate “basic” principles of constitutional law.

Scotland’s top legal officer has said the Scottish Parliament’s consent is needed before the UK triggers Brexit. He was not arguing Holyrood had a veto, but argued it’s consent was required because of the “significant changes” Brexit would make to its powers.

Lord Neuberger said the case focused on “the process by which those results can lawfully be brought into effects”. The Supreme Court president promised a decision as soon as possible (January 2017)

The histrionic Brexit legal challenge has drawn to a close with a reminder from the Supreme Court that it will not overturn the result of the EU referendum.

To be very frank I’m not sure what way Gina Miller voted in the any of the elections whichever way how she voted is her business. What I admire about her is she took it upon herself to take the establishment to the high court and she won her case based on she strongly believed in. The fact the establishment decided to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court. “People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people”. This is what I admire about Gina Miller. gina

However I am very disappointed on the way how haters took it on themselves to abuse and threatened members of parliament and Gina Miller via social media and she had personal bodyguards to protect her at the supreme court they should be ashamed of themselves.

I can’t help the feeling that can of worms been opened up in many ways. It transpires that Jolyon Maugham QC a British Lawyer has launched a drive to raise funds for a court case in Ireland to find out if the process of Britain leaving the EU could be halted. He wants the case to go to the European Court of Justice for the ruling on whether British MPs could reject a Brexit deal after it is done. He is seeking to raise the sum of £70,000 in donations to start the proceedings. The case will also raise the possibility that Article 50 has in fact been triggered already.

Ken Clarke former chancellor fired a warning shot to Ice Queen Theresa May she may not “survive” as prime minister if she sides with hard Brexit MPs. He further warned it would be “pretty catastrophic” to tell the EU we’re just pulling out.

The House of Lords EU Committee said the power would be contained in a treaty between the UK and Ireland, subject to approval from Brussels. The peers stressed that trade between the countries must be safeguarded. Irish and UK citizens should continue to have freedom of movement in the two countries. The power to grant or deny freedom of movement to EU nationals in Northern Ireland should be devolved to Stormount following Brexit.

Remember Gisela Stuart MP who toured the UK with Boris Johnson to campaign to leave EU. Both stood by their battle ram bus if Britain leaves EU the NHS will have 350 Million to spend. Now she wants to have her cake and want to eat it at the same time. Cor blimey wish she could make up her mind up.leave-bus

Gisela Stuart MP Chair of British Future wants a fair cut-off date for any settlement and changes. European nationals living in the U.K. must have a guarantee they can remain in place after Brexit. Three Million Group is demanding assurances people will not be used as “bargaining chips”.

The government says it wants to let the 2.8 million EU nationals stay in the UK, but member states must reciprocate.

The establishment really have their work cut out for them in 2017 the Sunday Times front page issued 11 December 2016 alleging that campaigners will write to the government saying they are taking them to high court to fight to keep the UK in the EU single market. What a lark. David Cameron gives his account of referendum on EU despite it cost him his job as prime minister. He claimed the issue had been “poisoning” British politics and the conservative party and people were frustrated about it. He continued to describe the Brexit vote and Donald Trump’s election in the US as a “movement of unhappiness”.

Well he should not have gone around to all the EU leaders bragging to them that UK will remain in the EU by 70/30. My guess he is regretting this. This reminds me of an old Chinese proverb “It’s only when a person gets into difficulty that one can truly see his heart”. jkgkh

The establishment must make clear whether Britain should go on hard or soft Brexit negotiations with the approval of parliament instead of the government riding shotgun. Whilst I partly concur with the government should not show their hands all parliamentarians should have the right to have input in the way how Brexit should work and put it to another referendum for the nation to accept or decline the plan. Moderate core of Tory voters do not want the party to become “UKIP-lite”

Intriguing, intriguingly imagine for one moment just by pursuing for a hard Brexit would alienate core Conservative voters and cost them the next general election. No doubt this will be good news in some quarters and one that UKIP, Britain First, and British National Party will be jumping up and down shouting for a hard Brexit.

Could this be a natural mystic flowing around that the so called panic mode in Downing Street about government leaks over Brexit negotiations via Tory minister has been carrying notes around to and from Downing Street during their so called Brexit negotiations plans.

Boris Johnson said on Andrew Marr Show that the United Kingdom (UK) should not have to pay “large” sums to European Union (EU) to trade with it after Brexit. The idea of UK paying for tariff-free access for EU’s internal market has been mooted in recent days is pure speculation but if it did any payment had to be sensible.

Boris Johnson has also said that Britain will not seek obstruct European efforts to develop closer defence cooperation after Brexit. If they want to do that, fine, but said countries should ensure they met their NATO commitments. He seems to be contradicting the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon who recently said the UK would oppose the move because it could undermine NATO. This seems like Boris Johnson starting the plotting of the downfall of Ice Queen Theresa May to become the next leader of conservatives.

It is been suggested by Trade Minister Greg Hands that UK could seek a deal which would allow sections of the economy to remain within EU customs union. Officials would be able to choose the type of products to be covered by agreement. The union operates alongside the EU trade area. This came in light of Brexit Secretary (David Davis)said the UK would consider paying for “best possible” single market access.

Ruth Davidson leader of Scottish Conservatives calls on the UK to avoid a “divisive Brexit” and to heal the divisions left by the referendum. The UK remained one of the world’s great liberal democracies. The reputation was being tested with the country conducts itself in the future.

Amber Rudd was speaking in the House of Commons about arrangements after Brexit for EU citizens living in Brexit and there needs to be some form of documentation. So in a nutshell its now becoming very clear that the establishment are playing a dangerous games with EU nationals by telling them to produce their documentation(valid Passport, ID card, marriage certificate, or employers letter) to the state that stay in the UK. This smells of immigration or race card(s) coming into force via the backdoor.

Let’s see now, the Fibdems have woken up to a swollen head by winning the Richmond Park by-election by shafting Zac Goldsmith into second place and our Labour candidate came third. They are claiming that the Fibdems are back in the big time after it fought on the issue of Brexit to oust ex- Conservative Zac Goldsmith. Ouch I’m laughing out loud that my stomach hurts. They now have nine Member of Parliament and already they are saying that they are the real opposition party. Yes dream on Fibdems as voters have not forgotten that your former leader Nick Clegg went into bed with the Conservatives to form a coalition which they paid a very heavy price for it in the 2010 general elections.

I’m under the impression that the establishment (Conservatives) are taking soundings from the business community in what directions they should move forward this good in way. To me it’s clear that Conservatives have no idea how to move forward and this nothing more than a Tory Brexit Trojan Horse as Ice Queen Theresa May is running around like a headless chicken as David Cameron has left his party in the lurch.