Category Archives: #Welfare Reform

My thoughts after Labour Conference came to end


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

Jeremy Corbyn Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

 

John McDonnell Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

 

Tom Watson Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shared challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision of the British people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe we must. And I believe we can.

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

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

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

Negotiations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shared future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic partnership

Let me start with the economic partnership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can do so much better than this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We share a commitment to high regulatory standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These arrangements will create valuable certainty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new partnership of values and interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it is up to leaders to set the tone.

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

A tone of trust, the cornerstone of any relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

Only time will tell if the prime minister survives


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

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

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

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.

 

So called shared Society


Whilst I welcome with reservations Ice Queen Theresa May speech on Share Society over Mental a Health and housing she still failed to address homelessness.

This seems to remind me of the “Big Society” with a bit more spin by replacing it with the ism of “Shared Society”. Well I have news for all I rather have the “Good Society or Movement for Change” which addressed all sections of society both were Labour policies which the press helped to put a damper on them but instead promoted the “Big Society” on behalf of the coalition government which was the code word the “big con”.

Over the festive season I went on a few hobbit journeys across the some regions looking at homelessness, mental health, alcoholism, LGBT, young people zero hours contacts.

Whilst I’m happy that Jeremy Corbyn and John Healey both confirmed they will be highlighting the raising of rough sleeping levels were inexcusable and have announced they pledged to end the “national shame” of rough sleeping by doubling the number of homes available for use by homeless people across England.

I welcome a future Labour Government would ring fencing 4,000 new flats and homes for rough sleepers in cities such as Birmingham, Bristol, and Liverpool. The properties would “genuinely affordable” rents, building on an existing scheme in London. See article below:

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/154885633364/christmas-message-from-jeremy-corbyn

http://labourlist.org/2016/08/john-healey-80000-more-families-could-face-homelessness-unless-theresa-may-reverses-cuts/

However I must stress that successive governments (both Conservatives and Labour) failed to address the Homelessness and shortage of housing issues and they chose to build properties for the rich could afford to buy and rent whilst working class who are on low incomes such as zero hours were left to fend for themselves.

Who would have thought in the twenty-first century that we will see more homelessness coupled by mental health, and the most vulnerable in society have been left to fend for themselves to depend on food banks and going to soup kitchens. Time and time again, I’ve heard quite comments made about homeless people being referred to as down and out or it was self-inflicted which they don’t have a clue or fail to acknowledge that it can happen to anybody at any stage in their life.jhnfjkertjf

Soup Kitchens and foodbanks are increasing on a large scale and what is the establishment doing to address this to be frank squat dilly is the short answer they rather pay lip service and look after their fatcat chums that provide funding to their political party in exchange for a peerage(Cash for peerage). They rather stave public services instead investing more in statuary services

Since the Care In The Community Act came into force under Thatcher and Major Conservative Government saw the closure of some Mental Health, Learning Difficulties hospitals outside agencies cannot cope on the grounds of lack of funding which came under the Tory and Libdems Coalition in 2010 using the Big Society gimmick which all the charity sectors were rubbing their hands on what they thought they were seeing ££££££ signs flashing in their eyes and at the same time rubbing their hands only to see the funding being pulled from them(Well done Mr and Mrs Politicians for selling out the country). Instead both the conservatives and Libdem coalition and the Conservatives still blame Labour for their incompetence.

Now that I’ve got this out of my chest and it’s about time that Labour has decided to hold the establishment to account on homelessness and start to look at ways how to address Homelessness which includes rough sleepers in their manifesto.

The people you are about to meet are invisible. Politicians don’t mention them. Much of the media ignore them. I can see why. To say such folk exist is to admit that much more is wrong in Britain than the gatekeepers of our national conversation will allow. It’s to accept that some of our prized insights about the economy are junk, and to understand, however fleetingly, how little stands between the rest of us and complete disaster.

For all that, they are as real as you or me – and they are fast growing in number. They are people who are homeless, even though they are working. See article below:

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/working-homeless-britain-economy-minimum-wage-zero-hours

Somehow I feel that that this establishment is NOT taking Homelessness seriously enough and they are renagating on the cross party conscientious which they have done many research into homelessness  and i’m afraid to say are just playing lip service to play the fool to catch the wise.(To feign ignorance to one’s own benefit). see below:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmcomloc/40/40.pdf

Let’s not forget about  the Trade Union Congress(TUC)and another orgaisation called Crisis  produced a report on homelessness which in my strongest opinion sums up what is happening in the real world and yet the Conservatives fail to acknowledge. See link below:

https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Housing%20policy_0.pdf

http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Homelessness_Monitor_England_2016_FINAL_(V12).pdf

Forgive me if one says I have no confidence in this current government when they previously talked about the Big Society let alone the So called Shared Society. I would urge people if they want to donate to a good cause, please give a donation to the Homeless Hero. See the link below:

http://homelesshero.org/about-us/?%3E

 

 

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.

 

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


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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Labour unite to fight the conservatives let this be our mission to prove the conservative wrong.


How far are the Conservatives willing to go to work on the meaning of Brexit. It seems to me that they don’t have a clue what is best for our nation over Brexit. Now that I’ve done the pleasantries and people are sitting comfortably on the edge of their seats waiting for the sting to hit them in their face and their pockets. Here comes the announcement which I predicted the day that Ice Queen Theresa May had her coronation day she will be playing a cat and mouse games with our lives by triggering formal Brexit process by early next year followed by a snap General Election in 2017. This will come as no surprise to some people the moment Ice Queen Theresa May announced the trigger article 50, the clause needed to start the process in the early months of 2017 the sterling fell to a three year low against the euro and U.S. dollar.

Here is something that make you cringe when you this this person face:


Britain must size the “golden opportunity” provided by Brexit and not “fritter it away’. Notice the tone of language the Conservatives use to soften the blow to the British pubic in order to hoodwink us all into believing that the British voters will be daft into believing the conservative is the best thing since slice cake. UKIP are jumping for joy at the moment by winning the Brexit vote and they can’t seem to move from the past even though they have chosen a new leader in UKIP only for her to resign after 18 days being elected. So far we have seen changes in leadership of various political parties the only difference is many political parties in Parliament and councils calling on their foes to defect or cross the floor to their party.

Intriguing that Philip Hammond claims that he will prioritise spending on new homes and transportation and stabbing his chum in the back (George Osborne). It’s good to know that he acknowledges that the Brexit vote caused turbulence and business confidence would be on a bit of a rollercoaster. So in a nutshell he is hinting of borrowing more money to simulate the economy.

It’s no wonder why when we all look at the wider issue on rental homes the establishment will want to make a quick announcement to get it out of the way at their conference.

See article below UK mass shortage of rental homes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37547912

My two close friends put their case so eloquently who said:

Chris Lowe:

International students bring 7 billion GBP into the UK every year. 55 current world leaders were educated in British universities.

In the EU Referendum, Leave campaigners celebrated the Australian visa system.

Australia has a government policy to target international students and bring more and more of them to Australia. The British government has the opposite policy.

In pursuit of Brexit, the Conservatives will turn the UK into a backwater of Europe, ignored except as a quaint tourist destination. In 50 years’ time, world leaders may not even remember that the UK exists, while outward looking countries benefit from the money of international students and the soft power that hosting future leaders brings.

J David Morgan:

The response to Amber Rudd

The plans were condemned as “madness” by Paul Blomfield, co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international students. The Labour MP said: “I’m shocked by the home secretary’s comments, which are spectacularly ill informed. She doesn’t seem to know how many universities we have in the UK or understand the current rules for which she is responsible, let alone appreciate the contribution international students make.
“International students bring £8bn a year to the UK economy, creating tens of thousands of jobs. Education is one of our most successful export industries. The only people cheering today’s announcement will be our competitors.”

Ice Queen Theresa May will use her Conference speech to claim the centre ground is the way forward. If I’m honest I don’t always support let along vote Tories, Ice Queen Theresa May does have a point for any party to win elections they need to move to the centre ground to win votes to form the next government in waiting. Hate to say it but listening to Ice Queen Theresa May on the one hand it sounded like part socialism and capitalism trying to convince our Labour supporters to cross over to the conservatives which includes UKIP and Libdems voters.nfjgkbn

Here is the full extract of Ice queen Theresa May full text Conference Speech In Birmingham 2016:

When we came to Birmingham this week, some big questions were hanging in the air.

Do we have a plan for Brexit? We do.

Are we ready for the effort it will take to see it through? We are.

Can Boris Johnson stay on message for a full four days? Just about.

But I know there’s another big question people want me to answer.

What’s my vision for Britain? My philosophy? My approach?

Today I want to answer that question very directly.

I want to set out my vision for Britain after Brexit.

I want to lay out my approach – the things I believe.

I want to explain what a country that works for everyone means.

I want to set our party and our country on the path towards the new centre ground of British politics…

built on the values of fairness and opportunity…

where everyone plays by the same rules and where every single person – regardless of their background, or that of their parents – is given the chance to be all they want to be.

And as I do so, I want to be clear about something else: that a vision is nothing without the determination to see it through.

No vision ever built a business by itself. No vision ever clothed a family or fed a hungry child. No vision ever changed a country on its own.

You need to put the hours in and the effort too.

But if you do, great things can happen. Great changes can occur.

And be in no doubt, that’s what Britain needs today.

Because in June people voted for change. And a change is going to come.

Change has got to come because as we leave the European Union and take control of our own destiny, the task of tackling some of Britain’s long-standing challenges – like how to train enough people to do the jobs of the future – becomes ever more urgent.

But change has got to come too because of the quiet revolution that took place in our country just three months ago – a revolution in which millions of our fellow citizens stood up and said they were not prepared to be ignored anymore.

Because this is a turning point for our country.

A once-in-a-generation chance to change the direction of our nation for good.

To step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be.

Let’s be clear: we have come a long way over the past six years.

We’ve brought the deficit down.

Got more people into work than ever before.

Taken the lowest paid out of income tax.

Established a new National Living Wage.

Helped nearly a million new business to set up and grow.

Got almost one and a half million more children into good or outstanding schools.

Put record investment into the NHS.

Created nearly 3 million new apprenticeships.

And brought crime down by more than a quarter to its lowest ever level.

That’s a record of which we should all be proud.

And this morning it’s right that we pause to say thank you to the man who made that possible. A man who challenged us to change and told us that if we did then we would win again.

And he was right. We did change. We did win. The first majority Conservative Government in almost 25 years.

A great leader of our party – a great servant to our country.

David Cameron, thank you.

But now we need to change again. For the referendum was not just a vote to withdraw from the EU. It was about something broader – something that the European Union had come to represent.

It was about a sense – deep, profound and let’s face it often justified – that many people have today that the world works well for a privileged few, but not for them.

It was a vote not just to change Britain’s relationship with the European Union, but to call for a change in the way our country works – and the people for whom it works – forever.

Knock on almost any door in almost any part of the country, and you will find the roots of the revolution laid bare.

Our society should work for everyone, but if you can’t afford to get onto the property ladder, or your child is stuck in a bad school, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

Our economy should work for everyone, but if your pay has stagnated for several years in a row and fixed items of spending keep going up, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

Our democracy should work for everyone, but if you’ve been trying to say things need to change for years and your complaints fall on deaf ears, it doesn’t feel like it’s working for you.

And the roots of the revolution run deep. Because it wasn’t the wealthy who made the biggest sacrifices after the financial crash, but ordinary, working class families.

And if you’re one of those people who lost their job, who stayed in work but on reduced hours, took a pay cut as household bills rocketed, or – and I know a lot of people don’t like to admit this – someone who finds themselves out of work or on lower wages because of low-skilled immigration, life simply doesn’t seem fair.

It feels like your dreams have been sacrificed in the service of others.

So change has got to come.

Because if we don’t respond – if we don’t take this opportunity to deliver the change people want – resentments will grow. Divisions will become entrenched.

And that would be a disaster for Britain.

Because the lesson of Britain is that we are a country built on the bonds of family, community, citizenship.

Of strong institutions and a strong society.

The country of my parents who instilled in me a sense of public service and of public servants everywhere who want to give something back.

The parent who works hard all week but takes time out to coach the kids football team at the weekend.

The local family business in my constituency that’s been serving the community for more than 50 years.

The servicemen and women I met last week who wear their uniform proudly at home and serve our nation with honour abroad.

A country of decency, fairness and quiet resolve.

And a successful country – small in size but large in stature – that with less than 1% of the world’s population boasts more Nobel Laureates than any country outside the United States… with three more added again just yesterday – two of whom worked here in this great city.

A country that boasts three of the top ten universities in the world. The world’s leading financial capital. And institutions like the NHS and BBC whose reputations echo in some of the farthest corners of the globe.

All possible because we are one United Kingdom – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and I will always fight to preserve our proud, historic Union and will never let divisive nationalists drive us apart.

Yet within our society today, we see division and unfairness all around. Between a more prosperous older generation and a struggling younger generation. Between the wealth of London and the rest of the country.

But perhaps most of all, between the rich, the successful and the powerful – and their fellow citizens.

Now don’t get me wrong. We applaud success. We want people to get on.

But we also value something else: the spirit of citizenship.

That spirit that means you respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around you, who work for you, who buy the goods and services you sell.

That spirit that means recognising the social contract that says you train up local young people before you take on cheap labour from overseas.

That spirit that means you do as others do, and pay your fair share of tax.

But today, too many people in positions of power behave as though they have more in common with international elites than with the people down the road, the people they employ, the people they pass in the street.

But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.

So if you’re a boss who earns a fortune but doesn’t look after your staff…

An international company that treats tax laws as an optional extra…

A household name that refuses to work with the authorities even to fight terrorism…

A director who takes out massive dividends while knowing that the company pension is about to go bust…

I’m putting you on warning. This can’t go on anymore.

A change has got to come. And this party – the Conservative Party – is going to make that change.

So today, I want to set out my plan for a Britain where everyone plays by the same rules and every person has the opportunity to be all they want to be.

It’s a plan to tackle the unfairness and injustice that divides us, so that we may build a new united Britain, rooted in the centre ground.

A plan that will mean government stepping up. Righting wrongs. Challenging vested interests. Taking big decisions. Doing what we believe to be right. Getting the job done.

Because that’s the good that government can do. And it’s what I’m in this for. To stand up for the weak and stand up to the strong.

And to put the power of government squarely at the service of ordinary working-class people.

Because too often that isn’t how it works today.

Just listen to the way a lot of politicians and commentators talk about the public.

They find your patriotism distasteful, your concerns about immigration parochial, your views about crime illiberal, your attachment to your job security inconvenient.

They find the fact that more than seventeen million voters decided to leave the European Union simply bewildering.

Because if you’re well off and comfortable, Britain is a different country and these concerns are not your concerns. It’s easy to dismiss them – easy to say that all you want from government is for it to get out of the way.

But a change has got to come. It’s time to remember the good that government can do.

Time for a new approach that says while government does not have all the answers, government can and should be a force for good;

that the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot;

and that we should employ the power of government for the good of the people.

Time to reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right and to embrace a new centre ground in which government steps up – and not back – to act on behalf of us all.

Providing security from crime, but from ill health and unemployment too.

Supporting free markets, but stepping in to repair them when they aren’t working as they should.

Encouraging business and supporting free trade, but not accepting one set of rules for some and another for everyone else.

And if we do – if we act to correct unfairness and injustice and put government at the service of ordinary working people – we can build that new united Britain in which everyone plays by the same rules, and in which the powerful and the privileged no longer ignore the interests of the people.

Only we can do it. Because the main lesson I take from their conference last week is that the Labour Party is not just divided, but divisive.

Determined to pit one against another. To pursue vendettas and settle scores. And to embrace the politics of pointless protest that simply pulls people further apart.

That’s what Labour stands for today. Fighting among themselves. Abusing their own MPs. Threatening to end their careers. Tolerating anti-Semitism and supporting voices of hate.

You know what some people call them?

The nasty party.

And with Labour divided, divisive and out-of-touch, we have a responsibility to step up, represent and govern for the whole nation.

So where Labour build barriers, we will build bridges.

That means tackling unfairness and injustice, and shifting the balance of Britain decisively in favour of ordinary working class people.

Giving them access to the opportunities that are too often the preserve of the privileged few.

Putting fairness at the heart of our agenda and creating a country in which hard work is rewarded and talent is welcome.

A nation where contribution matters more than entitlement. Merit matters more than wealth.

A confident global Britain that doesn’t turn its back on globalisation but ensures the benefits are shared by all.

A country that is prosperous and secure, so every person may share in the wealth of the nation and live their life free from fear.

That’s what I mean by a country that works for everyone.

And if we believe in the good that government can do, it’s important for people to trust us to deliver the change they need.

We can start – as I said on Sunday – by doing something obvious. And that is to stop quibbling, respect what the people told us on the 23rd of June – and take Britain out of the European Union.

Because it took that typically British quiet resolve for people to go out and vote as they did: to defy the establishment, to ignore the threats, to make their voice heard.

So let us have that same resolve now.

And let’s be clear about what is going to happen.

Article Fifty – triggered no later than the end of March.

A Great Repeal Bill to get rid of the European Communities Act – introduced in the next Parliamentary session.

Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster.

Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land.

The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.

The people told us they wanted these things – and this Conservative Government is going to deliver them.

It is, of course, too early to say exactly what agreement we will reach with the EU. It’s going to be a tough negotiation, it will require some give and take. And while there will always be pressure to give a running commentary, it will not be in our national interest to do so. But let me be clear about the agreement we seek.

I want it to reflect the strong and mature relationships we enjoy with our European friends.

I want it to include cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work.

I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services.

I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the Single Market – and let European businesses do the same here.

But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.

We are leaving to become, once more, a fully sovereign and independent country – and the deal is going to have to work for Britain.

And that Britain – the Britain we build after Brexit – is going to be a Global Britain.

Because while we are leaving the European Union, we will not leave the continent of Europe. We will not abandon our friends and allies abroad. And we will not retreat from the world.

In fact, now is the time to forge a bold, new, confident role for ourselves on the world stage.

Keeping our promises to the poorest people in the world.

Providing humanitarian support for refugees in need.

Taking the lead on cracking down on modern slavery wherever it is found.

Ratifying the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

Always acting as the strongest and most passionate advocate for free trade right across the globe.

And always committed to a strong national defence and supporting the finest Armed Forces known to man.

And this week, our excellent Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, proved not only that we will support them with our hearts and souls. Not only will we remain committed to spending two per cent of our national income on defence.

But we will never again – in any future conflict – let those activist, left-wing human rights lawyers harangue and harass the bravest of the brave – the men and women of Britain’s Armed Forces.

It’s about restoring fairness – something that must be at the heart of everything we do. Supporting those who do the right thing, who make a contribution.

Helping those who give something back.

And that’s at the heart of my plan for our economy too.

An economy that’s fair and where everyone plays by the same rules.

That means acting to tackle some of the economy’s structural problems that hold people back.

Things like the shortage of affordable homes. The need to make big decisions on – and invest in – our infrastructure. The need to rebalance the economy across sectors and areas in order to spread wealth and prosperity around the country.

Politicians have talked about this for years. But the trouble is that this kind of change will never just happen by itself. If that’s what we want, we need the vision and determination to see it through.

That’s why Philip Hammond and Greg Clark are working on a new industrial strategy to address those long-term structural challenges and get Britain firing on all cylinders again.

It’s not about picking winners, propping up failing industries, or bringing old companies back from the dead.

It’s about identifying the industries that are of strategic value to our economy and supporting and promoting them through policies on trade, tax, infrastructure, skills, training, and research and development.

It’s about doing what every other major and growing economy in the world does.

Not just sitting back and seeing what happens – but putting in place a plan and getting on with the job.

So we will identify the sectors of the economy – financial services, yes, but life sciences, tech, aerospace, car manufacturing, the creative industries and many others – that are of strategic importance to our economy, and do everything we can to encourage, develop and support them.

And we will identify the places that have the potential to contribute to economic growth and become the homes to millions of new jobs.

That means inspiring an economic and cultural revival of all of our great regional cities.

We have made a start.

Thanks to George Osborne’s Northern Powerhouse, over the past year, foreign direct investment in the North has increased at double the rate of the rest of the country.

Here in Birmingham, thanks to the incredible Jaguar Land Rover, the West Midlands is the only part of the country to run a trade surplus with China.

And across the region, the Midlands Engine is on track to deliver 300,000 more jobs by 2020.

Now it’s time to build on that success – in Birmingham and Manchester and in other cities across the country.

And as we are here in Birmingham this week, let us show our support for the Conservative Party’s candidate for next year’s mayoral election.

A success in business running John Lewis. An action man in Birmingham, playing his part in transforming this city. A man to get things done, the future Mayor of the West Midlands – Andy Street.

An economy that works for everyone is an economy where everyone plays by the same rules.

I understand the frustration people feel when they see the rich and the powerful getting away with things that they themselves wouldn’t dream of doing. And they wouldn’t get away with if they tried.

I understand that because I feel it too.

There’s always an excuse – a reason why something can’t be done – but when that is used as a basis for inaction, faith in capitalism and free markets falls.

The Conservative Party will always believe in free markets. And that’s precisely why it’s this party that should act to defend them.

From Edmund Burke onwards, Conservatives have always understood that if you want to preserve something important, you need to be prepared to reform it. We must apply that same approach today.

That’s why where markets are dysfunctional, we should be prepared to intervene.

Where companies are exploiting the failures of the market in which they operate, where consumer choice is inhibited by deliberately complex pricing structures, we must set the market right.

It’s just not right, for example, that half of people living in rural areas, and so many small businesses, can’t get a decent broadband connection.

It’s just not right that two thirds of energy customers are stuck on the most expensive tariffs.

And it’s just not right that the housing market continues to fail working people either.

Ask almost any question about social fairness or problems with our economy, and the answer so often comes back to housing.

High housing costs – and the growing gap between those on the property ladder and those who are not – lie at the heart of falling social mobility, falling savings and low productivity.

We will do everything we can to help people financially so they can buy their own home. That’s why Help to Buy and Right to Buy are the right things to do.

But as Sajid said in his bold speech on Monday, there is an honest truth we need to address. We simply need to build more homes.

This means using the power of government to step in and repair the dysfunctional housing market.

It means using public sector land for more and faster house building.

It means encouraging new technologies that will help us to get more houses built faster. And putting in more government investment too.

It means stepping up and doing what’s right for Britain.

Making the market work for working people.

Because that’s what government can do.

And something else we need to do: take big, sometimes even controversial, decisions about our country’s infrastructure.

Because we need to get Britain firing in all areas again.

It is why we will press ahead with plans for High Speed 2, linking London and Birmingham and, eventually, towns and cities in the North.

Why we will shortly announce a decision on expanding Britain’s airport capacity.

And why – having reviewed the evidence and added important new national security safeguards – we signed up to Hinkley Point.

We will take the big decisions when they’re the right decisions for Britain.

Because that’s what government can do.

And we can make these big decisions because our economy is strong and because of the fiscal discipline we have shown over the last six years.

And we must continue to aim for a balanced budget.

But to build an economy that works for everyone, we must also invest in the things that matter, the things with a long-term return.

That is how we will address the weaknesses in our economy, improve our productivity, increase economic growth and ensure everyone gets a fair share.

And that’s not the only reason.

Because while monetary policy – with super-low interest rates and quantitative easing – provided the necessary emergency medicine after the financial crash, we have to acknowledge there have been some bad side effects.

People with assets have got richer. People without them have suffered. People with mortgages have found their debts cheaper. People with savings have found themselves poorer.

A change has got to come. And we are going to deliver it.

Because that’s what a Conservative Government can do.

This party will always be the party of businesses large and small.

But we must acknowledge that the way a small number of businesses behave fuels the frustration people feel.

It’s not the norm. I know that most businesses and the people who run them are hardworking, entrepreneurial and public spirited at heart.

But the actions of a few tar the reputations of the many.

So the party that believes in business is going to change things to help support it.

Too often the people who are supposed to hold big business accountable are drawn from the same, narrow social and professional circles as the executive team.

And too often the scrutiny they provide is not good enough.

A change has got to come.

So later this year we will publish our plans to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well.

Because we are the party of workers. Of those who put in the effort. Those who contribute and give of their best.

That’s why we announced on Saturday that we’re going to review our laws to make sure that, in our modern and flexible economy, people are properly protected at work.

That’s right.

Workers’ rights – not under threat from a Conservative government.

Workers’ rights – protected and enhanced by a Conservative government.

And let me say something about tax.

We’re all Conservatives here. We all believe in a low-tax economy. But we also know that tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society.

Nobody, no individual tycoon and no single business, however rich, has succeeded on their own.

Their goods are transported by road, their workers are educated in schools, their customers are part of sophisticated networks taking in the private sector, the public sector and charities.

We’ve all played a part in that success.

So it doesn’t matter to me who you are.

If you’re a tax-dodger, we’re coming after you.

If you’re an accountant, a financial adviser or a middleman who helps people to avoid what they owe to society, we’re coming after you too.

An economy that works for everyone is one where everyone plays by the same rules.

So whoever you are you – however rich or powerful – you have a duty to pay your tax.

And we’re going to make sure you do.

This is a big agenda for change. But it is necessary and essential.

It is a programme for government to act to create an economy that works for everyone – an economy that’s on the side of ordinary working class people.

And an economy that can support the vital public services and institutions upon which we all rely – to invest in the things we hold dear.

Like the NHS – one of the finest health care systems anywhere in the world, and a vital national institution.

An institution that reflects our values, our belief in fairness, and in which we all take enormous pride.

And I mean all.

Because there is complete cross-party support for the NHS.

For its status as a provider of free-at-the-point-of-use health care. For the thousands of doctors and nurses that work around the clock to care for their patients.

We all have a story about the nurse who cared for a loved one, or a surgeon who saved the life of a friend.

So let us take this opportunity to say to those doctors and nurses – thank you.

The NHS should unite us. But year after year, election after election, Labour try to use it to divide us.

At every election since it was established, Labour have said the Tories would cut the NHS – and every time we have spent more on it.

Every election, they say we want to privatise the NHS – and every time we have protected it.

In fact, the party that expanded the use of the private sector in the NHS the fastest was not this party, but the Labour Party.

The only party to ever cut spending on the NHS is not this party, but the Labour Party – that’s what they did in Wales.

And at the last election, it wasn’t the Labour Party that pledged to give the NHS the money it asked for to meet its five-year plan – it was this party, the Conservative Party…

investing an extra £10 billion in the NHS – more than its leaders asked for…

and this year more patients are being treated, and more operations are being carried out, by more doctors and more nurses than ever before.

That’s a tribute to everyone who works in the NHS.

But also to one man – Jeremy Hunt – who is one of the most passionate advocates for patients and for the doctors, nurses and others who work in our health service that I have ever known.

So let’s have no more of Labour’s absurd belief that they have a monopoly on compassion.

Let’s put an end to their sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority.

Let’s make clear that they have given up the right to call themselves the party of the NHS, the party of the workers, the party of public servants.

They gave up that right when they adopted the politics of division. When their extreme ideological fixations led them to simply stop listening to the country.

When they abandoned the centre ground.

And let us take this opportunity to show that we, the Conservative Party, truly are the party of the workers…

the party of public servants…

the party of the NHS.

Because we believe in public service. We believe in investing in and supporting the institutions that make our country great.

We believe in the good that government can do.

Government cannot stand aside when it sees social injustice and unfairness. If we want to make sure Britain is a country that works for everyone, government has to act to make sure opportunity is fairly shared.

And I want us to be a country where it doesn’t matter where you were born, who your parents are, where you went to school, what your accent sounds like, what god you worship, whether you’re a man or a woman, gay or straight, or black or white.

All that should matter is the talent you have and how hard you’re prepared to work.

But if we’re honest we’ll admit that’s simply not the case for everyone today.

Advancement in today’s Britain is still too often determined by wealth or circumstance.

By an accident of birth rather than talent.

By privilege not merit.

Rebalancing our economy is a start, but if we’re serious about overturning some of the longstanding injustices and barriers that stop working people from getting on, we need that economic reform to be allied with genuine and deep social reform too.

Because a society that works for everyone is a society based on fairness. And only genuine social reform can deliver it.

Genuine social reform means helping more people onto the housing ladder. It means making sure every child has access to a good school place.

It means never writing off people who can work and consigning them to a life on benefits, but giving them the chance to go out and earn a living and to enjoy the dignity that comes with a job well done.

But for those who can’t work, we must offer our full support – which is why it was so important that Damian Green announced on Saturday that we will end the mandatory retesting of those with chronic health conditions that only induces stress but does nothing at all to help.

And genuine social reform means addressing historic injustices that hold too many people back.

Some of my proudest moments as Home Secretary came when we began to tackle deep-seated and long-standing problems that few had dared to tackle before.

I introduced the first ever Modern Slavery Act, bringing in tough new penalties to put slave masters behind bars, with life sentences for the worst offenders.

I cut the police’s use of stop and search by almost two thirds and reduced the disproportionate targeting of young, black men.

And I know our impressive new Home Secretary Amber Rudd is committed to carrying on that work.

But injustices remain.

If you are from a black Caribbean background, you are three times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than other children.

If you are a black woman, you are seven times more likely to be detained under mental health legislation than a white woman.

People in ethnic minority households are almost twice as likely to live in relative poverty as white people.

But it is not just those from minority backgrounds who are affected.

White working class boys are less likely to go to university than any other group in society.

We cannot let this stand – not if a country that works for everyone is the principle that binds us all together.

That’s why I have launched an unprecedented audit of public services to shine a light on these racial disparities and let us do something about them.

Because they are all burning injustices, and I want this government – this Conservative Government – to fight every single one of them.

A society that works for everyone is one of fairness and opportunity. A society in which everyone has the chance to go as far as their talents will take them.

That’s why in one of the first speeches I gave as Prime Minister I set out my plans to transform Britain into a Great Meritocracy.

And that starts in our schools.

I want Britain to be a country in which every child has access to a good school place that’s right for that individual child.

Because Britain after Brexit will need to make use of all of the talent we have in this country.

We have come a long way.

Thanks to the free schools and academies programme and the efforts of teachers, heads and governors, there are now 1.4 million more children in good and outstanding schools compared with 2010.

But we need to go further. Because there are still one and a quarter million children in schools that are just not good enough.

And if you live in the Midlands or the North, you have less chance of attending a good school than children in the South.

This simply cannot go on.

That’s why Justine Greening and I have set out a new package of reforms, building on Michael Gove’s success, to increase the number of good school places across the country… so there’s not just a school place for every child, but a good school place for every child. A school place that suits the skills, interests and abilities of every single pupil.

That is why we want more of our great universities to set up or sponsor schools in the state sector – just as the University of Birmingham has done, a few miles from here.

It’s why we are saying to the great private schools that – in return for their charitable tax status – we want them to do more to take on children without the means to pay, or set up and sponsor good state schools.

It is why we want more good faith schools for parents and pupils who want them.

And it is why we have said – where there is demand from parents, where they will definitely take pupils from all backgrounds, where they will play a part in improving the quality of all schools in their area – we will lift the ban on establishing new grammar schools too.

And here we see the challenge.

Because for too long politicians have said to people and communities who are crying out for change that they can’t have what they want.

They’ve said we don’t think you should have it, even though we might enjoy those very same things for ourselves.

And you end up in the absurd situation where you stop these good, popular, life-changing schools from opening – by law.

Imagine. Think of what that says.

If you’re rich or well off, you can have a selective education for your child. You can send them to a selective private school. You can move to a better catchment area or afford to send them long distances to get the education you want.

But if you’re not, you can’t.

I can think of no better illustration of the problem – why ordinary working class people think it’s one rule for them, and another for everyone else.

Because the message we are sending them is this: we will not allow their children to have the same opportunities that wealthier children enjoy.

That is a scandal and we – the Conservative Party – must bring it to an end.

So my vision is for Britain to be a Great Meritocracy.

That’s what I’ve always believed in. The cause that everything I have ever done in politics has been designed to serve.

Because a country based on merit not privilege, is a country that’s fair. And when we overcome unfairness and injustice, we can build that new united Britain that we need.

And united, we can do great things.

We saw that in the summer in Rio. We saw how individual success was powered by collective effort. How the dedication and talent of one was supported by a united team.

And how a government’s determination – John Major’s Conservative Government’s determination – to step up and back Britain’s sporting success contributed to such a remarkable result.

We were honoured to welcome four members of the team – Helen Richardson-Walsh, Dame Sarah Storey, Vicky Thornley and Andrew Triggs-Hodge – to our conference on Monday.

And to them – and to every athlete and every member of Team and Paralympics GB – we say, thank you. You did your country proud.

It was a memorable summer for British sport, but one moment stood out for me above all other.

It was not from Rio. It happened later. Just a couple of weeks ago on the sun-drenched streets of Cozumel in Mexico.

There, our celebrated triathlon champion Jonny Brownlee was heading for glory, the finishing line in sight, when he faltered. Stopped. And was falling exhausted to the ground.

And just behind him, his brother Alistair – a tough competitor who typically yields to no one – had the chance to run on and steal the prize.

But seeing his brother’s struggle, he didn’t pass on by. As other competitors ran past, he stopped. Reached out his hand. And gently carried him home.

And there in that moment, we saw revealed an essential truth. That we succeed or fail together. We achieve together or fall short together.

And when one among us falters, our most basic human instinct is to put our own self-interest aside, to reach out our hand and help them over the line.

That’s why the central tenet of my belief is that there is more to life than individualism and self-interest.

We form families, communities, towns, cities, counties and nations. We have a responsibility to one another.

And I firmly believe that government has a responsibility too.

It is to act to encourage and nurture those relationships, networks and institutions – and to step up to correct injustices and tackle unfairness where it can – because these are the things that can drive us apart.

That’s why I say today – as I have always said – that my mission – and the mission of this party – is to build a country that truly works for everyone, not just the privileged few.

It’s why when I stood on the steps of Number 10 for the first time as Prime Minister 84 days ago, I said that the Government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the rich and powerful, but by the interests of ordinary, working class people.

And this week, we have shown the country that we mean business.

Not just protecting, but enhancing workers’ rights.

Building an economy that’s fair, where everyone plays by the same rules.

Getting more houses built. More doctors in the NHS.

Investing in things that will make our economy grow.

Hundreds of great new schools. Universities and fee-paying schools helping state schools to improve.

And yes, where parents want them and where they’ll improve standards for children of whatever background – the first new grammar schools to open in England for fifty years.

This is a bold plan to bring Britain together. To build a new united Britain, rooted in the centre ground.

An agenda for a new modern Conservatism. That understands the good government can do. That will never hesitate to face down the powerful when they abuse their positions of privilege.

That will always act in the interests of ordinary, working class people.

That’s what government’s about: action. It’s about doing something, not being someone.

About identifying injustices, finding solutions, driving change. Taking, not shirking, the big decisions. Having the courage to see things through.

It’s not always glamorous or exciting, but at its best it’s a noble calling.

And where many just see government as the problem, I want to show it can be part of the solution too.

And I know this to be true.

For as I leave the door of my office at Number 10, I pass that famous staircase – the portraits of prime ministers past lined up along the wall.

Men – and of course one woman – of consequence, who have steered this country through difficult times – and changed it for the better too.

There’s Disraeli, who saw division and worked to heal it. Churchill, who confronted evil and had the strength to overcome. Attlee, with the vision to build a great national institution. And Lady Thatcher who taught us we could dream great dreams again.

Those portraits remind me of the good that government can do.

That nothing good comes easy.

But with courage and vision and determination you can always see things through.

And as I pass them every day, I remember that our nation has been shaped by those who stepped up to be counted when the big moments came.

Such opportunities are rare, but we face such a moment today.

A moment that calls us to respond and to reshape our nation once again.

Not every generation is given this opportunity.

Not every generation called to step up in such a way.

But this is our generation’s moment.

To write a new future upon the page.

To bring power home and make decisions… here in Britain.

To take back control and shape our future… here in Britain.

To build an outward looking, confident, trading nation… here in Britain.

To build a stronger, fairer, brighter future… here in Britain.

That is the opportunity we have been given.

And the responsibility to grasp it falls upon us all.

So to everyone here this morning – and the millions beyond whether leavers or remain – I say:

Come with me and we’ll write that brighter future.

Come with me and we’ll make that change.

Come with me as we rise to meet this moment.

Come with me and together let’s seize the day.

Well I’ve come to the conclusion that politicians practice how to tell porkies with a straight-faced to the electorate, it can be difficult to work out where they stand and who they represent.

An innocent arriving in Britain from another country, or perhaps a distant galaxy, could be forgiven for accepting at face value Theresa May’s claim that the Tories are now “truly the party of the workers, the party of the NHS, the party of public servants.”

Her insistence that Britain will become a “great meritocracy” based on fairness and opportunity has echoes of the early years of Tony Blair.

Similarly, the Tory leader’s warning to the “big six” energy companies that she will intervene “where markets are dysfunctional” smacks of Ed Miliband’s pledge to “reset” the energy market. May didn’t emulate Miliband in threatening to impose a temporary tariff freeze, but her admirers applauded her comments nonetheless.

The Prime Minister must have been listening to speeches by Jeremy Corbyn or John McDonnell as she sympathised with working-class people frustrated over unaffordable housing, stagnating wages and insecure jobs and put employers on notice that not looking after staff or allowing pension funds to go bust “can’t go on any more.”

Into her list of working-class complaints she slipped in “pay undercut by low-skilled immigrants.”

It may have escaped her notice that immigrants of whatever skill level do not lay down pay rates. Employers do, while government sets the legal minimum wage.

And yet, in sad contrast to the glaring absence of proposals to tackle housing, low pay, secure jobs and so on, she made dealing with foreign-born workers a priority.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd floated a proposal on Tuesday that companies could be compelled to reveal the number of staff members born outside Britain to shame them into employing more British-born workers and reducing immigration.

The impact of this bullying on workplace relations aside, what if birthplace disparities aren’t easily discernible? Perhaps employees could have, as a condition of employment, to wear a tasteful addition to their clothing such as a nicely embroidered star, with different colours for various categories of workers. Who could possibly object?

Rudd’s revolting proposal has nothing to do with improving skills or employment prospects for British-born workers.

It is a deliberately divisive ploy to set workers at each other’s throats, make Britain a less hospitable place for people wishing to settle here and gain votes for the Tory Party among racists and xenophobes.

It is 14 years since May noted that many voters saw the Tories as the “nasty party,” in view of its hostility to the poor, claimants, racial minorities and LGBT people.

She is now trying a con-trick of global proportions by pinning that epithet on Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, claiming that her Tory government will stand up for the weak against the strong.

Anyone tempted to believe that this leopard has changed her spots might ask themselves why the CBI bosses’ organisation and all May’s ministers who previously backed David Cameron and George Osborne’s capitalist austerity policies are right behind her.

They know that May’s rhetoric about workers, the NHS and public services is empty. It’s window dressing for the hard of thinking. The only positive aspect of her verbal lurch to the left is that she understands the attraction to voters of the new approach pushed by Corbyn and McDonnell.

Their commitment to social justice isn’t confined to conference speeches. It’s a daily reality that puts May’s political dishonesty to shame.