Category Archives: #Welfare Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




The tables have turned against Tory In disarray with infighting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May is embarrassed – but I’m livid –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


My thoughts after Labour Conference came to end

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

Jeremy Corbyn Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:


John McDonnell Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:


Tom Watson Conference Speech 2017 via youtube:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shared challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decision of the British people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe we must. And I believe we can.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shared future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic partnership

Let me start with the economic partnership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can do so much better than this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We share a commitment to high regulatory standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security relationship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These arrangements will create valuable certainty.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

A new partnership of values and interests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it is up to leaders to set the tone.

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

A tone of trust, the cornerstone of any relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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
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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:



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.