Tag Archives: Government

Only time will tell if the prime minister survives


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

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

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

My thoughts on Local and Metro Mayoral Election results


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

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

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

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

my thoughts on Tory cuts since they took office 2010 / 2017


  • Over 1/2 Million fewer homeowners than in 2010, monthly rent costs at an all-time high. 74,000 families made homeless every year and doubled the number of people sleeping rough than 2010. Around 120,000 children were homeless during Christmas 2016. Young people more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population the worst gap since the Tories were in power.
  • Scrapped Connections, career lifeline for many young people deciding their future and almost 1 million people on zero hours contracts, meaning no stability for workers and their families.
  • Oppose the NMW, introduced a fake Living Wage that is below the recommended amount. Number of employment tribunal cases fallen by 9,000 a month since the Government increased fees of up to 1,200 in 2016
  • Scrapped Educational Maintenance Allowance(EMA) and Treble tuition fees and School budgets down by 8% in real terms by 2020 and new funding formula expected to redistribute funding from inner city to rural schools in 2018-19 and Schools cutting staff due to funding crisis, almost 1/2 of teachers planning to quit in next 5 years.
  • Cut NHS budget by 1.5 in real terms and scrapped the nurse bursary, now over 6,000 fewer mental health nurses in 2010. Mental health spending fell by £600million in the last parliament. Mental health bed shortages resulting in teenagers unsafely being placed on adult wards.
  • 18,000 fewer police officers and more than 3,500 PCSOs lost their jobs in 3 years of the Troy Government. Violent crimes rose by 27% in 2015 alone and expected to do more for little and for nothing.
  • Around 5,000 fire-fighters jobs have been cut since 2010 and recruitment down. The Westminster government intends to cutit’s funding to the fire and rescue service by 20% during the course of this parliament. In the last parliament they cut it by 30%. As a result 10,000 frontline fire-fighters jobs have gone since 2010 – that is one in six. Stations, appliances and equipment have also been cut. Fire-fighter’s provide an all hazard emergency response attending floods, road traffic collisions, chemical spillages, civil contingencies, industrial disasters and terrorist attacks as well as fires.

English councils’ spending on neighbourhood services, such as bins, planning, potholes and leisure, has fallen by more than £3bn in the past five years. The huge cuts to funding and the wide variations between authorities in funding services were “changing the very nature of local government.”

The reductions amount to a dismantling of universal services that are the most high-profile, core functions of local government, the report says. “These services need defending in their own right as part of wider defence of local government as a whole.”

The most deprived council areas have seen the biggest falls in spending in these services – up to 22% on average over five years among the most deprived fifth of authorities, compared with just 5% among the wealthiest. The poorest areas had an especially sharp spending fall in, for example, food and water safety inspection, road safety and school crossings, community centres and services aimed at cutting crime – such as CCTV – and support for local bus services.

There were wide variations across the country, with some councils cutting neighbourhood services by 40% while others have increased these budgets by 20%.

Cuts to neighbourhood services have taken place against a backdrop of unprecedented cuts in local government spending as a share of the economy. In 2010-11, it accounted for 8.4% of the economy, falling to 6.7% by 2015-16. By 2020-21, it will be down to 5.7%, a 60-year low. Although much of the political focus of local government cuts has been on social care services, the impact on neighbourhood services, which include highways and transport, cultural services, environmental services and planning, has been far greater, the report says.

Spending on neighbourhood services in England fell £3.1bn, or 13%, between 2010-11 and 2015-16 at a time when social care spending increased by £2.3bn.

“Neighbourhood services should be on an equal footing to other public services and not viewed as a painless option for more cuts in local spending.” Council managers said there was a perception that funding for local government services was a “zero sum game” in which neighbourhood services had become collateral damage as councils sought to protect social care services. “In eight years, local government spending will have dropped from two thirds of that of central government’s to half. There is a slow but very harmful dismantling of neighbourhood services that marks a profound change in what local public services our communities can expect to receive. “From emptying bins to running swimming pools to providing high quality local parks, spending on these services which communities really value has been cut harder and faster than any other area of public service spend. Centrally driven austerity has fallen hardest on local shoulders. ”

Theresa May should not be adapting David Cameron’s tired rhetoric about “a strong economy, strong defence and strong, stable leadership” might not be a good idea?

Cameron’s didn’t help him when his European Union referendum gamble blew up in his face and he had to walk the plank. Constantly repeating an adviser’s soundbite would guarantee studio audience irritation and reveal an inability to move from scripted speech to impromptu discussion of key issues.

Theresa May’s refusal to participate in TV debates is a clear-cut admission of political weakness. Her suggestion that she will “get out and about and meet with voters” and will be too busy to spare a few hours in debate with Corbyn and others holds no water.

She will be protected from cross-examination except on her terms, concentrating on set-piece speeches surrounded by enthusiastic Tory activists to provide flattering short clips for news bulletins. The decision by ITV to press ahead with election-time leaders’ debates even if May refuses to take part is to be welcomed.

Other TV stations should take the same stance. No prime minister should have a veto on head-to-head political argument.

May’s reticence to cross swords with political opponents confirms that the Tory Prime Minister has not chosen to call a general election because of political strength but of weakness. Not only is she apprehensive about future support from her backbenchers but also over possible impending criminal charges over the Tories’ 2015 election expenses.

She has enjoyed a honeymoon period since sliding into the Tory leadership, being joined by the mass media, many Labour backbenchers, Scottish and Welsh nationalists and even the diminutive rump previously known as the Liberal Democrats in a free-for-all assault on Labour .

May wants to portray the June 8 election as a contest between her determination to honour the voters’ referendum decision and efforts by all other parties to sabotage that democratic choice.

I foresee more cuts to be announced after the snap General Elections should Ice Queen Theresa May receive a mandate from the the voters I kid you not this os on the grounds of pleasing the hard brexiters in the conservative party and their donors.

I rather see a return pf a Labour Government instead of a Conservative one.

Use your vote to vote a Labour Government into power on 8 Jun

 

 

 

 

 

 

George Osborne is having the last laugh


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And child benefits which are separate will be unaffected.

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

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

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

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

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

They also suggest that the policy could:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Satire: David Scameron failures


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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the list of the 23 Conservative rebel MPs:

Sir William Cash

Liam Fox

John Redwood

Peter Lilley

Philip Davies

Sir Edward Leigh

Michael Fabricant

Sir Gerald Howarth

Bernard Jenkin

Steve Baker

Anne Main

Christopher Chope

Jacob Rees-Mogg

John Baron

Peter Bone

Tom Pursglove

David Nuttall

Sarah Wollaston

Richard Drax

Chris Philp

Andrew Brigden

Craig Mackinlay

Martin Vickers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government contractors Capita and Atos apologised over bungled disability tests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Staire: What is it like to be a Conservative


Here is that we all should be reminded by this about this establishment why we should vote them out:

 

The arrogance of this establishment grows by the day. Welcome to the capitalist party of Tories they would rather trade damn right insults towards refugees and immigrants which plays into the hands of the Far-right elements of EDL, BritainFirst, LionheartGB, Pegida and UKIP oh what hypocrites David Cameron has become since being leader of the nasty party. Well done.

Cameron speaks his entourage pushes further; the media responds; and on the streets, the abuse and attacks kick off. Sadly, Cameron and the Tories seem to believe that the answer to a broken nation is to break it some more. During the last election David Cameron made great headway with his slogan about Labour and the SNP wanting to “break up Britain”. It’s been a theme with him. As leader of the opposition, David Cameron declared Britain is broken under Labour and claims that he will fix it.

It’s ironic, then, that few people in the past decade have done more to break apart the bonds that hold Britain together than the Tory party leader.  Responding at Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions on 27 Jan 2016 to Jeremy Corbyn’s visit to the refugee camp at Calais last weekend, Cameron joked: they met with a bunch of migrants in Calais. They say that they all can come to Britain.

Fancy this a Conservative Peer says that he could not live a £300:00 day for attending the House of the Lords. A millionaire peer appointed by David Cameron is describing the £300 daily allowance as “inadequate”.

Lord Farmer, a hedge-fund boss and Conservative donor said people would consider the current payment to be “modest and even inadequate” if they knew how hard peers worked.

And he argued that peers deserved higher pay because attending the House of Lords “restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere”.

Lord Farmer – who is also a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party with a reported personal fortune of £150 million – said he, personally, did not claim the £300 allowance when he attends debates, “because I do not need to”.

But he added: “Some depend on the daily allowance to make ends meet because they give so much of their time.

“If this were made clear to the public, who, of course, pay garage and plumbers’ bills per hour, or per day, they might think the daily fee is in fact rather modest, and even inadequate, particularly if they understood there are many peers whose work here restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere.”

The 71-year-old peer, who is reported to have donated £6.5 million to the Conservatives, also backed calls for a beefed-up Lords press office, to trumpet the chamber’s successes.

He said: “Crucially, however, if their [peers] contribution is to be considered worthy of public funding, the public need to value and understand the work we do.

“There is so much to shout about every day that would actually encourage all who pay taxes, whether individuals, or businesses, that they are in fact getting great value for money.

“We might even see public support for higher daily allowances, which I would endorse wholeheartedly.”

In another development the establishment lost their defence on two cases of bedroom tax the Government loses Court of Appeal cases followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.

The removal in 2013 of what the government calls the spare room subsidy cuts benefits for social housing tenants with a “spare” room.

Ministers have said they will appeal.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) argued that it had given councils money to make discretionary payments to people facing hardship because of the policy change.

The case is now due to be decided in the Supreme Court.

Prime Minister David Cameron said the government would “look very carefully” at the judgement. “But our fundamental position is, it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we don’t subsidise them in the private sector.”

One of the cases – brought by a woman identified as “A” – concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.

The second case – brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren – focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.

There are believed to be about 300 such victims of domestic violence and thousands of severely disabled children in this situation.

The Court of Appeal ruling comes after a judicial review brought by the Rutherfords was dismissed in the High Court in 2014.

Housing benefit changes – dubbed the “bedroom tax” by Labour – were introduced in April 2013. Since then families claiming housing benefits have been assessed for the number of bedrooms they actually need.

Families deemed by their local authorities to have too much living space have received reduced benefits, with payments being cut by 14% if they have one spare bedroom.

Both “A” and the Rutherfords claimed that the policy change discriminated against them unlawfully.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Vos ruled in their favour, saying the “admitted discrimination” in each case “has not been justified by the Secretary of State”.

Mr Rutherford said he was “absolutely delighted” with the ruling, adding: “I couldn’t have had a better start to the day.”

“It was so unfair that somebody had to do something to get the law changed.”

As if this is not bad enough David Cameron dear Buddy Rupert Murdoch has publicly attacked the conservative leader over Google. Remember he was the same person who spat out Tony Blair to the pack of wolves when he no longer wanted Labour in power now he is doing the same to David Cameron as a warning shot Rupert Murdoch is having a laugh at David Cameron expense by accusing the “posh boys in Downing Street” of being too easily awed by Google as the government came under fire over its £130m tax deal with the technology giant.

Murdoch, the multibillionaire executive chairman of News Corp who ultimately controls the Times and the Sun newspapers, sent a series of tweets on Wednesday suggesting Downing Street was too close to Google and accusing the company of “paying token amounts for PR purposes”.

He made the pronouncements after facing accusations over phone hacking scandal that he and his executives were too close to senior politicians in the UK and had too much lobbying power. Murdoch’s company tax affairs have also come under scrutiny in Austria.

How many of us remember Student Grants or student maintains grants defeat and conservatives jumps up and down for joy. Grants designed to support students from the poorest backgrounds through university will be abolished today, but if you plan to tune in to BBC Parliament to watch a fiery political exchange you’ll be sorely disappointed. There will be no Commons debate, no Commons vote and no sign of the mass demonstrations that shook the government that chose to treble university tuition fees five years ago.

Down the corridor and up the stairs, the Third Delegated Legislation Committee will meet in committee room nine. A small group of MPs will gather to consider the innocently titled ‘Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951)’. The numbers will be stacked in the Tories’ favour and even if the committee did want to quash the proposals, they will have no power to do so.

No doubt clever government whips hoped that using an obscure parliamentary process would minimise the political damage to the Tories’ reputation, but it is scandalous that such a major decision is being taken in this way.

The poorest students will be hit hardest. Currently, eligible students can receive a non-repayable grant of up to £3,387. This money helps with essential costs like rent, foods, bills and study materials. These grants were won as part of a hard-fought deal by previous generations of student leaders and parliamentarians who convinced successive governments that, if they were going to ask graduates to pay more for their university degree, it was only fair to help those from the poorest backgrounds to meet the costs of studying with a grant. When the Coalition government trebled university tuition fees to £9,000, students were told that the increase in maintenance grants for students ‘should ensure that the reforms do not affect individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds disproportionately’. Thanks to David Cameron, George Osborne and Tory MPs meeting in the Third Delegated Legislation Committee today, the poorest students will now be saddled with the highest debts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the poorest 40% of students in England will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 for a three year course, rather than £40,500 at present. Worryingly, another study from the IFS found that a £1,000 increase in grants created a 3.95% increase in university participation, so there are serious questions for the government to answer about the impact that abolishing grants could have on fair access to higher education.

Because the government is ducking the usual parliamentary scrutiny, MPs from all parties will not have the chance to ask ministers difficult and important questions. There has been no proper consultation with those affected and there was no mention of this major policy change in the Conservative Party manifesto.

The government’s behaviour is underhand and undemocratic. The poorest students will lose out as a result, making the policy unfair. Students, and the general public, should not stand for it.

Don’t be hoodwinked by Jeremy hunt and company he is not telling us the full story about our NHS. The Conservatives have allegedly blocked legal documents that may show the impact of a controversial ‘free trade’ agreement on the NHS.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, known as TTIP, is a US-EU trade deal currently under negotiation, and are avidly supported by the likes of the establishment and Obama. The blocked legal documents, campaigners have cautioned, may contain the extent to which, under TTIP, private NHS contractors could sue the government for introducing policies that negatively impact their profits.

The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is the most controversial element of TTIP. It allows corporations to sue governments or public bodies before an arbitral tribunal, for policies that are perceived as harmful to their profits. An ‘arbitral tribunal’ is an international hearing, out of the courts and behind closed doors, which decides how much money these companies should get.

The supposed motive is to encourage foreign investment, despite there being no empirical evidence for this (There is no ISDS in any trade agreements Brazil has, or between the US and China). ISDS is exclusively to foreign investment; US companies gain the right to these international arbitration tribunals, but EU companies must stick to national courts. Thus, ISDS can discriminate in favour of US companies.

Cameron has been in charge of the country for six years. If he hasn’t got it sorted by now, he never will!! It’s not rocket science, The clown is a waste of space and one of the big question is will we all see the return of legal aid which is a hot potato as it is alleged that conservatives about to do a uturn. Justices secretary Michael Gove is to ditch plans to completely overhaul legal aid, reversing yet another policy by his controversial predecessor Chris Grayling.

The minister repealed pledges to create a ‘two-tier’ contract system for cases affecting criminal legal aid in a move described by one journalist as “another humiliation” for Grayling. Legal aid is government money that helps pay for legal advice or representation for those accused of crime.

The coalition government approved plans for a drastic reduction – from 1,600 to 527 – in the number of legal aid contracts for duty solicitors attending magistrates’ courts and providing round-the-clock cover at police stations. Solicitor firms wiped from the duty-cover phonebooks would have been forced to rely only on clients who referred themselves to their practices.

Changes to legal aid under Grayling enraged lawyers, who argued the cuts would limit poorer peoples’ access to justice.

But in a written statement published on Thursday afternoon, Gove said he was scrapping the planned contracts cull.

“I have decided not to go ahead with the introduction of the dual contracting system,” he said.

Gove, who took over the justice brief from Grayling after the election in May last year, also declared he would suspend the second-half of a 17.5% fee cut for those providing legal aid at state expense.

“I have also decided to suspend, for a period of 12 months from 1 April 2016, the second fee cut which was introduced in July last year,” he added.

Explaining the move, Gove wrote: “By not pressing ahead with dual contracting, and suspending the fee cut, at this stage we will, I hope, make it easier in all circumstances for litigators to instruct the best advocates, enhancing the quality of representation in our courts…

“Thanks to economies I have made elsewhere in my department, HM Treasury have given me a settlement which allows me greater flexibility in the allocation of funds for legal aid.”

It signals the fifth serious reversal of Grayling policies by Gove, following the lift of a ban on friends and family sending books to prisoners, dplans for a £100 million youth ‘mega prison being axed, a U-turn on Saudi prison contracts and criminal court charges being scrapped.

This is what happens when ‘cost-saving’ measures are taken – the impacts of ‘efficiency’ in one area often results in another area picking up those costs. So while the police budget may be more protected, it doesn’t mean that austerity for the rest of services doesn’t result in more stress for the police. UK police are spending as much as 40% of their time dealing with incidents triggered by some kind of mental health issue, against a backdrop of severe cuts in social and health services, the Guardian has learned. Research by the Guardian shows that the overall number of incidents recorded in police logs as being related to mental health rose by a third between 2011 and 2014, a trend that looks set to continue.

It comes after warnings that a perfect storm is gathering over already overstretched police forces as they try to cope with the knock-on effects of cuts to mental health services.

Figures for mental health “qualifiers” – identifiers used by the police to mark incidents in which mental health has been a factor – were obtained for the period from 2011 onwards under the Freedom of Information Act. A total of 35 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland provided complete and consistent data.

The research found that the overall number of incidents with a mental health aspect rose by 33% between 2011 and 2014, the last full year for which data is available. This was despite the overall number of incidents recorded by the police forces falling by 10% in the same period.

The College of Policing estimates 20-40% of police time and vast amounts of money are taken up dealing with incidents involving people with mental health problems. Metropolitan police officers have estimated in the past that mental health issues account for at least 20% of police time.

Joanne McCartney, chair of the London assembly’s police and crime committee, said local authorities and health services had less capacity and staff to deal with mental health issues as they came under pressure from cuts.

“As a measure of last resort the police are going to have to be the ones to respond to incidents,” said McCartney. “They will do their best and do now have training in how to deal with vulnerable people, but they are not best placed to do that. They are not mental health professionals.

Compared with other forces, South Wales and North Wales police recorded particularly large jumps between 2011 and 2014 in the proportion of incidents related to mental health.

Pressures are also particularly high in Suffolk, where police spent a month last year analysing how much police time was spent on responding to mental health incidents. The results were stark: in one month 37% of officers’ time was devoted to dealing with incidents involving some mental health aspect.

“I wasn’t surprised when we saw how high that figure was,” said Ch Supt David Skevington of Suffolk police. “We knew the profile of mental health was being raised significantly through the number of operational incidents we were dealing with where people were suffering from mental health issues, whether it is people suffering from alcohol or substance abuse, or people just struggling in life.

“It could be an angry man who is smashing a place up; it could be concerns for someone wandering around the streets or someone at the top of a multi-storey car park. Mental Health is a key part of policing and we needed to do more to better equip our police officers. We have to look at these people being at a point of crisis in their lives, not being criminals.”

It now transpired that fifty Tory Member of Parliament lining up to defying Scameron over town hall budgets Tory cuts mean that the poorest local councils face cuts 18 times higher than the country’s richest, new analysis.

In an analysis undertaken by the Labour party and seen by the Independent, figures show that between the years 2010 and 2015, when the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government were in power, funding for the 10 most deprived local councils have fallen on average by £681.04 per household.

Of the 10 wealthiest councils in the UK, four saw an increase in their funding, while nine of the most deprived saw cuts of more than £520 per household.

The government looks at several factors such as crime, health, education, living conditions and unemployment, when monitoring whether an area or council is deprived.

Blackpool

Knowsley

Kingston upon Hull

Liverpool

Manchester

Middlesbrough

Birmingham

Nottingham 

On the 5 May 2016 well be various elections for Local Government, Police Crime Commissioner, and London Mayoral Elections I would urge all to use all your votes for Labour party Candidates.

Conservatives voted against Labour opposition day motion


Here is dreaded reminder why we should not trust the establishment they give in one hand and suck out the blood out of the other hand.

 

 

 

7 Jan 2016 saw the opposition day motion being voted against in the house the results were as follows:

Ayes: 273

Noes: 308

Motion on universal credit allowance:

Calls on the government to reverse its decision to cut the allowance.

The work allowance is the amount that can be earned before the universal credit benefit is reduced.

Whilst it’s disappointing news that the Conservatives and others voted against the motion there is a sense of urgency to continue our fight to highlight that this Victorian establishment is hell bent on carrying out their agenda to make the poor to suffer unless you are lucky to have a rich relative(s) that you can turn to in your hour of need to help subsidise your lifestyle when they encourage the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) to sanction you whilst you are on benefits.

Us plebs who depend on benefits to survive comes in two folds it’s either that a person who earn a living but have to depend on some benefits to top up your income. Or you lost your job and have to depend on benefits because of unscrupulous companies pays below the national minimum wage or living wage and they refuse to provide payslips so you can make a claim for tax credits and because you complain to the management of the company they decided to let you go. Then there is an untold stories that DWP, and press will not discuss the subject of Mental Health, disability or at worst domestic abuse when the service user(s) who depend on benefits which they seem to brush under the carpet so that they can meet their targets enforced by the Secretary Of DWP (Iain Duncan Smith) which forces service users hands to go to the Foodbanks until their benefits has been sorted out.

However there is a catch by heading to the foodbank you can only claim a food parcel three times. You will have to go to a money adviser, citizens’ advice bureau or your job centre to claim a voucher. After using the foodbank then you are left to fend for yourself to make ends meets this does not take into account that you have to top up your gas, and electric meters and look after your own personal hygiene or take your medication, pay your rent, and Council Tax.

 This what Margret Hodge had to say about Universal Credit:  

 

 

There is no doubt that Labour has campaigned against the establishment which forced them to postpone the unfair tax credits which help low paid workers make ends meet.  The u-turn only offers low paid workers a temporary relief. Be aware of the Greeks bearing gifts they give in the one hand and taking in the other hand by way of this government odious planning to introduce universal credit over this Parliament. This will mean that 2.6 million families are set to lose an average of £1,600 per year under the proposal of the new universal credit.

Be under no illusions this threat is real and low incomes of low paid working people has not disappeared with the hugely proposed cuts from this Tory Government.

Under this so-called proposal it’s alleged that six benefits will be rolled into one benefit. On the face of it, it sounds great but there are loopholes which need to be clampdown preventing fraud for the future for it can be fully implemented.

I don’t think the baby project of Iain Duncan Smith is going very smoothly in the guise of Universal Credit there have been wide criticism from all sections of parliament and I concur with Owen Smith when he said:

Owen Smith MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, commenting on today’s OBR report showing the impact of cuts to Universal Credit, said:

“Labour warned last week that George Osborne’s u-turn on tax credits might not be all it seemed and today’s report from the OBR shows it was a total con job.

“It’s no wonder the government didn’t want to publish these figures last week and decided instead to sneak them out this morning.

“It shows clearly that the Tories are still taking £3 billion out of the pockets of working people, they’re just using Universal Credit instead of tax credits to pick those pockets.

“I’d urge those Conservative MPs who opposed tax credit cuts to look closely at this report and to reach the same conclusion that Labour has already reached – that cuts to Universal Credit are merely a re-branding of tax credit cuts. These cuts will drastically reduce support to working families and they should be opposed outright.”

It is said that Disability benefit assessment have doubled in cost to £579m a year but targets are still being missed the National Audit Office has said.

The spending watchdog found the quality of the tests was also not improving despite significant changes.

Meg Hilliler MP said the cost was “staggering” and sick disabled people needed “a better deal”.

One has to ask yourself this question is whether the changes to our welfare system especially to keep out EU citizens from claiming benefits when they arrive to the UK so it will make it difficult for them and us to claim benefits when we lose our jobs.

Currently wide speculation are coming from various so called sources stipulating that the establishment is trying to introduce the reforms so it is in line with the economy which George Osborne is claiming our country faces a cocktail of serious threats from a slowing global economy as 2016.

This what the Conservatives don’t want you to know, the deputy leader of the Labour party, Tom Watson, has accused the government of hiding essential information before the planned EU referendum by failing to disclose official figures on the number of migrant benefit claimants in Britain.

HM Revenue & Customs is refusing to disclose how many British nationals claiming tax credits are being counted as migrants. The number in question inflates the figure for immigrant families claiming in-work benefits and potentially means any policy aimed at restricting the benefits of EU migrants could hit thousands of Britons.

As the Guardian revealed last October, HMRC defines “non-UK families” as those where at least one adult in the claimant family is a migrant, meaning that mixed families where one partner is a British national are classed as immigrants.

Following that story, a freedom of information request was submitted to HMRCasking how many claimants classed as part of migrant families were British nationals.

Under FoI terms, a response was due by mid-November but the figures have yet to be released.

Although it claims it is dealing with the FoI request, HMRC has refused to say when it intends to respond. The tax office has also failed to explain why it missed the statutory deadline of 13 November or indicate any exemptions it may be considering, which should be communicated in delayed cases.

Watson said: “The fact the government has failed to respond to repeated freedom of information requests to explain how it defines an ‘immigrant family’ suggests it has something to hide. We can’t debate the UK’s place in Europe ahead of an historic EU referendum without accurate statistics on this and other issues.”

“The Freedom of Information Act was introduced by a Labour government because the public has a right to know about the decisions taken in its name.Labour would strengthen the act, but the Tories want to weaken it.”

HMRC’s definition of migrant families not only inflates the figure of 740,000 non-UK families claiming tax credits but also means that any policy aimed at restricting the benefits of migrants could also hit Britons. More than 7% of the UK’s 15.6m couples comprise one UK national and one non-UK national, according to analysis compiled by the Office for National Statistics for the Guardian. But when any such couples claim tax credits, they could be considered migrant families by the British government.

According to HMRC data there were 738,900 non-UK families (which include single people and couples) in receipt of tax credits as of March 2014, the most recent data released by the tax agency that includes a UK/non-UK breakdown. That is 15.9% of the total caseload.

Of the 738,900 non-UK families, 431,500 are couples while the other 307,400 are single claimants.

However, only 401,700 of all the 2.6 million singles (UK and non-UK) claiming tax credits have no children and receive working tax credit only. HMRC has also refused to say if it knows the number of cases where non-UK single claimants are claiming child tax credit and the other parent is a British national.

The vast majority of tax credit expenditure relates to families with children.

HMRC estimates that annual entitlements of families containing a non-UK national were £5.2bn in 2013-14 (17.4% of the total £29.7bn spend for that period). Of the £5.2bn, £1.2bn was paid to out-of-work families on child tax credits, £3.8bn to in-work families with children, and £200m to in-work claimants without children.

Last December, HMRC refused to disclose how many national insurance numbers issued to recent migrants were “active” (ie showed recent payments of tax or benefit claims) following an FoI request; the tax agency claimed releasing the information would be unhelpful to the UK’s EU membership negotiation process.

An HMRC spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities under the FoI Act very seriously, and we make every effort to meet the statutory deadline for all FoI requests. Unfortunately, we are sometimes unable to provide a response by the deadline.”

Don’t believe the hype about the rollout of universal credit and how the Tories are finally “making work pay” – Iain Duncan Smith has presided over perhaps the failure of this parliament. Whenever I talk about the need for better representation of women and minorities in politics, there is a stock response. “Surely we want ministers appointed on merit?” people ask, making a serious face. And I always think, “So how do you explain Iain Duncan Smith, then?”

IDS is one of the great enigmas of modern politics. In person, he appears quiet, self-contained, borderline pious: stick him in a robe and sandals and he’d make a very good abbot. He has devoted allies who believe in him with quasi-religious zeal.

Yet welfare reform is perhaps the failure of this parliament, which has been allowed to go unnoticed because: a) it doesn’t really affect People Like Us and b) it is protected by a tedium shield three miles thick.

These past weeks, the spin doctors tell us, were devoted to trumpeting the Conservatives’ alleged success in saving the taxpayer sackloads of cash by chastising scroungers and layabouts into honest employment. Tory commentators are in ecstasies. “Like an unstoppable cyborg programmed with bourgeois decency – the Suburbinator – IDS has simply refused to give in,” swooned Matthew d’Ancona in the Guardianon 15 February. “His welfare revolution is potentially the most important achievement of the government,” wrote Peter Oborne in the same day’s Telegraph. (If only we could get all jobseekers to work as hard as the word “potentially” does in that sentence. I am potentially the most acclaimed supermodel of the 21st century. Tony Blair is potentially the man who will bring peace to the Middle East. Don’t all rush to Ladbrokes at once.)

Let’s start with Universal Credit, since that has apparently now been recast as a success. It is actually a failure: a good idea in theory that was horrifically bungled in practice. In 2010 the government quite reasonably acknowledged that navigating a maze of more than 30 benefits was causing huge problems for claimants. But ministers seemed less aware that the complexity would not go away under Universal Credit; it would merely be dealt with by a computer system instead.

There is a reason why “government IT project” rivals “rail replacement bus” as the most chilling three-word phrase in our language. This didn’t bother Duncan Smith and his circle at the Department for Work and Pensions, who were infused with a sense of divine purpose. Throughout the process, the department has made avoidable errors by insisting that all naysayers must be enemies rather than critical friends. In September 2013, a National Audit Office report raised alarms about “a ‘fortress’ mentality within the programme team and a ‘good news’ reporting culture”. The public accounts committee, led by the indomitable Margaret Hodge, reported in November that year that the team was “isolated and defensive” and “gave misleading interviews to the press” indicating that all was well. There were also some sharp questions about how well the £425m invested up to that point had been spent.

The problems are not confined to the distant past. In December, the Office for Budget Responsibility delivered an exquisitely crafted blow, saying, in effect, that it didn’t believe the department’s figures any longer. It cited “the recent history of optimism bias in Universal Credit plans and other projects of this sort”.

That optimism bias was still on show on 15 February as IDS announced the roll-out of Universal Credit. It might happen, although Labour says it will “pause” the programme if elected and George Osborne (who seems never to have rated his colleague’s intelligence or ability) may well find a way to kibosh it out of the spotlight of an election campaign. The Treasury has still not approved the business case for Universal Credit and the rollout has a host of exemptions. You cannot claim it if you own your home or are homeless, for example.

Even if it does finally emerge, Universal Credit seems unlikely to deliver the huge savings needed to slash the welfare bill to the levels demanded by Osborne. It might also have unintended consequences that haven’t been sufficiently offset. For instance, the vaunted ambition of “making work pay” – by stopping the steep reduction in benefits for those working just over 16 hours a week – might encourage claimants to take insecure, irregular part-time work and allow employers to get away with offering it.

Universal Credit is not the government’s only troubled welfare reform. The expanded work capability assessment backfired so badly that the outsourced provider ditched the contract. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) system has become incredibly punitive. Declan Gaffney in theNational Insti­tute Economic Review records that JSA sanctions are running at 6 per cent, the highest on record; among Employment and Support Allowance claimants (who are currently not fit for work), sanctions rose from 2,200 in the first quarter of 2012 to 15,900 in the first quarter of 2014. To gain public support for these measures, the government has relied on myths such as “families where no one has worked for three generations” (of which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation failed to find a single example).

The unpalatable truth is that a high benefits bill stems not from a badly structured welfare system but from a badly structured society. Take housing benefit: accounting for inflation, it has risen 150 per cent in the past 21 years. The answer is not to cut housing benefit but to build more homes.

Welfare reform in this parliament has been about running to stand still, huffing and puffing and achieving very little. As Gaffney notes, “Labour’s spending plans for 2014/15 were for £216.8bn, compared with the current forecast of £215bn.” I bet the Quiet Man won’t have much to say about that.

Now this rich coming from George Osborne to allege this year is likely to be one of the toughest since the financial crisis. This smells like the god of fear being branded around to maximum effect to show that the Tories are in charge which is more inline of the thinking of UKIP and their supporters just in case of a referendum is on the horizon.