Tag Archives: Scotland

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

Don’t be hoodwinked by Conservatives Tax credit postponement beware of greeks bearing gifts

To all my followers I hope you all had a wonderful Xmas and Happy New Year please checkout this youtube as it has a message that we all cant afford to ignore:

I don’t normally mention the following Member of Parliaments John Speller MP, Jack Dromey MP, or Richard Burden MP or Kwasi Kwarteng MP .

On this occasion I have to concur with John Speller MP statement when he said “Modern day Scrooge Iain Duncan Smith new rules mean jobless and disabled could mean they will have their benefits stop during Christmas Eve”. He is correct to point this out I’m sure many would concur with his sentiments.

Jack Dromey MP quotes:

Since the new reforms started that has been no doubt an increase in deaths and sanctions of benefits from cross sections of society all in the name to reduce welfare spending. Here is an example of what Jack Dromey said when he was housing minister in 2012:

“The truly tragic story of Paul Turner shows all too clearly the human consequences of the Government’s welfare reforms.

Under government reforms, incapacity benefit claimants are forced to undergo assessments to see if they are deemed capable of working. If they cannot work, or need support to help them work, they receive Employment and Support Allowance. However, if they are deemed fit for work they are placed on Jobseekers Allowance – which means they have to prove they are looking for a job.

Mr Turner received a letter in February stating that officials believed he was fit for work. On April 2 he flew to France for a short family holiday with his wife and teenage son. Later that evening he suffered heart failure and died.

Richard Burden eloquently written in the Huff Post:

Last week, I called in to say hello at Northfield’s local Trussell Trust foodbank. Back in the Commons I always hear Government ministers talk about Britain’s strong economy and how the number of people without a job is falling. And, yes, for a lot of people, things are feeling a better than they were a couple of years ago. But there is another side of the story, and you see it for yourself at the B30 Foodbank.

The sheer scale of the operation these days is both astonishing and impressive.

The fact that it has to be so big, though, underlines that something is fundamentally wrong with the way Britain operates at the moment. My office is one of the local advice centres that is authorised to refer people to B30 foodbank for support. In the last month we have referred about the same number of people to the foodbank for assistance as we did in the ten months before that.

It’s not that we have suddenly started throwing foodbank vouchers about. It’s that the need continues to grow and the local MP’s office is one of the places to which people turn for help when they don’t know where else to turn. There is a wide spectrum of people who are running out of the money they need to buy food, toilet rolls and other family essentials these days.

Quite a few different reasons too. However, a common factor in so many cases is the way the tax benefits and tax credits systems operate. People facing sanctions; people moving from one benefit to another with delays in the meantime; people falling between one part of the benefit or tax credit system and another. And please don’t think I am simply talking about people without jobs. A lot of people who turn for help to B30 and other foodbanks across the country are in work. It’s just that they are on poverty pay.

It is a similar picture across the rest of the country too. Between April and September 2015 Trussell Trust foodbanks across the UK gave 506,369 three day emergency food supplies to people compared to 492,641 in the same period last year. And in December 2014 referrals to foodbanks were 53 per cent higher than the average across other months, with more than 130,000 three day food supplies being given to people in just one month. The charity fears this winter could be their busiest ever. There was a time when the term “social security” meant just that. However bad things got, the state would not leave you trying live on thin air. Those days have gone.

When I help with collections for local foodbanks, I am always touched by the generosity of local people around Northfield, often with those people who have least to give are those who proportionately giving the most. So I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all those who give and to all those who volunteer in foodbanks across the UK. Maybe the best thanks we, as politicians, could give, however, would be to reduce the need for foodbanks to play such a key role in Britain today. That will take action across a number of fronts.

Right now, though, I just want to highlight two key ones: First, to get the benefits system operating in a way that focusses on people – not just systems or targets. A second, but equally important area for action is to tackle the scourge of low paid and insecure employment which blights the lives of so many. And part of that means by promoting the Living Wage – the real one that is, not the rebranded Minimum Wage which the Government invented this year.

Are you listening Mr Osborne?

What an insult from Author Kwasi Kwarteng who said who said in an interview with BBC on 11 June 2015:

Young unemployed people should be forced to repay their benefit money when they get a job, an influential group of Conservative MPs has said.

The proposal to pay benefits as a loan would give them “an additional incentive to find work rather than allow the debt to build up”.

The idea is included in a new book setting out a “radical” free market agenda for the Conservative government. The Conservative MP and junior ministerial aide argues that free enterprise – rather than government interference – is the answer to the problems facing Britain.

Chancellor George Osborne is understood to be considering reducing tax credits for millions of working families in his July Budget, as part of the government’s efforts to “make work pay”, although critics accuse him of making the poor pay for the mistakes of bankers.

Mr Kwarteng’s book argues for a more radical shrinking of the welfare state to return it to the contributory principle envisioned by its founder Sir William Beveridge – that you get benefits in return for contributions.

It says: “Strains on the welfare state are often blamed on benefits being too generous, but the truth is that welfare is so expensive – over £90bn for working-age benefits alone – because too many people are eligible.

“In fact, JSA – the main out-of-work benefit – is fairly stingy for those who have contributed to the tax system for years and find themselves out of work for the first time.”

The book says the government should “look at other ways to encourage work – while making sure that the system is not cruel to those who have simply been unlucky”.

“Young individuals who have not yet paid national insurance contributions for a certain period, five years say, could receive their unemployment benefit in the form of a repayable loan.

“An unemployed teenager would still receive the same amount of cash as now, for example, but they would be expected to repay the value once in work.

“Turning an entitlement into a loan would mean that people would still be supported while out of work, but would have an additional incentive to find work rather than allow the debt to build up.”

Even if someone was out of work for the entire seven years between 18 and 25, “the total sum repayable would be £20,475 – considerably less than the tuition fees loan repayable by many of his or her peers”.

At the same time, those who have paid into the system for many years should get a “fairer deal” if they unexpectedly lose their job later in life.

Other ideas in the book include scrapping maternity and paternity pay to ease the burden on business. Instead, new parents would get a flat rate “baby bonus” paid directly by central government.

It also calls for the scrapping of some government departments, tax raising powers for local authorities, a regional minimum wage, allowing free schools to generate a profit, encouraging banks to use a common IT system allowing “portable” bank accounts and scrapping the BBC licence fee.

The book pulls together policy ideas from the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs, set up by Environment Secretary Liz Truss and other members of the 2010 intake of Conservative MPs to promote a leaner state and boost entrepreneurship. It is backed by the Institute for Economic Affairs think tank.

Writing in the foreword to a Time for Choosing: Free Enterprise in Twenty-First Century Britain, published by Palgrave Macmillan, Mr Kwarteng says: “The capacity of individuals, companies and other groups to generate prosperity and well-being, when left to their own devices, is too often overlooked.

“We should allow a competitive and free economic environment to flourish in Britain, to challenge monopolies and oligopolies, and to allow individuals to create, innovate and take risks.”

Then to out the icing on the cake no surprises that high rents and mortgages in England means families are skimping on heating and winter clothes to make ends meet.

It is alleged more than a quarter (2.7%) of 853 parents of under 18s they had to cut winter spending to meet housing costs.

It comes no surprise that some families are found living in sub-standard conditions in garages with no heating let alone a shower. To top if of housing projects helping more than 400,000 vulnerable adults face closure because of the establishment welfare cuts.

The Treasury’s decision to cap housing benefit at the level available for private rents makes many schemes unavailable. The housing cap is part of a £12billion package of cuts from welfare bill.

Local authorities have a key role in implementing the mental health strategy and improving mental health in their communities. We want to support and encourage local authorities to take a proactive approach to this crucial issue. So this will be the challenge for local government to take on.  The Mental Health Challenge and have produced a template motion to enable councils to promote mental health across all of their business.

  • 1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem in any given year.
  • The World Health Organisation predicts that depression will be the second most common health condition worldwide by 2020.
  • Mental ill health costs some £105 billion each year in England alone.
  • People with a severe mental illness die up to 20 years younger than their peers in the UK.
  • There is often a circular relationship between mental health and issues such as housing, employment, family problems or debt.

On reflection in regards to Tax Credit forgive me for saying this but I think that this establishment should have force through the changes in parliament. It’s only then the voters would take noticed then take positive action to rid them out of power in 2020 to bring in a Labour Government.

This is why so many people are not least surprised Iain Duncan Smith by his Thatcherism attitude towards people who are disabled and people on lower incomes.

It’s no wonder why that the Local Government Association is up in arms over the flood defences are being abandoned or maintained at minimal levels because of the government spending cuts. It’s no surprise this can leave twice as much homes at risk within twenty years. It’s further alleged that employers have been awarded almost £300,000 in total causing outrage after the devastation over the Christmas as flood defences failed.

Labour lost the General Elections in 2015 for a second term and we’ve seen a new leader replacing Ed Miliband. For 2016 will see Local Government, Police Crime Commissioner, London Mayor Elections and our task is to win not just existing Labour safe seats but to gain some marginal seats too.

I know I keep harping on about  its good to see that Labour win seats but remember that labour safe seats is one thing but to take marginal seats off from the Conservatives, Libdems, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens and UKIP will be ideal and will determine the outcome of the General Elections 2020.

I would urge where there is no Local Government elections in wards or regions that Labour activists can do is contact a neighbouring Regional Office to help out fellow Labour activists.

Our fight is with the SNP, Tory, and UKIP bashing resume on the 8 January 2016.



More Negative spin on Jeremy Corbyn Newly elected Leader

jhefThere is much speculation from the media in regards to Jeremy Corbyn with their negative reporting but in truth its early days for the new leader to shine as the newly elected leader of the Labour Party and how he will lead us to victory leading up to the local and general elections which many of the voters wants to know before they give their trust back to Labour.

It’s good to know that one man has inspired so many new activists back into the party to reclaim the party to revisit its roots inwards. The main concerns are the policies will they be able to persuade the voters to return to get a Labour victory.

It’s no surprise that Conservatives are on the defensive already which they had planned should Jeremy Corbyn became leader coupled by the reporting of alleged ten shadow ministers resigning to return to the life of backbench. The truth is we will never really comprehend the reasons why they took the decisions. One reason could be that they had spent some time on the front bench and felt that they need to recuperate and recharge their battery to fight another day and there is a place for new talent to put their name into the hat to come forward.

hdbfhtgklfThis is definite intriguing times ahead whilst the TUC conference begins no doubt lots of praises to the new leader and there are a number of important bills that lay before parliament such as the Trade Union Bill, the third reading of Welfare Reform bill, Tax Credits, Syria, European Union, English Referendum, Economy, immigration, and Small Businesses to name a few that comes to mind. I’m almost sure that this establishment will try to force through various statements for the use of another drone strikes on Syria and they would use the argument of National Security based on our intelligence service. The new leader must ensure that the chief whip enforce a three way whip in place to our Labour MPs. Some will argue this will not help but hinder. If it hinders then I would kindly remind our Labour MPs that it’s us the members of the party that select their candidature for the Joe Public to vote them into office.

On the face of the new shadow cabinet it seems to be good at the surface but only time will tell how the new shadow cabinet will do and how effectively that they do their jobs that they been given to do. One thing is for sure there is an appetite for change and don’t forget that we have lost two general elections and people want to see a change of direction of Labour Party. I do concur that changes is needed and there are many of the party who are wondering if we have the right person to lead us to victory. I say only time will tell and the fact that the leader got 59.9 per cent of the vote from the membership to me mean little to same ordinary Job blog and who is only wants to know where their next meal is coming from if they vote labour in all the elections.

Intriguingly the list of shadow ministers that has been introduced questions remains what experience do they have on the front bench other than


  • Shadow chancellor – John McDonnell
  • Shadow foreign secretary – Hilary Benn
  • Shadow home secretary – Andy Burnham
  • Shadow business secretary – Angela Eagle
  • Shadow health secretary – Heidi Alexander
  • Shadow justice secretary – Lord Falconer
  • Shadow education secretary – Lucy Powell
  • Shadow international development secretary – Diane Abbott
  • Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury – Seema Malhotra
  • Chief whip – Rosie Winterton

I will continue urge members to hold their to ground and hold the leadership to account. remember without the members there will not be a party.


Is the green party the alternative to Labour Party

20141123I was sitting in my Living room trying to keep warm and I began to reminiscing about the so-called increase in membership of the Greens and their policies with some close friends some have been disillusion by the Lib-democrats, Greens and Conservatives. Yes the debate got heated at times and other the years we all have learnt to differ without malice. After they all left I began to summarize to  everything that we discussed:

Before I forget to mention it’s good to have good friends like Sue Jones who constantly reminds us all of the Green Party and we sometimes forget to give credit where it’s due as she sum them up so eloquently:

The Green Party have gathered up many disillusioned ex Lib Dem voters, the ones who haven’t learned from last time that like the Lib Dems, any party that tries to appear to be all things to all people is not being honest with you.

There’s something about the truth that badly disappointed idealists become the readiest disillusioned and resentful cynics that springs to mind, here. However, the Greens are very busy trying to hoover up the votes of all those disillusioned souls on the Left, and regardless of the potentially devastating consequences that may have on the election outcome.

The pressing issue for me is that people are suffering, some have died because of Tory policies, our society is being fundamentally damaged, to the point where it will soon be impossible to repair it in our lifetimes, the damage will last, probably for more than one generation. I care about that. I care about the suffering, the damage to our society and country. I’m a socialist because of those long-standing concerns, which transcend parochial concerns and party politics. I am also fundamentally cooperative and community-minded. I care about what happens to others. kfkfkThe Greens are not cooperative or community-minded. They are dividing our opposition to the Tories and risking returning Cameron to Office in May. That is not “socialist”.

How “socialist” is it to join ranks with the party inflicting all of that damage and harm on people of this country to attack and undermine the only viable alternative to the Tories? That’s not genuine politics, that’s electioneering. It’s not “socialist” at all.

You can’t claim to be a ‘progressive ‘ political party and at the same time advocate zero growth and parochialisation cut-off from global trade. The economy matters to every country in the world, and no growth or low economies increased inequality and absolute poverty. It’s not progressive at all to shut out the rest of the world, and a zero growth economy would be a disastrous experiment, just like the austerity measures have been with the same results.

The Green Party fail to show us any understanding of imbalances of power, they provide no class analysis, they aren’t connected with marginalized groups, they don’t reflect their needs and they clearly have no understanding of the mechanics and virtues of redistribution. greenThere isn’t a single policy currently in their manifesto that demonstrates a coherent offer of support to very poorest. That isn’t “socialist” at all.

The Greens grew out of the environmental movement, with David Icke at the helm as a spokesperson, well, until they got embarrassed by him and sacked him… As Suzanne Moore commented earlier, the incoherence is even apparent at how they fail to define the State .They offer the biggest of big-state polices with huge intervention in some areas, without specifying the role of the state except as a series of committees.

The Green’s “anti-austerity measures” seem to translate as “taking on corporations and vested interests.” But Ed Miliband has already explicitly stated (and shown) that he will do that (He already has Leveson, the banks, the big power companies, water companies, to name a few)

The Green Party’s key policy idea that of a Citizen’s Income for everyone whether they work or not  sounds so great on the surface. Just like a lot of their rhetoric and policies, it lacks depth and doesn’t connect up – lacks integrity and falls to pieces when properly examined. Many of the poorest households would lose out. Most wealthy households will gain. How does that address inequality something the Greens claim to be concerned about? If anything, this policy will extend inequality. That’s not very “socialist”.

“If you missed the interview with e leader of the The Greens on Sunday politics Show then checkout this”:


Many critics of the Green party point to their many failures in Brighton and Hove, where they couldn’t even get the rubbish collection right. However, the most damning criticism is their fundamental inability to run services for the most vulnerable is the one that ought to concern us the most. That’s not very “socialist.

It’s painful to say this; the Greens have some bonkers policy. With them in charge our Army, Navy and Airforce would be scrapped. There would be no arms companies producing arms in the UK and instead will be converted to make windmills? Fine you might say, but they claim instead of an army they will have a home defence force, (Dads Army springs to mind) but the Greens could not say how they would be armed or how up to date those weapon would be. Partly because they do not like trade and want to curb it.

What would the Greens do with the SAS, have them change jobs to be flower arrangers in a church? Now I am not overly keen on arms companies but only because of two things. I do not think arms companies should be allowed to trade with regimes with poor human rights records. Two, I do not feel guns should be made and sold for civilians to use. But other than that if you have an army which we do, then they need weapons.

But it’s OK why would we need an army anyhow as there will be no problems with terrorists or threats to the UK around the globe. As the Greens will make it legal to be a member of Isis or Al Qaeda. Yep that is right you will be encouraged to join a terrorist group. You are told not to kill anyone but you’re allowed to think it. You can also help in spreading the views of your lovely little terror group and help fundraiser for them. I guess if they do misbehave it’s OK the Greens will send them to the naughty step or stand in the corner.

The Greens also talks about a holy £72 a week for everyone to be paid regardless if they need it or not. Yet does not explain what that means. Would a person who gets that amount of money be classed as unemployed or employed? She then says if someone is rich enough they will still be given the £72 but it will be taken back in taxes elsewhere.

Oddly they claim that scrapping all benefits which I think was what was implied by the £72 would save £280 billion. Yet how they reach that mind blowing figure as they could not even say how.

However they also think we should not have to bother with some jobs and companies so people can chose to work part time. Sounds wonderful for most, but it also means half the pay and less money paid in tax. Just what it would do to business is anyone’s guess. Not good I doubt.

The entire Greens key on referring to was there was short term aims and longer term aims. The longer term aim came across as a fantasy world the Green has seen on a science fiction film.

Seeing as they hate trade then you can only what Britain would become under them. I have no problem in tacking inequality as its right that it is. But the Greens live in cloud cookoo. There will be next to no jobs, people would soon be sick to death of only having £71 a week to live on. They will be unimpressed as the Greens also want it seems lots of things not to be made.

I am not normally in agreement with Martin Neil but he was right in his questioning. Just wishing something is different amounts to nothing in a democracy. The Green are pure fantasy. In fact I’ll go as far to say they are not a political party as they lack basic awareness of what it means to represent all of society. Not just those views that suit them. They would do better to just become a lobby group. Only not on wider issues but just on environmental issues, they would likely achieve a lot more talking about wind and solar energy.

The Greens will give us £30 billion more in cuts to pubic services and welfare and cause thousands and thousands of animals to die for not reason due to blood sport and badger culling. Because to Vote Green is no change in politics it is to keep the Tories in office. For that is what voting Green will achieve.

It will not achieve helping one person from the Bedroom Tax, suffering from being treated like dirt by the DWP. It won’t create new jobs as the Greens are anti-growth therefore anti job creation. Voting Green won’t protect us from terrorist because they actually have a policy where it is OK to say its legal to join Isis, or Al Qaeda!!!

Is that the brave new world people want?

Did I also mention voting Green will not save one fox, one hare or one badger despite what they claim on animal policy. For the small reason in 2010 just over 265000 voted Green, even if they have a small surge it will add to little and will hugely unlikely to increase the number of MPs they have by one! IMG_2049And 1 MP is all they have; they may even lose that one because many people in Brighton are sick to death of the Green Council there.

So the facts remain, vote Green get Cameron I am glad I back Labour the Greens are scary.




NEC Report from Ann Black Labour Party

NEC-Report-AB-e1343650631395Many Thanks to Ann Black who is elected to the NEC of Labour Party and kindly asked me to share this information. 
Hi all
Below and attached is a report on the NEC meeting held on 4/5
November 2013, including key dates in the policy-making process
through to the general election and deadlines for annual conference
A reminder that consultation on Ray Collins’ ideas for party reform
closes on 24 December, with proposals going to a special
conference on 1 March 2014 in London.  Responses can be e-
mailed to
or uploaded to
and please copy me in, as otherwise I may not see them.
image002As usual, questions and comments are welcome, and feel free to
circulate onwards.
With best wishes
National Executive Committee, 4/5 November 2013
The Chair Angela Eagle welcomed members to the first meeting
after conference, an opportunity to review our aims, objectives and
strategies for the year ahead.  Deputy leader Harriet Harman
stressed that the 2014 local and European elections were important
in their own right.  Looking forward to 2015 she emphasised the key
role of MPs and contrasted the difference in resources between the
north-west, with 14 Westminster target seats and 45 Labour MPs,
and the eastern region, with 13 targets but only two Labour MPs. 
With the Scottish referendum in the autumn she argued that the
NEC needed strong voices from Scotland and Wales.  I reminded
members that the Scottish and Welsh leaders can already attend,
and that the NEC had previously rejected rule changes which would
add Scottish and Welsh constituency representatives.  All we have
to do is change our attitude. 
Harriet Harman also wondered how the women’s conference, which
this year attracted 1,000 women,  could feed into policy-making
structures while keeping the free-flowing vibrancy of an event
without formalities or a conference arrangements committee. 
Appropriate rule changes could perhaps be put to the special
conference on 1 March.  Overall members were in a positive mood
after conference, buoyed by new policies to take out on the
doorstep.  However there was concern about a diversity deficit at
the top of the party, with a five-man general election team, only one
woman among the executive directors, and only one out of 18
shadow cabinet review groups led by a woman (on care policy). 
We were promised that Douglas Alexander, Chair of general
election strategy, and campaigns director Spencer Livermore would
come to the NEC in January. 
Leader’s Q-and-A
Ed Miliband said, to general assent, that the party should continue
the pace and mood of the last six weeks through the next 18
months.  Debate was now taking place on our terms:  the cost of
living, energy prices, a living wage, apprenticeships, banking
reform, the NHS, tackling vested interests and ensuring that
unscrupulous employers did not undercut pay and conditions by
recruiting from certain groups.  Labour would run an economy
which created wealth, but where the proceeds of growth were
shared fairly and did not go only to the rich and powerful.  Voters
must also be warned of the risks of five more Tory years.  He
added that the handling of Ray Collins’ report on party reform
showed our ability to keep focused on the real enemy, and I hope
that this can be maintained through 2014, when the special
conference will give the media reasons to keep running anti-union
and anti-Labour stories. 
NEC members praised his conference speech and drew attention
to Tory attacks on employment rights including access to tribunals,
the paradox under which British railways can be run by states as
long as they are foreign states, the need for good jobs not just any
jobs, further cuts in public service pay, the threat of a new
European / United States trade agreement, excessive warmth
towards free schools, and expansion of food banks and payday
loans into mainstream society.  Members argued that the minimum
wage would only be enforced when unions could take cases on
behalf of members, as individuals who complain can simply be
disappeared.  Ed Miliband suggested that councils could play a part
Executive Reports
This was followed by presentations on communication, strategy and
planning, elections, governance and party services, and policy and
rebuttal.  Labour was operating effectively in showcasing new
shadow ministers after the reshuffle and in responding to attacks,
including the Daily Mail’s disgraceful slurs on Ed Miliband’s father. 
Every household would receive a freepost mailing for the Euro-
elections, and seven of the 11 regions reported specific Euro-
campaign activities.  Most Westminster target seats had selected
their candidates and voter ID was running well ahead of the last
cycle, with incentives for constituencies which met targets.  Trigger
ballots were underway for MPs seeking to stand again. 
Labour now has lots of policies:  on payday lenders, childcare,
energy bills, housing, fairer taxes, making work pay, whole-person
care.  However I am still concerned by constant banging on about
toughness:  Labour will make tough choices, be tough on welfare,
tough on immigration, and so on.  It distresses our core supporters
and fails to convince floating voters.  Many of the same arguments
could be couched in terms of fairness instead, and used to unite
rather than to divide.  
General secretary Iain McNicol gave a financial update.  The
situation this year was good, with income running ahead of budget
and expenditure controlled.  Future years have become more
unpredictable with possible changes to the system of affiliation. 
However the financial strategy, including paying off outstanding
debts through to 2016, is sacrosanct, even if it means savage cuts
in spending.  On the positive side, membership has increased since
December:  people are more likely to join and less likely to leave if
they are contacted by their local party, so there is a role for every
activist to play. 
The Road to the Manifesto
Angela Eagle and Jon Cruddas outlined the next stages of policy
development.  Key dates are:
February 2014:  final year consultation documents published on the
Your Britain website
February – June 2014: amendments and submissions accepted. 
Jon Cruddas’s policy reviews and shadow cabinet and external
reviews will also be fed through the policy commissions – these may
amount to 60 separate pieces of work, unless I’m double-counting
June 2014:  NPF representatives meet in regional groups to decide
which amendments to take forward
18-20 July 2014:  national policy forum meets to finalise documents
September 2014: annual conference votes on NPF documents
October 2014 – March 2015:  manifesto development based on
policy programme
Spring 2015:  Clause V meeting agrees manifesto
This means that the consultation runs alongside election
campaigning through to 22 May 2014, but perhaps local parties can
organise policy discussions followed by door-knocking sessions. 
Conference Round-Up
This year’s conference was attended by 611 constituency
delegates representing 488 local parties, slightly up on 2012.  All
considered it successful, though there were the usual concerns
about lack of time for ordinary delegates, and the waving of bizarre
objects to attract the Chair’s attention.  I asked, again, for the
timetable and papers to be published on the website, so that
supporters watching at home could follow proceedings.  It was
clarified that motions passed with more than two-thirds support
become part of the policy programme and are considered for, but
not necessarily included in, the manifesto 
Some NEC members suggested that new delegates needed more
briefing from regional officers.  Others, from both unions and
constituencies, reported complaints about too much regional
briefing around elections to the conference arrangements
committee.  Iain McNicol is investigating. 
The 2014 conference will be held from Sunday 21 to Wednesday
24 September in Manchester, preceded by the women’s
conference on Saturday 20 September.  The deadline for
contemporary motions will be noon on Thursday 11 September and
for emergency motions, noon on Friday 19 September.  The six
constituency places on the NEC will be up for election next year,
with nominations closing on 20 June 2014, and it was agreed to
defer elections to the national policy forum until 2015 so that
current members could complete the policy cycle.
Home and Abroad
A report from the European party highlighted engagement on e-
cigarettes, zero-hours contracts, food labelling, flight safety, air
quality and many other areas, with Labour MEPs instrumental in
securing stronger protection from blacklisting.  David Sparks
reported on the desperate situation faced by many councils:  while
Labour fights to minimise the impact on vulnerable people, our
constant message must be that these cuts are Tory government-
imposed, and they are unjustified, unnecessary and unfair.
The NEC also received the minutes of sub-committees.  The
organisation committee had decided that Leeds East should select
from an open list, where I was one of two members voting against,
and launched a review of procedures for suspension and auto-
exclusion.  The equalities committee noted that there would be a
young members’ conference on 21/23 February 2014 in Bradford. 
Other issues included the importance of diversity within black,
Asian and minority ethnic minority representation so that all
communities felt they had a voice, and concerns about the
deselection of councillors.   
The NEC congratulated everyone involved in the Scottish
parliamentary by-election victory in Dunfermline, and noted that
Falkirk would select their Westminster candidate on 8 December.
John Denham MP closed the meeting with a thoughtful
presentation on winning back the south.  Though seen as
prosperous, parts of the south had lower wages but higher living
costs than the national average, and resented being lumped in with
London.  However, many voters shared Labour values, and One
Nation messages, translated into the local context, could appeal
just as strongly as elsewhere.
Questions and comments are welcome, and I am happy for this to
be circulated to members as a personal account, not an official
record.  Reports of meetings from July 2008 onwards are at

 See Youtube to give you a idea of where is coming from:

Another vote on Bedroom Tax on 12 November 2013

Checkout this Youtube and remember those who face eviction:

beaker_1743003cI’m sure many will be Intrigued to learn that Danny Alexander father who works for a housing association has blast his son and coalition over the most dreaded bedroom tax as particularly unfair in a stinging attack.

Di Alexander condemnation is his son’s favourite welfare reform can by revealed as Labour prepares to call on David Cameron and his sidekick George Osborne to kill the bedroom tax on a vote on 12 Nov 2013.

He said tenants forced out of their homes could not find alternative places to live and revealed that the Coalition’s welfare shake up meant “considerable challenges” for his housing association tenants in Scotland.

“It penalize both tenants and management team for not being able to magic up a supply of smaller properties particularly those with only one bedroom, when we have been funded by Coalition since our inception to build nothing smaller than two bedroom flats and houses”

The criticism is a major embarrassment for his Cabinet minister son and the Chancellor. The pair have claimed will save around 480 Million a per year and affect 600.000 people.

An ex-minister has warned that the ConDems‘ hated Bedroom Tax will actually end up costing the Government money.

_49789892_jex_858863_de27-1Labour’s former work and pensions minister Baroness Hollis of Heigham told the House of Lords that ministers have previously claimed the policy would lead to savings of £490m.

But Lady Hollis savaged the savings claim, saying the figure was based on assumptions that would not come true.

And she painted a grim picture of thousands of British families enduring a stressful ‘snakes and ladders’ existence as the tax forces them to be constantly on the move.

Lady Hollis, who spent eight years as social security and work and pensions minister in the previous government, issued her warning as peers debated the impact of the bedroom tax.

The policy – whose real name is the under-occupancy charge – means social housing tenants are docked up to 25 per cent of their benefit if they are deemed to have too much room.

Lady Hollis said the Government had assumed that 90% of people hit by the benefit cut would remain in their current homes, but surveys showed only 60% wanted to stay.

She told peers a more ‘realistic’ assumption was that 70% of people would stay and costs such as people running up rent arrears, moving into B&Bs and councils providing discretionary payments to some affected tenants had to be taken into account.

She said: “The public purse – I’ve done the stats – far from making savings, makes a significant loss.

“Tenants, far from enjoying a settled home, will face a snakes and ladders of moving up and down and across from one bed to two bed, perhaps to three bed all in different places and then down the snake again according to the age and gender of their children.

“Each move bringing huge moving costs, stress and dislocation especially to disabled families, their children and the local communities that support them.

“All this misery, all this cruelty, all this distress, to meet housing pressures that will actually now worsen and to make savings that now won’t happen.

“And we call this a housing policy? It’s strong language but I call this contemptible.”

Communities and local government minister Baroness Stowell of Beeston defended the Government’s policies

She said that affordable homes were now being built at the fastest annual rate for at least 20 years and the policy returned fairness to the housing benefit system by ‘levelling the playing field.’

stowellLady Stowell told peers: “It cannot be right that the taxpayer should continue to pay for homes which are too large for the households’ needs.”

She assured peers extensive research on impact of the policy had been commissioned and this would be published next year.

The government says it is providing £405m in discretionary housing payments while the new system is introduced.

But figures revealed last month show that more than 50,000 council tenants are facing eviction after falling behind on their rent because of the bedroom tax.

And a further 30,000 people living in housing association properties are also behind on their rent after the tax was introduced in April.

Conservative Party over an olive branch to Labour Party to head off rebels wrecking motion over Gay Marriage

13242_188244684659921_1609709078_nConservative Party over an olive branch to Labour Party to head off rebels wrecking motion over Gay Marriage
Last night was very entertaining to see that the Conservatives actually offering an olive branch to Labour in return to help them save the bill. Lets not forget it was the Tories who introduced Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the controversial addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986 (affecting England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland), enacted on 24 May 1988. The amendment stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.[1] It was repealed on 21 June 2000 in Scotland as one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Scottish Parliament, and on 18 November 2003 in the rest of Great Britain by section 122 of the Local Government Act 2003.[2]

As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.[3]

While going through Parliament, the amendment was constantly relabelled with a variety of clause numbers as other amendments were added to or deleted from the Bill, but by the final version of the Bill, which received Royal Assent, it had become Section 28. Section 28 is sometimes referred to as Clause 28 – in the United Kingdom, Acts of Parliament have sections, whereas in a Bill (which is put before Parliament to pass) those sections are called clauses.[4] Since the effect of the amendment was to insert a new section ‘2A’ into the previous Local Government Act, it was also sometimes referred to as Section 2A.

To save face from the rebels to introduce a wrecking motion senior members of the Conservatives approach Labour to save the bill by introducing an amendment to which the coalition had no choice in the matter. I am glad that the coalition saw sense and realized that they did not have the full support from their rebel backbenchers. So on this occasion Labour has held a double barrow shot gun over the Conservative Party for a change.

In another interesting twist Conservative HQ send out emails and letters to all its party activists to head off another revolt from leaving the Conservative Party to join UKIP see letter below


After the news this weekend, I wanted to write a personal note to members of our Party.

I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party for 25 years. Some time after I joined I became Chairman of my local branch and was one of the volunteers dedicated to getting Conservatives elected to the local council. Since then I have met thousands and thousands of party members. We’ve pounded pavements together, canvassed together and sat in make-shift campaign headquarters together, from village halls to front rooms. We have been together through good times and bad. This is more than a working relationship; it is a deep and lasting friendship.

Ours is a companionship underpinned by what we believe: that everyone should be able to get on in life if they’re willing to work hard; that we look after those who cannot help themselves; that it’s family and community and country that matter; that a dose of common sense is worth more than a ton of dry political theory; that Britain is a great and proud nation that can be greater still.

Above all, we Conservatives believe you change things not by criticising from your armchair but by getting out and doing. Across the country, at charity events and voluntary organisations, you will find people from our Party quietly doing their bit. Time and again, Conservative activists like you stand for duty, decency and civic pride.

That’s why I am proud to lead this party. I am proud of what you do. And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise. We are a team, from the parish council to the local association to Parliament, and I never forget it.

Does that mean we will agree on everything? Of course not. The Conservative Party has always been a broad church – one which contains different views and opinions – and we must remain so today. But there is also much we must do together. We can shout from the roof-tops about how far we’ve already come. The deficit has been cut by a third. We’ve seen 1.25 million new jobs created in our private sector. 24 million working people have had their income tax cut.

And we can be clear about where we are going, too. We are engaged in a great fight to rebalance our economy, to bring excellence back to our schools, to fix the welfare system. And yes, we have a policy on Europe that is right for our country. Amid all the debate, remember this: it is our Party that has committed to an in-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017. Not Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, but the Conservatives who are committed to giving the British people their say.

So to those reading this, here is my message: there will always be criticism from the sidelines. But we must remember what this Party has always been about: acting in the national interest. Our task today is to clear up Labour’s mess and make Britain stand tall again.

We have a job to do for our country – and we must do it together.

David Cameron

Why has Conservative board fail to take action to investigate alleged remarks made by a senior aide which has led some Tory Councillors and activists decided to take their bat and ball over to UKIP which suggest to me that they rather join a right-wing party which many of us were not surprise.

Well not only have they shown that they join a party which has no policies in local government do they have anything on social housing, social care and health, street lighting, education, and highways. They only have one agenda get out of Europe and Immigration.

I support  the campaign group called Hope Not Hate which has been monitoring both  UKIP and BNP for sometime they have reach the conclusion that about UKIP see below:

UKIP have replaced the BNP as the party of choice for those disaffected voters wishing to register a protest vote at election time.

They are a right-wing, populist party who like to describe themselves as democratic and libertarian. Their main policy is withdrawal from the European Union, but immigration has become an all important factor, one that Nigel Farage and UKIP knows strikes a chord with the average voter on the doorstep.

But now it would appear that we all have to take them seriously. UKIP’s second place in the Eastleigh by-election is sending shockwaves through the British political establishment. Their 27% of the vote follows on from the 22% they polled in Rotherham and the 14.3% they received in Corby. In opinion polls they are battling for third place with the Liberal Democrats, with their popularity fluctuating between 9-12%.

Long dismissed as simply an anti-European Union protest party their political rivals are now gearing up to life with them for the foreseeable future.

Not racist?

Farage insists that UKIP is not an extremist organisation and says it is not racist to discuss immigration.

Of course, he is correct but for many of their supporters criticism of immigration often slips into outright racism.

In fact, at a local level, UKIP material is often far more extreme than that produced by the BNP. It is as if their anti-establishment and slightly quirky image in the media means their extremist and racist comments by local councillors and organisers are not held to the same scrutiny or outrage as would happen if a BNP activist said the same.

“The contrasting treatment of BNP leader Nick Griffin and UKIP leader Nigel Farage over the past decade provides an example of this effect in action,” says Rob Ford, from Manchester University.

“Griffin’s efforts to appeal to a more mainstream audience were hamstrung by his party’s legacy of fascism and violence, which lead the media, other politicians, and the electorate to treat him as a pariah. Farage, by contrast, has been able to raise similar contentious questions about immigration, Islam and identity in mainstream political forums such as Question Time without being attacked as a racist or a fascist thanks to his roots in a more legitimate tradition of ‘Eurosceptic politics.’

The racism and Islamophobia of its supporters is not hard to find. Abhijit Pandya, a UKIP parliamentary candidate, said on his website that Islam is “morally flawed and degenerate” and that he backed the controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders who has called Islam “a retarded ideology”.

The former UKIP leader Lord Pearson claimed that some of “our people were strangers in our own land” and that Muslims were “breeding ten times faster than us” Pearson also invited Wilders to screen the controversial film about radical Islam, Fitna, at the House of Lords.

In 2012, UKIP candidate Steve Moxon from Sheffield was stripped of his candidacy after writing on his blog that the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik’s thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate.

The chairman of London UKIP Paul Wiffen denounced Muslims as “nutters who want to kill us and put us under medieval Sharia law”.

UKIP’s former leader and founder of the party Alan Sked recently told The Huffington Post that the party he launched in 1993 has become “extraordinarily right wing” and is now devoted to creating a fuss, via Islam and immigrants”.

When asked if UKIP was xenophobic , Sked replied:  “It seems to be anti Islam and anti immigrant. If that adds up to xenophobic, then yes.”

UKIP is a member of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Union alongside a whole host of xenophobic parties and its Yorkshire and Humber MEP, Godfrey Bloom, ran the European Alliance for Freedom group alongside well-known far right politicians such as Marine Le Pen of the French National Front, Philip Claeys and Peter Kleist of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Kristina Morvai of the Hungarian far right party Jobbik.

In 2012, UKIP candidate Steve Moxon from Sheffield was stripped of his candidacy after writing on his blog that the Norwegian killer Anders Behring Breivik’s thesis on Islam and political correctness was accurate.

Another UKIP official to hit the headlines recently was Oxford UKIP chair Dr Julia Gasper. Last year Gasper compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, said the holy book was “fascist” and compared those who defend Islam to holocaust deniers.

Six months later Gasper resigned as Oxford UKIP leader after making homophobic comments where she branded gay rights a “lunatic’s charter” and claimed some homosexuals prefer sex with animals. Dr Gasper added:

“As for the links between homosexuality and paedophilia, there is so much evidence that even a full-length book could hardly do justice to the ­subject.”

Following the vote in Parliament on gay marriage, Olly Neville, leader of UKIP’s youth organisation, Young Independence,  was sacked after giving a radio interview claiming he supported gays having equal marriage rights. Richard Lowe, prospective parliamentary candidate for Chester was also forced to resign over the issue.

UKIP have a strict policy banning former BNP members from joining the party yet a former BNP candidate Andrew Eccles stood for UKIP in 2012 in Bury, Lancashire. Eccles was the BNP’s parliamentary candidate in the Hyndburn constituency in the General Election of 2010.

A clear space

One of the major factors for UKIP’s rapid rise is that they are operating with greater freedom on the right of British politics. The Conservatives are being restrained by the realities of governing and the compromises they are having to make as part of their coalition pact with the Liberal Democrats. Conversely, the electoral collapse of the BNP has left UKIP as the only actors on the right in British politics.

“UKIP now faces no competitor on the extreme right, leaving it free to recruit heavily from the 20% of the electorate who hold radical right views on a broad range of issues,” says Rob Ford. “In recent local elections some of UKIP’s strongest performances have come in areas where the BNP has recently collapsed, suggesting it is already reaping these benefits.”

Here to stay

UKIP are here to stay and we all need to start getting used to that and prepare accordingly. In May UKIP leader Nigel Farage is boasting that the party will stand 2,000 candidates in the county council elections. In June 2014 they could well top the poll in the European Elections. Coming just six months after Romanians and Bulgarians are given the right to work in the UK and just 11 months before a general election, this will send shockwaves through the Conservative Party who are increasingly worried that UKIP could prevent them winning the general election.

While UKIP will probably struggle to make gains in the 2015 General Elections, when our electoral system and the focus on who runs the Government makes it a two-horse race, their success between now and then is likely to shift the centre of political gravity to the right.

Britain finally has the type of anti-immigrant, anti-EU and anti-establishment party that many other countries across Western and Northern Europe has grown accustomed to over the past 10-15 years. And while UKIP is not a far right or fascist party many of its members and supporters hold views little different from those held by the BNP and it is for this reason the party should be monitored and opposed.

The racism crisis surrounding Nigel Farage’s UKIP Party deepens as our investigation exposes yet another UKIP racist.

Alan Jesson the newly elected UKIP County Councillor for Spalding South posted a series of vile posts earlier this year on the social networking site Facebook.

Spouting xenophobic abuse towards a Polish woman Jesson writes “what u gonna do when we pull out of the EU and repatriated [sic] you and your friends to give full employment to British workers.”

He continues “Fuck off we don’t need you sweetheart we get along just fine without you”.

Using an extract from the well-known Martin Luther King speech Jesson writes “I have a dream, as each day passes I hope and pray that one day soon Britain will be free of the corrupt EU and a day when the migrants are persuaded or forced to return to their countries of birth.”

Jesson quotes wildly exaggerated figures on future immigration, commenting on an article referring to Romanian and Bulgarian immigration “Just there’s 14 million more coming”.

In a series of other disgusting posts he writes of “how true it is that the biggest threat to the UK way of life was Islam and its followers”. “Mosques need banning until they adopt sexual equality and gay relationships and conform to British culture” he writes in a comment from January.

In November 2012 he wrote ” No Mosques should be entertained in this country. Islam is anti Gay [sic] and anti women [sic] . It can never be part of English culture.”

His apparent ‘concern’ for gay rights is merely a façade for his thinly veiled hatred; Alan Jesson also harbours homophobic sentiments. In a repulsive comment from February he claims “Gay people have no rights to marry in church as God does not recognise this action. It would just be a farce. Just because a growing number of people have had it with the Gay community doesn’t make them frightened of Gays in fact I believe most gays are indeed Hetrophobic.”

Demanding vigilante patrols, Jesson writes “Spalding needs a night-time voluntary civil protection patrol”. Unsurprisingly he also has some extra-tough views on crime, “4pm the river Welland Spalding most days the bit that runs through the town come see the EE s fishing for their tea. I’m going to start pushing them in and then the Police might take a bit of notice of these thieves”.

Ominously and in what seems to be a reference to Enoch Powell, he writes “I really do think soon there will be rivers of blood”.

The newly elected UKIP councillors on Lincolnshire County Council appear to be blighted with hatred and bigotry, but we seriously doubt Nigel Farage and UKIP will take any action.

A leading member of UKIP has appeared in court accused of breaching an injunction obtained by his ex-wife.

Piers Wauchope a Tunbridge Wells borough councillor and member of UKIP’s National Executive Committee pleaded not guilty at Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court on Monday to a charge of breaching a non-molestation order.

Wauchope, UKIP’s failed Police Commissioner candidate for Kent was charged after allegedly damaging a number of doors at the home of his estranged wife, after he went to pick up some of his possessions in January.

Patricia Wauchope Shaw obtained the injunction against her ex-husband in August 2012 after they originally separated.

Wauchope told the court he believed he had not broken the injunction but admitted to police that he was in the house and had caused the damage. His defence has asked for the case to be committed to the crown court for trial at a later date.

The case was adjourned with Wauchope currently on conditional bail.



Changes into UK benefits system from the 1st -28th April 2013

Quote of the day:

“If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost”.(President Obama)

My thoughts on the changes into UK benefits system from the 1st -28th April 2013:

On the 1st April 2013 will be remembered for two things April Fool’s Day and the other is the changes of our welfare system the following will come into effect they are:

Bedroom tax introduced

Thousands lose access to legal aid

Council tax benefit passes into local control

NHS commissioning changes for ever

Regulation of financial industry changes

50p tax rate scrapped for high earners

Disability living allowance scrapped

Benefit uprating begins

Welfare benefit cap

Universal credit introduced

bedroomtaxevictionsIn light what has been mentioned I say welcome back to the modern day of Thatcherism under the guise of the coalition government who has are hell bent on making the very low paid suffer to appease their party donors from both Conservative and Libdems. So far we have witnessed a number of Bedroom Tax demonstration and rallies across the UK which has been very peaceful and supported by the opposition parties across the UK. Whilst millionaires and expats endorsing their full support to the very ideology of the coalition.

Yet hardliner are the ones who are pulling the heartstrings on telling their leader what policies they have to implement. Frankly the many are suffering whilst the rich donors are robbing their hands which remind me of the story of Robin Hood but the difference is the crown ordering its servants to take from the poor to give the rich in the name of the king.

The tax financially penalises social and council tenants deemed to have a “spare” room – or forces them to move to a smaller property. If tenants refuse they face eviction. It will hit 650,000 people.

LvLuXLlrVEJWbBz-556x313-noPadAngry campaigners have sprung up across Britain, and on 30 April 2013 we made our voices heard. Campaigners assembled in Whitehall, London, and placed banners on the railings of Downing Street reading: “Axe the tax” and “David Cameron, blood on your hands.”

This helps to feed into the ideology of the right wing of the Tory Party cuts and how the poor and ordinary working people are being punished by self interest of greed and venality of the rich. Perhaps one of the main reasons the bedroom tax has generated many rumblings of a nationwide and national campaigns is because it violates our human rights.

corporate-fat-catA home, be it bought or rented, represents more than just shelter in our lives. This is even more so in the case of the poorest in society, people for whom moving every few years is not possible and, for many, undesirable even if it were. Some have argued that mobility is a luxury the poor cannot afford. In its place are community, roots, a sense of belonging. The millionaires, with their multiple houses and ability to move and travel on a whim, can never hope to understand.

For the most socially vulnerable in society a home is the one place they are entitled to feel completely secure and safe in a society in which they are blamed for their plight rather than regarded as victims of it. A home also represents a history, where children are brought up, parents pass away, in which good and bad times are shared. It is essential to a sense of being and self-worth, not to mention dignity. These things are under attack with the bedroom tax.

This is why the sheer cruelty of it transcends words such as iniquitous or unfair. It is nothing short of a violation of the human rights of those affected, compounded by the fact that it will have a disproportionate impact on the disabled and elderly and sick. The stress being suffered by its victims leading up to its implementation will already have been immeasurable, leaving them feeling even more vulnerable and isolated in the face of decisions being made affecting their lives in which they have no input whatever.

Securing rented accommodation in the private sector, which has already seen demand spike in recent years due to the near collapse of the mortgage market as a consequence of the financial crisis caused by the world of banking which is the end result of this recession, is a far from simple process. The demand for one-bedroom flats in particular far outstrips supply in every major city. recently I was in the position of seeking a one-bedroom flat in the public sector and as the council was knocking the tower block which I lived in for many years  it proved a horrible task of relocating to a different part of Birmingham.

To add insult to injury, the requirement of upfront fees and deposit that letting agencies demand means that anyone without savings is burnt at the very first hurdle. For people forced into this position as a consequence of the bedroom tax there is also the ludicrous situation whereby local councils will end up putting even more taxpayers’ money into the pockets of private landlords to meet rents on one-bedroom accommodation that are on average higher than they are in the social housing sector for two bedrooms.

I criticise the housing crisis at the behest of both Conservative and Labour Governments. This has brought the many to the point where, according to Shelter, two million households are currently waiting for social housing in England and Scotland, many of them languishing in temporary accommodation with young children. The solution to this crisis is not to force people already in social housing onto the mercy of the private sector but an emergency national programme of house-building in order to meet demand. Attempting to solve one human crisis by precipitating another describes a country governed by an incompetent government . This is a policy that has either been carefully calibrated to punish the poor – part of the mass experiment in human despair fashioned

Coalition’s much dreaded welfare cuts with more to come

Quote of the day:

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.


My thoughts on the much dreaded welfare cuts: Welcome to UK 21st Century of austerity viz coalition as people are now waking up and beginning to realise what they were alleging that it was hard under a Labour Government turned out to be unfounded as people bagan to realise that the hardest are now being hit left, right, and centre under this regime. For the first time the younger generation are beginning to understand what is the true nature of politics of today which will affect them for generations to come I kid you not.

The coalition says that “ We’re All In it Together, and “The Big Society which is the code words for the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.  For example If “We Are All In It together as the coalition will have us to believe I say Peefoo as we are not equal in the eyes of society which does not address the social policies which we all face with our bread and butter issues some people instead would like to taste either jam, marmalade, or marmite on their bread to spread their cost of living be mortgage, rent, food, electric, gas, road tax or council tax. Let’s now concentrate on “The Big Society” many companies with charity status thought this would be the best thing since slice cake as they thought that this would open up the doors for opportunities but in reality this did not happen as we have seen some charity and third sector companies closing down owing to lack of funding by both Central and Local Government. The other side of the coin from the “Big Society” believe it or not was a large scale of attacks towards public sector and its workforce in favour of private companies to provide front line services. Hence frontline services like police, social work, hospitals and other front services being closed down and the list can go on.

photoIDS1The welfare reform has reminded us of the princess of darkness (milk snatcher) for those us who will recall the damage the so-called Iron Lady caused to the coal industries and public services which was one of the root cause of the large scale of strike action that the UK has been by the world of the 1970s -1980s this led to mass unemployment. Yet this coalition has the cheek to say that we are all in it together.

photoChrfisGayMost of us would agree that there be some reform that should move with the times but this must happen in stages with the right social reform that will not hit the hardest in society by attacking the very low paid is not the way forward let’s not forget the wise words of our founder Nye Bevan who said I would rather be kept alive in the efficient if cold altruism of a large hospital than expire in a gush of warm sympathy in a small one.

conservative-liberal-democrat-logo-468965850This leads me to the next point I am not a religious person but I do acknowledge what four churches in a joint statement have to say see below:

Four churches have joined forces to accuse the government of welfare payment cuts they say are unjust and target society’s most vulnerable.

The Easter criticism has come from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, and the Church of Scotland.

They also want to see a change to “a false picture” of the poor as “lazy”.

The government said society suffered when people were paid more to be unemployed than to work.

A series of changes to benefits are being made in April – including capping rises on working-age benefits at 1% – which will affect hundreds of thousands of households across the UK. Ministers say they are necessary to tackle the rising cost to the taxpayer.

 Rising costs

But the churches accuse politicians and parts of the media of making the cuts easier to impose by misrepresenting poor people as lazy.

The Methodist Church’s public policy adviser, Paul Morrison, said the British public had “come to believe things about the poorest in our society which are just straightforwardly not true.

“The public believes that the major cause of poverty is laziness, yet the majority of people in poverty work. How can that be the case?”

And the Reverend Jonathan Edwards, general secretary of the Baptist Union, said “The one interesting fact I find is that the majority, the rise in poverty over the last decade, has been more amongst those on low income than on those who are unemployed.”

The government says it has always been clear that the system is failing people, not the other way around. The Department for Work and Pensions said in a statement: “It’s not fair that benefits claimants can receive higher incomes than families who are in work – in some cases more than double the average household income.”

 ‘Paying price’

Earlier this month, the Archbishop of Canterbury backed an open letter, signed by 43 of his bishops, criticising plans to limit rises in working-age benefits and some tax credits to 1% for three years. He said the current system recognised rising costs of food, fuel and housing by giving benefit rises in line with inflation.

“These changes will mean it is children and families who will pay the price for high inflation, rather than the government,” he said.

In response, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told MPs he did not agree that “the way to get children out of poverty is to simply keep transferring more and more money to keep them out of work”.

“The reality is what we’re having to do is reform a system that became completely out of control under the last government, get people back in work, for being in work is how you get your children out of poverty.”

He said the government was doing “the right thing” in bringing in the benefit caps because “people on low and average earnings will realise, at last, that those on benefits will not be able to be paid more in taxes than they themselves earn.”

Archbishop Welby later wrote on his blog that he was questioning one aspect of the government’s wide-ranging welfare changes, not condemning efforts to make work pay and improve people’s livelihoods which he said were, in general, “incredibly brave”.

He said Mr Duncan Smith had spent “hard years turning himself into a leading and principled expert on welfare, its effects and shortcomings”.

“He is introducing one of the biggest and most thorough reforms of a system that most people admit is shot full of holes, wrong incentives, and incredible complexity.”

‘Radical redesign’

Other changes to benefits being made in April include:

  • The introduction of a new benefit, the personal independence payment (PIP), to be rolled out across the UK from 8 April to replace disability living allowance (DLA) for people of working age.
  • Less housing benefit from the beginning of April for UK families living in council or housing accommodation judged to be larger than they need. Only those of working age will see reduced payments.
  • A cap from 15 April, in England, Scotland and Wales, on the total amount of benefit working-age people (16-64) can receive

Meanwhile, the government is scaling back some of its plans to test the new Universal Credit, which will gradually – by 2017 – replace five work-based benefits with one benefit, affecting millions of claimants across the UK.

Ministers planned to allow people to make the new claims in four areas of north-west England from April. But it has emerged that three of the pilots will not start until July.

Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps told the media the existing system had been “rather a cruel one” because “it costs you more, sometimes, to go to work”.

“You ought to be able to go out to work and know you’re better off without having to spend an hour-and-a-half in front of a Jobcentre Plus computer trying to do calculations as to whether you’ll lose this benefit or that benefit. “That’s what we’ll get with Universal Credit and, and it means that money that is there can be focused on people who most need it.”