Thursday, 16 March 2017

You can trust the Tories, I Think Not!

and on top of all that they are willing to trust someone who says stand on stage with your legs apart itll make you look good....... What chance have we got?

Lets break the meme down

Note: We could expand all of these topics there's plenty of evidence available but in the interests of keeping things a reasonable size....

David Cameron rebuked by statistics watchdog over national debt claims – The PM said the government was ‘paying down Britain’s debts’ in a political broadcast, even though the debt is actually rising.

OBR head rebukes Osborne: the UK was never at risk of bankruptcy. Office for Budget Responsibility chief Robert Chote dismisses the Conservative “danger of insolvency” claim.
In the weeks after he took office, George Osborne justified his austerity programme by claiming that Britain was on “the brink of bankruptcy”. He told the Conservative conference in October 2010: “The good news is that we are in government after 13 years of a disastrous Labour administration that brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy.”

It was, of course, nonsense.

Iain Duncan Smith Rebuked Over Immigration Statistics – Iain Duncan Smith and the Department of Work and Pensions have been accused of publishing misleading immigration figures that were “highly vulnerable to misinterpretation”. Figures showing 371,000 immigrants were on benefits were rushed out by ministers with insufficient regard for “weaknesses” in the data, according to the UK Statistics Authority.

Grant Shapps rebuked by UK Statistics Authority for misrepresenting benefit figures – Yet another Conservative politician is caught making it up. Grant Shapps has joined his fellow Conservatives in the data hall of shame. In March, the Tory chairman claimed that “nearly a million people” (878,300) on incapacity benefit had dropped their claims, rather than face a new medical assessment for its successor, the employment and support allowance.
The figures, he said, “demonstrate how the welfare system was broken under Labour and why our reforms are so important”. The claim was faithfully reported by the Sunday Telegraph  but as the UK Statistics Authority has now confirmed in its response to Labour MP Sheila Gilmore (see below), it was entirely fabricated.

Mrs May replied: "In relation to the figures on council houses, he's wrong. We have delivered on the one for one replacement on the Right to Buy."

Mrs May failed to back up her claim with any evidence.

Figures by her own government in March showed 49,573 homes had been sold off since 2012 but just 4,594 new ones had been started or bought on site.

The Prime Minister then mocked Mr Corbyn for his long-held tactic of asking Twitter followers for questions - so she read out one from 'Lewis'.

"Lewis writes: 'Does she know in a recent poll on who would make a better Prime Minister, 'don't know' scored higher than Jeremy Corbyn ?'".
Note: Interesting that Theresa May has the dubious accolade of answering less questions than Cameron now that's quite something. But always willing to throw insults to get away from answering a question.

94 Billion to big Corporations
Taxpayers are handing businesses £93bn a year – a transfer of more than £3,500 from each household in the UK.

The total emerges from the first comprehensive account of what Britons give away to companies in grants, subsidies and tax breaks, published exclusively in the Guardian.
Many of the companies receiving the largest public grants over the past few years previously paid little or zero corporation tax, the analysis shows. They include some of the best-known names in Britain, such as Amazon, Ford and Nissan.

Failed economic targets
The Tory failure on the economy is increasingly clear for all to see. Osborne promised in 2010 to eliminate the structural deficit in five years and to preserve our AAA credit rating. He failed on both promises. His budget earlier this year revealed huge downgrades in estimates for future growth, wages, productivity and levels of investment. It also showed he was failing on two of the three targets he had set himself on welfare spending and debt. As the economy stalls, he looks increasingly likely to fail on his third target – the economically illiterate promise to run a surplus by 2020.

Fined a record £70,000
The Conservative Party has been fined a record £70,000 for breaking election expenses rules.
The party insists its failure to report six figure sums it spent on trying to win three by-elections and the general election was an "administrative error".
The Electoral Commission said there was a "realistic prospect" the money had given the party an advantage.
The Metropolitan Police is now looking at the evidence to see if the reporting omissions were deliberate.
"She (The Commission's chief executive Claire Bassett) added that having had to get a court order to get information was "very disappointing"."
BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said that if prosecutions go ahead "we could be looking at by-elections".
NOTE: That the fine could have been higher but they are restricted to £2,000 per offence. Which they are aiming to try and increase in the future.

Electoral Commission's findings...
  • The Conservative Party’s 2015 UK Parliamentary general election spending return was missing payments worth at least £104,765.
  • Separately, payments worth up to £118,124 were either not reported to the Commission or were incorrectly reported by the party.
  • A portion of this amount should have been included in the Party’s return but wasn’t. 
  • Another portion was put into the Party’s return when it was candidate spending in a number of constituencies where the Party spent money promoting individual candidates.
  • In addition, the Party did not include the required invoices or receipts for 81 payments to the value of £52,924.
  • Finally, the Party failed to maintain records explaining the amounts it invoiced to candidates in three 2014 by-elections, for work on their campaigns.
  • Therefore the accuracy of the amounts could not be verified.

Possible Criminal Charges

Twelve police forces have asked the Crown Prosecution Service to consider charges over election expenses.


Monday, 20 February 2017

Paul Nuttall UKIP a road crash waiting to happen....

Paul Nuttall UKIP road crash waiting to happen .... Oh wait

Not the best picture, sorry Paul but ....

He is just a liability for UKIP, Nuttall's first grand shoot myself in the foot statement was that he thought the NHS was unsustainable and Privatisation should be looked at.
That didn't go down well with the assembled crowd, so some weeks later and careful thought and probably advise from someone, he changed his view to that of UKIP. Support the NHS free at point of use.

Myself I'm not convinced that his personal view has changed though, hes just saying what he thinks will get him votes.

Congruency is important in politics and Nuttal is anything but Congruent.  All I can say is bring back Nigel Farrage, love him or hate him he was a good speaker.

So his next, lets blunder into this one episode, was his lets try and make some votes off the Hillsbourough disaster. Really not a good idea Paul even if you were there, maybe you should have shown a little concern a few years earlier.

"As if enduring nearly three decades of lies and cover-ups wasn’t enough, the families of the victims of Hillsborough now have in their midst a would-be MP who in my opinion is using the disaster for political gain."
"Paul Nuttall’s admission that he did not actually lose “close personal friends” in the tragedy, despite these words being on his website for six years, comes after he signed nomination forms at an address in Stoke he’d apparently never been to."
Come on Paul sorry, but its been on your website for years and you didn't know, really? Either way that's inexcusable.

Well I did say he was a liability......

Now we have party officials resigning while Nuttall and Banks go to ground and try to figure out how they get themselves out of the mess they have created.
"Two UKIP branch officials have resigned from the party, claiming leader Paul Nuttall and donor Arron Banks showed "crass insensitivity" about the Hillsborough disaster."
"Mr Nuttall said last week he was "sorry" over false claims that he had lost close friends in the 1989 tragedy."
"Mr Banks later tweeted he was "sick to death" of hearing about Hillsborough."
"Mr Monkham added that he "felt that supporting a libertarian party was the right thing to do in order to effect change within the political system in this country".
"Unfortunately that dream has been shattered and the potential of UKIP has been squandered by people who have demonstrated they are not fit to lead at present."
"Mr Nuttall, who is an MEP for northwest England, is a candidate in the Stoke Central by-election, which is being held on Thursday."

Tipped by the bookies as in a position to win the byelection I think you may have blown it Paul but we shall wait and see, theres nowt stranger than voters.


Thursday, 16 February 2017

The Diane Abbott portrait Meme True but Misleading

OK Totally agree MPs shouldn't waste tax payers money, but it wasn't just Abbott was it. Eh?

Lets deal with the whole story as this just looks like a clumsy UKIP attempt to bash one party after their liability of a leader Paul Nuttall shot himself in the foot over Hillsborough.... Bring back Nigel lol

Anyway the Evening Standard broke a story ...

MPs spend £250,000 of public money on vanity portraits

Basically since 1995 (over 20 years ago) money has been spent on portraits and statues of MPs of all political parties.

So lets break it down into a simplified list, here's a selection of the main ones.

  • John Bercow spent £22,000 on a painting and another £15,000 on a frame.
  • £11,750 portrait of former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett
  • Diane Abbott £11,750 
  • £10,000 portrait of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, 
  • £8,000 painting of Kenneth Clarke 
  • £4,000 oil painting of William Hague. 
  • Tony Benn £2,000
  • Dennis Skinner £2,180
  • Sir John Major bronze bust by Anne Curry, costing £6,000
  • Tony Blair cost unknown
  • Margaret Thatcher statue £11,750.
  • Charles Kennedy cost unknown
  • Betty Boothroyd has been feature three times, in a £1,500 portrait in 1997, an £8,000 portrait in 1999 and a £9,000 bronze bust in 2000
  • Lord Ashdown, £2,000
  • Sir Menzies Campbell £10,346.
  • Michael (now Lord) Howard painting which cost £9,400

I'm sure the money could have been better spent but to make it look like one party is to blame is an obvious poor attempt to get the focus of attention away from Nuttall's crass blunder. Actually blunder doesn't cover it, monumental crass fcuk up is better.

The truth is always better than fiction.

Friday, 16 December 2016

Brexit trade deal could take 10 years

In my opinion it will be 20 years before we've finished dealing with Brexit fallout.  The UKs ambassador thinks it could take 10 years to get a trade deal sorted out. Theresa May however hasn't got a clue and successfully answers every question that wasn't asked and avoids the one that was asked.

Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador.

"Mayhem" (Theresa May) yet again successfully avoids answering the very clear and succinct question put to her. 



Tuesday, 13 December 2016

Was the Falkands War Thatchers Gamble

Whilst I take absolutely nothing away from British forces and their amazing undertaking to recapture the Falkland Islands. I still think it was nothing more than a gamble by Margaret Thatcher to secure another term as prime minister. 

At the time she was one of the most unpopular prime ministers ever and was heading for a massive defeat there were four major things that happened.

  1. The British ignored things that the Argentinian's were saying in the UN or hints that they were making about military action.
  2. John Nott withdrew the Endeavor which was the support ship for the Falklands.
  3. The British government brought in the British nationality act of 1981 which replaced the full British citizenship of Falkland islanders with the more limited version.
  4. Intelligence had been received that the Argentinian's might attempt something and Thatcher was advised to dispatch a small military force, but refused to do so.
All these things lead the Argentinians to believe that Britain would not fight for the Falklands.

My only assumption of this, knowing that she was a very intelligent lady, was that she knew exactly what she was doing. She led Britain into a war to secure her Premiership, as we know she went from being the most unpopular p.m. to be in the most popular after the war.

In retrospect in 1976 James Callaghan had sent a small military Force to the South Atlantic when Argentina landed 50 men on an unoccupied southern thule which belong to the South sandwich Islands. Possibly heading off a previous invasion, who knows.

We also have to take into account that the government had tried on two separate occasions to negotiate the Falklands away but had been thwarted by the islanders.

I actually had a very small conversation with Sandy Woodward who was Rear Admiral of the task group, he was a member of the Sailing Club i was also member of. One of the few things he did say was that it was very close at times, could have been a different story.

The Falklands War - The Untold Story

The Falklands Movie
(Funny the similarities between thatchers predicament and Galtieri)

Someone with a similar opinion to mine

Monday, 28 November 2016

When a Girl give you a false number

OK strange coincidences involving this one, so i shall explain....

Id been out for a few beers with mates from the bike club, I left just before them and when i woke up in the morning had the following text.

I thought who the hell rents a house for the night, so thinking it was one of my mates trying to wind me up just replied Ha Ha.... but it continued... 

My comments are in blue.

 So It continues and i get the text below, still thinking its my mates trying a gay windup, I decided to play along and see where it leads.

I'm thinking damn this is a pretty good wind up didn't think they had it in em (Sorry guys lol)

So i replied

OK they are not giving up easily I think, so I continue. I think OK this'll flush them out ill say I was given a password see what they say to that :-)

But it continued 

I'm still thinking this is damn good, but they've made one or two mistakes the biggest being all my posts have my picture on them. What i failed to realise is the guy on the other end cant see my picture (which i removed from the posts along with my phone number when editing this)

So now I'm not sure, I'm 90% certain that some guy has been given a false number by a girl, which by random chance just happened to be mine. But just in case its one of my mates being really clever, I carry on the gay windup... 

Guy must have been having kittens :-) 

At which point I'm creased up  :-)
So i replied....

Sunday, 27 November 2016

The NHS held a boatrace speech ~ Tony Benn

Just in case anyone thinks he might not of actually said the above here is the actual speech from House of Commons archives.  The comment in the meme above Ive made bold in the speech below.  Strangely its a speech that could be being made in the House to this day.  Ive also emboldened another comment below in in the speech which is really interesting in highlighting the Tories long term goal with regard to the NHS.

The main goal of the Tories at present is to convince the general public that the NHS is unsustainable and unfortunately people are falling for it.

The NHS held a boat race speech ~ Tony Benn 22 November 1995 22 Nov 1995 : Column 697 5.35 pm

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): I was elected 45 years ago next week in succession to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have heard many Chancellors of the Exchequer since, some of them eminently forgettable. I think that we may have heard another.

One thing that has not impressed people over the years is the selective use of statistics and selective quotations. People are not entirely and solely economic animals with a Treasury mode of thinking. Even if tonight, as he will, the Chancellor carries a majority in the House, he has not carried the British public on the policies that he has pursued. That is not only because of the so-called competence or incompetence of the Government; it is because the objectives of the Government are not shared by the generality of the British people.

My hon. Friends and I have put down an amendment to the humble Address, which though not called--I cannot complain about that--it is in order for me to read into the record. It states:

"But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech made no reference to the injustice and suffering caused by policies based upon the supremacy of market forces in the United Kingdom and world-wide, which have had the effect of elevating profit above the satisfaction of human need, widening the gap between rich and poor, causing mass unemployment and homelessness, starving industry of the investment it requires, harming the public utilities and the social infrastructure, eroding the Welfare State and universal benefits, neglecting essential public services in health and education, denying adequate pensions necessary for retired people, diminishing local authority and trade union rights, producing widespread personal insecurity and fear, creating social tensions and increasing the risk of conflict, encouraging the spread of racialism and intolerance, inflicting damage on the environment, undermining the democratic process and civil liberties and spreading disillusionment, pessimism and cynicism, all of which are features of global capitalism; and calls for the adoption of modern, democratic and socialist policies designed to secure the full use of all Britain's human and physical resources, and their fair distribution, for the benefit of the nation as a whole."

It is by their objectives that Governments are judged. During wartime, victory is the only test. Nobody talks about inflation in wartime, only of defeating the enemy-- killing the enemy. When I was first elected--and I am proud of it--the objectives that I have read out were widely shared by both sides of the House. After all, Winston Churchill had been an old Liberal. He had himself nationalised British Petroleum when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. He introduced the Sunday shopping rule and the wages councils. Since 1950, the centre of British politics has altered radically to the right.

We see the consequences in the opinion polls. I do not have a great deal of time for opinion polling. I have no time for political images. The image that I have is the one that I use to shave in the mornings. I cannot change it. However, the Chancellor would be foolish to believe that one can run a society on the basis that profit is more important than human factors.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the House in June after the Halifax summit, said:

"is not the central issue the revolution in the globalisation of the financial and currency markets, which now wield massive speculative power over Governments of all countries and have the capacity seriously to disrupt economic progress?"--[Official Report, 19 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 23.]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no real control over what should happen in Britain because he has to satisfy the international markets that his policies will not interfere with their objective of the maximisation of profit. That is the function of a Chancellor of the Exchequer and if, by any chance, we were foolish enough to adopt a single currency, so that his job moved to Frankfurt, not only would those factors determine British policy, as they now do, and what we are allowed to do, but the power of the law would be in the Frankfurt bank rather than in the Treasury. I, and people whom I meet when I go round the country, ask ourselves what the real cause of the problem is. Is it an incompetent and unfair Government? That is an easy thing for an Opposition Member to say. I believe, however, that there is something much deeper. If the House is in disrepute at the moment, it is not just because of sleaze and all the arguments, but because we in the House do not address the central questions that have to be addressed if we are to provide a decent society.

Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: I do not intend to be provocative. I hope to be thoughtful, and not to say anything that will bring a Conservative Member to his feet with a quotation that he might think will embarrass me. That is not the sort of speech I want to make.

Mr. Carrington: I was not going to quote.

Mr. Benn: I do not want to give way at the moment.

The county of Derbyshire, which I have the honour, in part, to represent, needs £100 million for school repairs. Derbyshire, like all local authorities, has been strangled by the Government. Local democracy--this matters to Conservative as well as to Labour councillors--has been absolutely strangled. In the 19th century, long before the Labour party was formed, Joe Chamberlain in Birmingham introduced municipal housing, municipal hospitals, municipal water, municipal gas and municipal museums. When I was an RAF trainee, I learned to fly at the Birmingham municipal airport. That was the heyday of local government, which has been absolutely destroyed by the Government's policies.

Let us look at health. I and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) are the last remaining Members who sat in the House when Anuerin Bevan was Minister of Health. Anyone who looks at what we were able to start in 1948, when we were bankrupt after the war, will see that there was absolutely free health care when we needed it. It has never, of course, been a free health service. It was free when we needed it, but we paid for it when we were well. That health service has been utterly destroyed. The increases in prescription charges have been so high that prescription charges can even exceed the cost of the drugs if bought in a chemist's shop without a prescription--if that is possible. There are long waiting lists and services are being privatised.

I expect that the House has heard of the little document, which is circulating, about the boat race between the NHS and a Japanese crew. Both sides tried hard to do well, but the Japanese won by a mile. The NHS was very discouraged and set up a consultancy. The consultancy came to the conclusion that the Japanese had eight people rowing and one steering, whereas the NHS had eight people steering and one rowing. The NHS appointed people to look at the problem and decided to reorganise the structure of the team so that there were three steering managers, three assistant steering managers and a director of steering services, and an incentive was offered to the rower to row harder. When the NHS lost a second race, it laid off the rower for poor performance and sold the boat. It gave the money it got from selling the boat to provide higher than average pay awards for the director of steering services.

That is what is happening all over the place. There is masses of bureaucracy in the health service and a denial of what people need.

The people who will have to pay for all this are the people for whom the welfare state was devised. I have been searching for the origins of the Secretary of State for Social Security's new proposals for dealing with welfare. I found them because, after 30 years, Government papers are published. The stationery office has just put on a CD-ROM all the papers for 1964. I give the Chancellor this quotation from his colleague. This is the Conservative Chief Whip, Martin Redmayne, sending a minute to the Prime Minister on 19 June 1964. The Conservative Chief Whip said:

"The first essentials are to accept that the benefits of the Welfare State should not be universally received and secondly, the insurance principle, which is already eroded, is not sacrosanct. In this connection I would like to see all above a certain income level excluded from benefits."

The Conservative Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home, wrote in his own hand--I have a photocopy of this:

"Beveridge was very costly. Would another inquiry be as bad or if we win, should we not impose our own scheme?" It was only the defeat of the Conservatives in 1964 that prevented the welfare state from being dismantled then. It is now the present Government's intention to dismantle it. We then come to the arguments that are put forward when people say that things are unfair and when they protest. One argument is, "You have no rights without responsibilities." That is a very popular phrase nowadays. I looked at the origin of that phrase and found that those very words are in the Brezhnev constitution in the Soviet Union in 1977. An authoritarian system is being introduced, through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and so on, which aims to repress the dissent against policies that are manifestly unfair.

The Chancellor questioned us--that was fair enough-- on what the Opposition would do in power. As a candidate, taxation is not an issue that has ever embarrassed me. There are two questions about taxation that ought to be asked: "What is it for?" and, "Who pays for it?" If we tax old-age pensioners by imposing VAT on their fuel to buy a Trident, that is wrong. If we tax people who are better off to fund a proper health service, that is right. The Chancellor, who is a member of the Government, has given 50 billion quid away to the richest 10 per cent. Every family of four--I had the figures broken down for me by the House of Commons Library-- spends 40 quid a week on weapons, 40 quid a week paying for unemployment, which is a deliberate policy, 40 quid a week on law and order, much of it caused by mass unemployment, and 20 quid a week on the common agricultural policy.

The Government should not tell us that money is not available for the things that need to be done. Of course it is available, but it involves recasting the priorities to bring the nation's resources fully into use. That should be the objective of government. The Government should see that there is no waste of human resources when so much has to be done. In wartime, as I mentioned, market forces did not prevail. The weapons were provided by the Government. If we could have full employment to kill people, why can we not have full employment now? Why cannot we use unemployed building workers to build the houses that we need? Why cannot we recruit the nurses and teachers we need? Why cannot we have the people who are needed to look after the old? Why not? Because it is not profitable. The core of the Chancellor's argument is that profitability should be the test of everything that we do. I utterly reject that. The Government use the word "customers". Someone who does not have any money is not a customer and that is why the Government have invented this use of the word "customer". The homeless in cardboard boxes are not customers because they cannot afford a house, so they can be disregarded.

The Government talk about competitiveness as if everything was competitive. Most things that matter in life are not profitable. Schools are not profitable, hospitals are not profitable, the police are not profitable, the Army is not profitable and the Chancellor is not profitable, but the nation knows that it requires those services to survive. We must get on--I do not say get back--to the position where the employment of all people is a national objective. The health of the nation is a national objective and we should ensure that we develop policies for that purpose.

I know that I speak at a time when left-wing views are supposed to be out of date. My own assessment is simple. It is not just socialism that market forces have attempted to destroy, but Parliament, democracy and the social fabric. The House should not think that the situation will remain like that. We need only look at the defeat of Lech Walesa, or what has happened in Russia. Look at the defeat of the right-wing leader of the German SPD. The people are now gaining a new perception of what they want in the 21st century. They want fairness, and they want to use the resources of their own countries for the benefit of their own people for the short span during which we live on the earth.

Debates of that character would be more interesting and relevant to people outside than what passes for an exchange of management expertise. We in this House are not, dare I say it, managers. We are representatives. Who represents the unemployed? Who represents the old who have been denied a pension related to average income? Who represents the kids who cannot get work when they leave school? Who represents the women who get married and cannot get a home? Who represents the people waiting for hip operations? They look to us to represent them in Parliament.

I am proud to be in a party with a strong trade union base because those trade unions, having won the vote, knew they needed to have representation for working people in Parliament. The reason I am a dedicated socialist, and get more so, is that I know that any party that adheres to a market economy or profit as its prime objective will never solve the problems that confront my constituents.

Although the Chancellor had fun in his speech, and I am sure that he felt that he had done well, the country cannot be run by disregarding human need and putting the almighty pound, dollar, deutschmark or ecu above people. Debates in the House about the economy should relate more to people and less to what we heard from the Chancellor today.

Links and Sources