Rishi Sunak should seek new Brexit deal with EU, says Tony Blair think tank | The Independent

PM urged to consider UK alignment with parts of single market



The 2016 EU referendum was a once in a lifetime action as was the Scottish independence referendum, so as there should be no talk of Scottish independence, there should be no talk of joining the EU in any form.

The Blair thinktank is and always will be for the EU and is Blair.

When Blair was Prime Minister he never once consulted the UK population on how to conduct talks with the EU and he blindly went his own way and signed the UK further and further into the EU without any UK population mandate.

That was not democracy then and will not be now for with the EU there is no way for close alignment on trade without much closer alignment with the EU in many other ways. One being giving UK soverenty away to the EU and being a puppet state of the EU, not being in charge of how the UK conducts any of its business, joining the Euro, British army given to the EU, no tax independence and much more.

The UK 2016 EU referendum was about UK freedom from constraints from the EU and we should not go back to being controlled by the EU.

Re freedom of movement, yes lets have it but on UK terms not EU terms, so in reality immigration from the EU to the UK will be the same as any other country. I wish a boarder relaxation, but on our terms, for the UK needs the right immigration policy to sustain UK growth, which we currently don’t have, as it is currently too restrictive. Many areas of UK workforce are short of applicants and Non-UK applications are desperently needed. Social care, agriculture and hospitality to name just 3, but there are many more.

Realistic salaries need to be offered in these areas, much more than currently being offered, especially in Social Care, which should be, at least in the region of £14/15 per hour rate. If this is not achieved in social care and much more, then we can say goodbye to the NHS, which is another areas dependent on non-UK immigration.

We need to do what is best for the UK and not what is best for Blair.


Source: Rishi Sunak should seek new Brexit deal with EU, says Tony Blair think tank | The Independent

King Charles III

Firstly, I would wish to be clear, while not being an out and out Royalist, I am certainly not a Republicanist, for the last thing I would wish to see in the UK is a President, not when in recent times we could have had President Blair to President Johnson and especially after the fiasco in America with President Trump.

Having the 2 House of Parliament, being the Commons and Lords, while again not really ideal, perhaps it is the best we can wish for, with tghe Monarchy being a figure head, but no more.

I was so sorry for the death of Queen Elizabeth II after 70 years, nearly as long as my own life span. But to haved King Charles III to follow her, is not what I wish for.

Charles by his actions over the years, should have lost the right to be King as his moral behaviours make him or should do, ineligible for the position of Monarch and also to be the Defender of the Faith.

His true love was and was always to be Camilla and it was so wrong of the Queen and Royal protocol to stop him following his heart and to marrying year in his youth. For him to then be allowed to court and marry Diana was also wrong for in his heart he was always with Camilla, which events have proved. Diana was brought in for one purpose only and that was to provide a heir to the throne, which she did with William and even a spare with Harry. Unfortunately, even though the Court PR was good, it was never to be that a long lasting marriage between Charles and Diana was to be, no matter how much the public wish for it to be. The eventual tragic death of Diana was also something which should have never occurred and, even though investigation have been done, there are still way too many unanswered questions about the, so called, accident in Paris. The secrecy of the Government, Secret Services and even the Royal establishment will never be fully known.

We were promised that Camilla would never be Queen, well, so much for promises for they are as believed as any Government promise, never to be achieved.

William will be a much better King than Charles will ever be.

I feel Charles should do the decent thing and forgo this opportunity to be Monarch and pass it over to William.

GPs given record pay rises in Covid pandemic

Wages hit a ‘difficult to justify’ level of £142,000 as patients were turned away from surgeries


While I don’t begrudge the GPs their wage rise, they are only one part of the NHS, so why not similar rises for all NHS workers, for without the other workers GPs wouldn’t be in the position they are.

No one section of the NHS should be dealt with in isloation, but where one section gets a good pay rise, that rise should be considtent throughout the NHS. For it is team work and all parts of the team are just as important and necessary as all the other parts.


Source: GPs given record pay rises in Covid pandemic

Odds stacked against it: how social care struggles to compete with supermarkets on pay | The King’s Fund

Pay is a key reason for the social care workforce crisis, says Simon Bottery. Nearly 400,000 careworkers would be financially better off working in supermarkets.


This articles states the state of how it is for care workers, especially on pay compared to supermarkets a hospital support workers. Pay for care workers is one of the major reasons why there is a distinct shortage of care workers in the UK. This leads to lack of capacity in social care, so many persons in need of social care are unable to receive it, thereby causing many health inequalities, thus causing more impact on the NHS, with conscequences of increasing the crisis in the NHS. This is due to more persons needing access to the NHS due to insufficiencies of social care and so hospital admission are increasing. However, the lack of social care is also affecting discharges, as where a patient will need home care of temporary care home access, there is an insufficiency, hence the discharge is delayed, thereby causing ‘bed blocking’. This then means A&E can’t move patients to wards due to beds unavailable, which in turn means ambulances can’t move patients in ambulances into A&E due to no A&E being full. This then means there is a shortages of ambulances to take new patients to hospitals causing ambulance staff and patients at home great concern that the required help is being considerably delayed, causing not only the distress to patients, but further increasing deteriorations to their health and in a number of instances their deaths.

In all of this the blame is put on hospitals, A&E and ambulances, when the real blame on on non-listening and inactive Governments, being the current and all past Governments.

Put the accountability where it should be on the Government and the respective Government Ministers.

Duty of care is exceedingly important and hospitals, A&E and ambulances are doing all they can and maybe more, but this Government and all previous Governments have not taken on board their own Duty of Care, thus creating many safeguarding concerns which have to be dealt wit, even though there is the insufficiency of funding,, but safeguarding is a main priority and is first for funding. So, the lack of funding resources is being further depleated due to Government inaction and apparent non-concern.

Austerity cuts from 2010 are a major reason why Local authirities are not able to fund social care as it needs to be, which this and previous Government made the austerity cuts and will not reverse them, which is needed immediately and much more.

The deaths related to COVID were monitored, where is the monitoring of deaths from lack of social care, whic h will be far greater than from COVID.

This is abuse of Government power and a dereliction of human rights.

Source: Odds stacked against it: how social care struggles to compete with supermarkets on pay | The King’s Fund

Cost of living crisis: the UK needs to raise taxes not cut them – here’s why

Why tax cuts are unlikely to help Britain address its current crises.


Tax cuts or increases, that is the question and not one to really answer, for when looked it is a generalisation and not one directed at certain communities.

In the UK there is much more of the population which is regarded as poor and on low incomes than there are the, so called, rich.

So a tax cut means more in the ability to spend for the poor, i.e. those poor who pay taxes as opposed to the poor whose income is below the taxation starting point.

While tax increases make the poor so much worse off, than the rich, especially if the tax brackets are not increasing in line with inflation, which they have not been, in fact for a few years they have been frozen, which effectively bring more people into taxation.

Ideally, taxes for the rich should increase, while for the poor they should reduced. Also, inline with all this welfare benefits should aways be increased yearly and, at least, inline with inflation.

It is so wrong that the poor get poorer, while the rich get richer, it should be that all get richer, with the poor increasing quicker than the rich, there in doing so the gap between the poor and rich be reducing, whereas, it currently is increasing.

Salaries for so many in the UK are far too low, especially in care and this needs to change so much so that even low salaries are more than sufficient to live on, thereby reducing the need to claim some benefits to reduce the gap to enable reasonable living.


Source: Cost of living crisis: the UK needs to raise taxes not cut them – here’s why

Thérèse Coffey says she wouldn’t publish reports exploring impact of welfare reform | The National

A MINISTER in the UK Government has been accused of deliberately attempting to hide the impact of wide-ranging welfare reforms by concealing a…


The Work and Pension Secretary Thérèse Coffey, MP one of the most useless Ministers in the Boris Johnson Tory Government, for she is totally inept and lacking any knowledge, only thing she is good at is supporting Boris Johnson, so another wrong decision in a catalogue of many.

Lets hope she will no longer be any Minister when either Truss or Sunak become Prime Minister and that whoever becomes DWP Minister will be better, but that won’t be difficult from the low base set by Coffey.

Source: Thérèse Coffey says she wouldn’t publish reports exploring impact of welfare reform | The National

Gordon Brown says energy firms unable to offer lower bills should be temporarily re-nationalised | Gordon Brown | The Guardian

Former PM calls for energy price cap to be scrapped and new lower prices renegotiated by government


Much is being discussed, but not together and while many appear to be offering solutions, they are not necessarily part of the decision process.

Yes, a reasonable pay increase needs to be instigated, not just for rail workers, but for most workers in the UK.

In many of the industries there is a severe lack of investment, which is nothing new in the UK and was certainly true when many of the industries in question were nationalised industries. At that time strikes were also taking place for many of the same reasons as of today.

Granted in nationalised industries there are no recognised shareholders, but, in effect the real shareholder of any nationalised industry is the Government, supposedly on behalf of the population of the UK. But in a nationalised industry is all the supposed money created above the costs of running the industry, including workers’ salaries ploughed back to the industry to create more necessary investments. I fear not as I believe much of that money is given to the Government to use at it sees fit.

Nationalisation is not the great panacea it is made to be, as technically the NHS is a national industry, so, if, it is why is there so much crisis, well for one, it is said lack of required investment, poor wages, now where have I heard that before, yes, the industries where there are now strikes or probability of strikes.

So lets look at rail in the UK. When they were started to be formed in 1825, each area of the UK had their own rail system and these were private companies. It was not until 1948 that they were nationalised and during the 50, and 60s I used the rail system extensively for holidays as my father worked for British Railways so our train travel throughout the UK and France was free, even the shipping from Dover and Folkestone to Calais and Boulogne. I found the UK trains were extremely dirty, hardly ever on time and the rolling stock on, especially the old midland line to London and other places and the food was a joke, especially the British Railways ‘sandwich’

. With privatisation in 1994-1997 came, much needed, investments, not only in train rolling stock, but also Rail Stations, rail track and signaling. Individual companies were formed to run the trains and other areas was formed. Rail Track for the rail infrastructure, the signaling and track and also some rail stations. But with a number of rail crashes including Hatfield, and the company going into administration, in 2002 it was renationalised to form Network Rail, but the are still problems even though it is a supposed nationalised industry.

So, in reality whether an industry is privately owned or nationalised there will be problems, it just seems that nationalised is better than private  due to lack of seen shareholders, but, in effect, it is how it is run and that is not dependent it being nationalised or private, but the people running it and other factors, mainly Government interference.

Source: Gordon Brown says energy firms unable to offer lower bills should be temporarily re-nationalised | Gordon Brown | The Guardian

Why live-in care staff are at high risk of modern slavery – Community Care

By Dr Caroline Emberson Over the past 18 months, I have been collaborating with other researchers to investigate the vulnerability of paid, migrant, live-in care workers in London to modern slavery. Most live-in care workers in the UK are migrants, and a high proportion travel to and from their home countries between client placements. Understanding […]



Many believe that slavery was abolished in the late 18th and early 19th century,  and in effect that concept was, but slavery is still around. Now it is known a modern slavery,  and is more common than people would expect.

Modern slavery includes but are not limited to:

sexual exploitation
domestic servitude
forced labour
criminal exploitation
other forms of exploitation: organ removal; forced begging; forced benefit fraud; forced marriage and illegal adoption.

In the UK there is the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but persons affected by Modern Slavery are trafficked, so it is essential that everybody associated with areas where Modern Slavery could be need to ensure all aspects are monitored to minimise modern slavery being there.

Even when the legitimate employments are known there are no or very little employment rights and this needs addressing, with a register of every known employment and employee being included. But, even then more needs to be done, more inspections with a sufficiently resourced team of investigators. Each employee needs to be reassured that their rights will be respected and this means if there are terminations for any reasons, then other suitable employments need to be found and their immigration status will not be affected.

Local Authorities need to be fully finance to undertake these responsibilities and the Government and Ministers need to be made accountable and transparent in the dealings with these employments and combatting Modern Slavery.


Source: Why live-in care staff are at high risk of modern slavery – Community Care

The Brexit predictions that came true, those that didn’t—and what we didn’t see coming | The BMJ

A lot as and is being said about Brexit, some true and some not so true.

What es known is that whether the UK stayed in the EU or not changes would have to occur to one degree or another, as nothing stays still.

If we had stayed in the  EU is well known that there would be much more political union to an extent that it would become a United Stares of Europe with more and more decisions being imposed on Member countries by the European Commission, maybe that to all intensive purposes that the Member countries could cease to exist in respect of decision making in most instances.

No one in the UK agreed to any political union, except the Government of the day and especially one Prime Minister Tony Blair, who made these decisions without referring to the |UK population through a National Referendum by a direct question, only through General Elections on a lengthy Election manifesto, which included many points.

Only in 1975 and 2016 were there referendums 1975 for whether we stayed in the EEC no mention of the EU and political union and 2016 on whether we left or stayed in the EU by a simple majority. 1975 result was to stay in the EEC, but eventually it was changed through Blair and the European commission to the EU and 2016 to leave the EU. How to leave was decided by the then Tory Governments and the Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

With the NHS and social care, it was decided that doctors and nurses could still come to the UK as long as they qualified to do so and in most instances the salary requirement would be met. However, re care workers due to the abysmal pay rates the salary requirements would never be met, unless care workers were made a special case, which was promised but never materialised.

So Brexit and lack of commitment of the Tory Government meant social care was not committed to, which is not surprising for no Government to date has made the commitment to social care that is needed, hence not only the lack of care workers, but the required financing of social care.

So blaming Brexit, totally, is wrong as many Governments have to shoulder the blame to differing degrees.


Source: The Brexit predictions that came true, those that didn’t—and what we didn’t see coming | The BMJ

Sally Ann Hart says disabled people should be paid less as ‘they don’t understand money’ | Metro News

A horrified audience loudly shouted ‘shameful’ as Sally-Ann Hart spoke about people with learning disabilities.


This is blatant discrimination and Sally-Ann Hart should be taken to task about it and it should not be ignored. Yes, plenty is being said, but are any actions being taken against Sally-Ann under the Equality Act 2010 and, if, not why not.

Blanket judgements are wrong in all respects, as why does not understanding money have anything to do with how much a person is paid for a task done. Surely the payment should relate to the task and not the person. Also, there are many people who don’t understand money and they will not have learning disabilities or autism so, should they also be paid less, well according to Sally Ann, maybe so, but she would never say that.

Picking on persons with LD and autism is so, wrong and could be that this is an indication of her views on disability, for which she should be prosecuted for, in making that statement.



Source: Sally Ann Hart says disabled people should be paid less as ‘they don’t understand money’ | Metro News