MPs ask Coffey why she is hiding nine secret DWP reports – Disability News Service


MPs have asked the work and pensions secretary to justify her refusal to release nine potentially embarrassing reports about her department’s work, at least four of which focus on disabled claimant…

============================================

Transparency, honesty, accountability and trust should be there in every aspect of public organisation governess, but the opposites non-transparency, dishonesty, unaccountability and distrust are usually evident in many instances.

This is so proving the case in respect of the DWP and certainly, it appears, with the Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey MP.

This is all on top of the spectacle of ‘Partygate‘,  so it appears many elements of this Government are unwilling to abide by the concepts of transparency, honesty, accountability and trust and many within the UK feel this will never change.

The ‘House‘ needs to ensure that change will occur and be sustained, but will it, for no previous UK Government has abided by these concepts to any large extent, if at all, irrespective of which Party formed the Government.

Is it that ‘power’ corrupts or were there leanings to corruption to start with.

But this is not just confined to the UK and many would say that the degree of corruption is much more evident in some other countries than the UK, but that should not be seen as good for everyone deserves better. The ‘House’ should be doing all it can to ‘cleanse’ itself, rather than spending so much time doing the opposite.

So, I support Stephen Timms MP, chair of the Commons work and pensions committee and his colleagues and also the DNS.

Source: MPs ask Coffey why she is hiding nine secret DWP reports – Disability News Service

GPs criticise “appalling” decision to extend Capita’s primary care contract | The BMJ


NHS England and Improvement (NHSEI) has extended Capita’s Primary Care Support England (PSCE) contract for an additional three years, in a move worth £94m.1The announcement, made by the outsourcing company, means Capita will continue to provide digital, logistical, and support services for all of NHS England’s primary care practitioners (GPs, dentists, opticians, and pharmacists) until 31 August 2025.In the announcement, Capita said it has made a number of improvements since it took over the contract in 2015, including “standardising primary care processes nationally and launching the PCSE Online platform.” Additionally, it said it has “developed strong relationships with NHSEI and other stakeholders to enhance the PCSE service.”

Capita’s public service chief executive Al Murray said the contract …

============================================

I am not at all surprised that GPs are applaud that Capita have retained this contract, as the process of awarding contracts needs to be drastically and urgently looked at.

I assume this was done through some form of the ‘tender’ process, which is mainly a paper exercise, where prior knowledge is not considered. in reality all information should be considered. However, it is a somewhat open process as all decisions made can be challenged by the organisations being considered, so if there needs to be evidence on how decisions are being made, to include non-evidenced opinions can’t be allowed.

What needs to be practiced more is accountability and transparency, so that past history can be included where there is factual evidence available. But, in many instances there is no real factual evidence just an assessors opinion from non-proved incidents. So, when poor practice is brought to notice, these all need to be investigated and the evidence forthcoming used as evidence in the tender process.

But, in my experience very few incidents of poor practice are investigated or when they are not fully investigated. While not proved are the holding organisation, especially public bodies, such as the DWP, part of the poor practice as much public opinion believes, especially in benefit assessments.

This leads to distrust of all organisations involved and when distrust arises it is extremely difficult to overcome, so in all instances there needs to be openness, honesty and above all transparency, a lot of which is not evident in this and many other systems and processes.

 

 

Source: GPs criticise “appalling” decision to extend Capita’s primary care contract | The BMJ

Rishi Sunak says he is the victim of a ‘smear’ campaign


Politically damaging leaks and questions over his wife’s non-domicile tax status follow public spending battle

============================================

So, Rishi is saying there is a smear campaign, but is it for the non-dom with respects to Akshata Murty is true as is the Green Card of Rishi and there is the evidence that both of them did decide to keep them. While the green Card was not avoiding tax, but causing more tax to be paid by Rushi, but with Akshata Murty there is tax avoidance, or do we believe she had no intension to remain in the UK.

What should be there and I believe it is not, is transparency, honesty and accountability, which should be there for everyone in Public Office.

But then we have a Prime Minister who apparently, as he says, he thought he was attending business meetings, so he is not aware what a party is or he attends some very peculiarly business meetings.

Source: Rishi Sunak says he is the victim of a ‘smear’ campaign

Labour press ‘in hiding’ – no confirmation whether Coyle’s membership suspended or just whip – SKWAWKBOX


Party press office not answering phones as awareness of right-winger’s suspension after racism allegations.  Labour’s press office has battened down the hatches and is ignoring its phones

==============================================

Seems hiding is not the prerogative of only one party, so much for honesty and transparency, UK politics at its worst.

But, perhaps one party is worst than the others or is there more to come

 

Source: Labour press ‘in hiding’ – no confirmation whether Coyle’s membership suspended or just whip – SKWAWKBOX

Advertising watchdog launches investigation into Universal Credit adverts


The DWP are continually stating that these new benefits are better than the old ones, but where is the proof.

There are many stories where the new benefits appear not to be good, be they ESA (Employment & Support Allowance), PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and now UC (Universal Credit), ranging from the assessment processes and then the beginning of payments.

We are told that the majority of claimants are OK with the new benefits, but how is this known for are they going to come forward and state this, but maybe when things go wrong the claimants may object.

However, do all the claimants advise when they are not happy, but just put up with it.
In my experience in dealing with Local Authorities many who are not happy do not complain for numerous reasons, they cannot be bothered, do not know how to, think it will be a waste of time, perhaps do not have the time, some will feel they will be treated worse if they complain and many other reasons.

So just looking at the percentage who come forward to state they are not happy is not an accurate record. But unfortunately, it is the only record or the only record that is recognised.

Now do we have to assume Governments and Government departments are always telling the truth, when it has been proved that there are instances when they are not.

Quite a few of the population are fearful of Authorities and will therefore never complain.
What we need to do is work from the premise that things will go wrong and not that they will not.
People are treated like ‘cattle’, where what is done for one will be done for everyone, but people are different and maybe different from one day to another and in many instances different through the day and night.

Systems need to be based on ‘person-centred’ principles and not on ‘institutional’ principles, but it is easier for systems to be based on the latter, rather than the former and maybe more cost effective.

But to make systems equal for all the person-centred principle needs to be costed into the process, that is, if these authorities even understand, or are willing to understand the principle of person-centred.

Systems should not be there for the sole basis of the respective organisations but for all, now that will be true ‘equality’ and not just some play on words.
People have ‘rights, ‘human rights’ and should be respected.

How four seriously ill people battled to get their PIP awards


The DWP is practising the ‘3 Wise Monkeys’ here is what ‘A DWP spokesperson said: ” We are committed to ensuring that people with a health condition or disability get the support they’re entitled to.

“Since PIP was introduced there have been 3.7 million decisions made and of these only 5% have been overturned at appeal. “In most successful appeals, decisions are overturned because people have submitted more oral or written evidence.” ‘

The evidence is there, as shown in this article and they have the audacity to say the above.

This is why I state they are practising the ‘3 Wise Monkeys’ for they are “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.

They are not understanding what is occurring or what is occurring because of them and by them, until they do these atrocities will still happening. The pain suffering and even death of some claimants will still be resulting.

The DWP have to change, so that a supporting welfare system can emerge, for currently it is not supporting for everyone who needs to be supported.

What the DWP is doing should be a crime and those at the DWP and also the DWP would be guilty of committing criminal acts, as it is, currently, not so, then there needs to be accountability, where there is honesty, openness and transparency.

Why Kavanaugh should not be confirmed


If Kavanaugh’s nomination is successful then justice, truth and honesty is failing in the US.

Phil Ebersole's Blog

Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh is a political hack who should not have received the Court of Appeals appointment he has, and should have been rejected by the Senate committee as a nominee for Supreme Court without calling Christine Blasey Ford to testify,

He got his start helping special prosecutor Ken Starr investigate Bill Clinton, was part of the legal team that challenged the voter recount in Florida in 2000 and then worked for White House Special Counsel Alberto Gonzalez in the George W. Bush administration.

There are questions as to whether he was involved in discussions of warrantless surveillance, warrantless detentions and torture, and George W. Bush’s sweeping assertions of presidential authority in signing statements. Kavanaugh has said these issues weren’t part of his job, while the Trump administration has held back on releasing the documentary record of Kavanaugh’s service.

What Kavanaugh thinks about these questions goes to the heart…

View original post 438 more words

Trump Even Inherited His Father’s Self-Made Myth – Bloomberg


The estate the future president was referring to was the lucrative collection of housing and commercial properties his father Fred had assembled over decades, making the Trump family wealthy. Based on reporting I had done for a biography, “TrumpNation,” it was my understanding that Trump had turned to his siblings for a pair of loans totaling $30 million so he could avoid plunging into personal bankruptcy in the early 1990s.

Trump’s siblings doubted their brother could repay them because his collection of condominium buildings, casinos, hotels and other assorted properties was collapsing under the weight of billions of dollars in bank loans he couldn’t repay. So they made him pledge his future share of his father’s estate as collateral and loaned him the money. Trump gave me his “word” that none of that had happened, but I wrote about it anyway. When he later unsuccessfully sued me for libel he was forced to acknowledge under oath during the litigation that he had, indeed, borrowed from his family.

“We would have literally closed down,” a former Trump Organization employee with direct knowledge of Trump’s attempts to keep his company and himself afloat told me in 2005. “The key would have been in the door and there would have been no more Donald Trump. The family saved him.”

It wasn’t really the entire family that saved Trump, of course. It was Fred, the man who held the purse strings. And the president, who is 72, has spent about five decades pretending not only that his father never rescued him from bankruptcy but that he played a minimal role in his business successes.

“It has not been easy for me,” Trump said in 2015 during the presidential race. “My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.”

As I noted in a column in 2016, Trump was lying when he said that — allowing him to also gloss over how central his father was to his career.

When Trump entered the Manhattan real estate business in the mid-1970s, Fred cosigned bank loans for tens of millions of dollars, making it possible for Trump to develop early projects like the Grand Hyatt hotel. When he targeted Atlantic City’s casino market, Fred loaned him about $7.5 million to get started. When he floundered there in the ’90s, Fred sent a lawyer into a Trump casino to buy $3.5 million in chips so his son could use the funds for a bond payment and avoid filing for corporate bankruptcy. There are many other examples like these.

 

Source: Trump Even Inherited His Father’s Self-Made Myth – Bloomberg