‘Funny tinge’ Blairite who defected to Lib Dems demands £22,000 when she loses her seat – Nye Bevan News


“I cannot underestimate my horror in finding in the latest guidance these payments are only available if you stand in the same ‘seat’ – The implications of this are terrifying.”

“As you can imagine being an MP for a considerable amount of time these payments provided some comfort in the event of losing on election day.”

“Given I had no option but to move to another party and then no option but to move to a vacant candidacy, I honestly consider I am being discriminated against,” Smith claimed she had to run in a different seat because the Lib Dems had already selected a MP candidate in Penistone.

HER DECISION TO LEAVE LABOUR AND JOIN THE LIB DEMS WAS HER OWN.

She continued: “To be honest it is terrifying me and cannot say loud enough that I feel aggrieved that after serving our country for last 14 1/2 years I could lose everything because of this rule that if implemented would cost me around £22,000 in loss of Office Payment and 2 months net pay.”

 

Source: ‘Funny tinge’ Blairite who defected to Lib Dems demands £22,000 when she loses her seat – Nye Bevan News

Swinson sells out Remainers as Farage set to announce non aggression pact with BoJo to fight Labour in Leave seats – Nye Bevan News


Breaking: “Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party is due to make an announcement tomorrow at 11am. They are expected to announce an informal non aggression pact with the Tories under Boris Johnson to fight for Brexit in Leave voting seats.

This marks a change from threatening to stand a candidate in all 650 UK constituencies. 

The deposits alone eat up £300,000 and given local spending rules to compete in each seat the average permissible spend is £10,000 per seat so that is £6 million. On top of that parties can spend up to 3 times that nationally.

 

Source: Swinson sells out Remainers as Farage set to announce non aggression pact with BoJo to fight Labour in Leave seats – Nye Bevan News

The three questions that will decide the next general election | Jonathan Freedland | Opinion | The Guardian


When answers are in short supply, sometimes the best we can do is try to ask the right questions. Some of those dive into legal and constitutional arcana, as experts try to work out how Boris Johnson can climb out of the hole he has spent this last week digging ever deeper for himself. Now that the opposition parties have refused to accede to his cunning plan for an October election, and will next week see passed into law their demand that he seek an extension of Britain’s EU membership, he’s left with a series of unpalatable alternatives – from breaking the law to resignation to tabling a motion of no confidence in himself.

Still, even if it’s later rather than sooner, polling day is coming. So here goes with the three questions that will decide the next election and, with it, the fate of Brexit.

First, when? Given the procedural chicanery and willingness to trash established convention we’ve witnessed these last few days, nothing is certain, despite today’s move to block a poll before 1 November. What’s at stake here is the context in which the election will take place. Johnson’s preference has always been to face the voters before the exit deadline, lest he be cast as having failed in his “do or die” mission to leave by 31 October. This is the prize the opposition has agreed to deny him, forcing him, they hope, to confront the electorate in November as a failure, guilty of either treachery or incompetence. Their hope is that Johnson’s inability to take Britain out of the EU will pump new air into the Brexit party balloon, thereby splitting the leave vote that Johnson had bet everything on uniting around himself.

 

Source: The three questions that will decide the next general election | Jonathan Freedland | Opinion | The Guardian

Chris Smith: People Want the Advertising Standards Authority to Act on Political Claims


I agree with most of this post, however, in my 60 odd years of life on this earth I have found that there are not many politicians in who you can believe in, be they red, blue, green, purple, orange, yellow and others. However, there are some in which there is some form of belief and others practically none. They all promise the earth and unfound riches in their manifestos and only when they assume power can the truths be revealed.

You cast your vote and hope for the best.

Regarding Brexit nothing has come forth as we have not Brexited and will not be doing so until March 2019 or may be not, depending on whether there will be a transition deal or not.

Everything is so up in the air and no one on either side in the UK or Europe can be sure of the final outcome. We can all speculate on what the outcome or outcomes will or can be and who will be in power if and when we do or not do Brexit.

That length of string is getting longer or is it shorter, day by day.

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

This is another fascinating little video from RT’s Going Underground. Host Afshin Rattansi talks to the former cabinet minister under Blair, Chris Smith, above his decision to oppose the Invasion of Iraq, his work in the Advertising Standards Authority, and Brexit.

Smith was Blair’s Culture Secretary, and the author of a book, Creative Britain. The cover showed him wielding a professional movie/TV camera. He states he opposed the Iraq invasion because it was ‘obviously the wrong the policy’. He also states that during his time with the Advertising Standards Authority, people wrote in asking them if they could possibly act against the misleading political advertising in elections. Smith states that this is sadly impossible. Their constitution limits them to commercial advertising only, and they have no power to prosecute or punishment politicians that lie.

On the subject of Brexit, he and Rattansi clearly hold different views. Smith appears…

View original post 947 more words

Books on the Criminal Psychology of Tony Blair


Blair was never a moderate and he certainly is not now, he was only interested in himself and his surge for power and he has not changed. Whether he was like this from the start, I can not say, but that is where he came to.

As for Trump, he is there from the start and no one knows what he will do next, perhaps, even himself.

We have been and still are in very worrying times.

Yon made reference to Dr David Kelly taking his own life, but did he, for we only have the word and reports from the establishment and they can and do alter facts and reports as they see fit. This is seen from the evidence produced by Blair re the weapons of mass destruction, they are all lies, lies and more lies, or is it Fake News as Trump states all the time. His news is fake and what he refers to as fake is correct news.

The world is a complete mess and I have not even mentioned Putin for he is a completely separate chapter.

If the prisons were full of corrupt leaders then there would be no room for the ordinary criminal.

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Looking through the politics section of one of the secondhand bookshops in Cheltenham the other day, I also found two books arguing that Tony Blair was malign and psychologically unfit for office. One was by the Old Labour MP, Leo Abse, the other by the founder of the SDP and now Lib Dem, Dr David Owen. Abse’s book, the Politics of Perversion, used psychoanalytic theory to argue that Blair had the ruthless psychology of a clinical pervert. Owen’s book, the Hubris of Power, argued that Bush and Blair had spent so long in power, that they had become arrogant, believing they could get away with anything, no matter how unjust or despicable.

I only casually flicked through them, but just looking at Blair’s single-minded promotion of the Iraq Invasion, which in turn involved peddling lies, deceit and the persecution of dissenting officials – to the point where one…

View original post 634 more words

NHS Privatisation: Cuts to My Local Health Centre


The current

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

NHS SOS pic

Visiting our local health centre the other day, my parents, along with the other local people enrolled there, were handed a letter, explaining that due to funding cuts the health centre was having to cut back on services. It also advised its patients that if they wanted to raise their concerns about the restriction in their service they could contact:-

1. NHS England at FAO Linda Prosser, Director of Assurance and Delivery, NHS England South West (BNSSG), 4th floor Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX
2. your local MP who is Karin Smyth at the House of Commons, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA
3. Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health, via his website http://www.jeremyhunt.org

Unfortunately, this is happening to the NHS and GPs’ services all the country. It is no accident, and it is certainly not the fault of the many dedicated doctors, nurses and other health professionals working in…

View original post 617 more words

Private Eye on the Coalition’s Attempt to Make Prosecutions for Industrial Accident More Difficult


Is this Justice?

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

Private Eye ran this piece in their issue for 3rd – 16th May 2013. I’m fairly certain Mike over at Vox Political also covered it at the time, so its might be worth going over to his blog and looking at through the posts for that time for more information.

Insult to Injury

David Cameron won applause from the Daily Mail in January last year when he promised “to kill the health and safety culture”. Move on to Spring 2013, and we can see what his pledge means: the coalition is to slash compensation payments to injured employees and the families of dead workers, which have existed since the 19th century.

In a sly manoeuvre, the Tories and Liberal Democrats waited until their Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill had passed the scrutiny of a Commons committee, the slipped in a clause to make it harder for injured men and widowed…

View original post 428 more words

Utopia


Jewellery Tax

On seeing the DM headline I double checked the date to see if it was 1 April, as only a fool would now vote Lib Dem. They wrongly assume that only the rich have such assets. What about the people who have worked all their life on a modest income and instead of spending any surplus income on frivolities, spent it on items to enhance their home and themselves, such as, good quality furniture and fittings and good quality fashion accessories. Then in retirement they have all they need for a comfortable life together with a reasonable pension and their home is now mortgage free.

Then comes the Lib Dems and brings these retired persons into a wealth tax bracket, they forget,  that they will not just be taxing the rich, but those who have invested for their retirement.

Why not go to full on Utopia, or would it be Dystopia, but is that a matter of opinion.

Now how could this be achieved, a welfare state could be created.  In the UK this started in 1906-1914, with the Liberal Welfare Reforms, which introduced:

  1.   Old-Age Pensions Act in 1908,
  2. the introduction of free school meals in 1909,
  3. the 1909 Labour Exchanges Act,
  4. the Development Act 1909, which heralded greater Government intervention in economic development
  5. the National Insurance Act 1911 setting up a national insurance contribution for unemployment and health benefits from work.
  6. then in 1942 came the Beveridge Report       

The Beveridge Report was the means by which the Labour government endeavoured to expand the welfare state.

Beveridge was opposed to “means-tested” benefits. His proposal was for a flat rate contribution rate for everyone and a flat rate benefit for everyone. Means-testing was intended to play a tiny part because it created high marginal tax rates for the poor (the “poverty trap“).

One of the main sections of the Beveridge Report was the National Health Service Act of 1946, which created the NHS, a free at point of provision for health care for all UK residents,which was implemented in 1948.

Another was the expanding of National Insurance to provide for the costs related to the various benefits created by the enacting of the Beveridge Report.

The idea being that those persons in employment would pay contributions to the state, in the form of National Insurance contributions and Income Tax, by way of PAYE for employed persons and payments paid direct to HMRC for self employed persons.

When there is a high ratio of persons employed or self employed persons to persons unemployed, the money collected to pay for the benefits to all persons will be more than likely sufficient to meet all costs required.  Where there is a high rate of unemployment, or the ratio of persons who would not normally be employed (children and retired) is considerably higher than those in employment, the costs may not be covered. Any shortfall in the costs would need to be either covered by government borrowing, the criteria for benefits be adjusted accordingly or taxation introduced into new areas.

This brings me back to the start of this article and the Lib Dems thought of introducing a Jewellery Tax.

But is there another option?

Instead of a percentage of any income paid to the government, in the form of National Insurance contributions and the various forms of taxation, why not all income be paid to the government. Then, in the form of an allowance, a proportion of this is then paid out to every legal resident of the country.

This would mean no one would need to apply for benefits, because everyone would be given their appropriate allowance. This means there would be no one who could be claiming any benefits to which they were not deemed to be entitled and so this would ensure there were no longer any, so called, ‘benefit scroungers’.  It would also solve the situation regarding illegal immigrants, as no one would receive an allowance until they were legally registered as a UK resident. It would solve benefit fraud.

To administer this system every person, as soon as they are born would need to be registered, as would anyone coming to the UK to legally reside, they could then be issued with an Allowance Card, similar to the various plastic cards already around today, for use as credit, debit or other cards.

All persons deemed to be eligible for work would be allocated a job, in line with their abilities, so therefore no one would be without a form of employment, so the benefit ‘Job Seekers Allowance‘ would no longer be required. There would be some people who are deemed unable to work, due to them having some form of disability, here people with disabilities would be assessed, using health based criteria  and be given a dispensation from the requirement to work. this would require their allowance to be increased accordingly to ensure their additional needs , due to their disability, could be met, so the various disability benefits would no longer be required.

A reason to live, yes or no?

Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and others, which, if any, can be trusted


David Cameron pushing for ethnic votes

From this article and the comments it would appear the Tories are trusted less than Labour and the Lib Dems do not get a mention.

 When will we all view all parties by the same yard stick. All elected representatives are politicians and none can be trusted, How anyone can possibly trust Labour after so many years of rule by President Elect Tony Blair, sorry I was believing his rhetoric, I mean Mr Tony Blair. Can anyone tell me one truth he as uttered?
 
My party views 
 
Conservative   I expect nothing from this party and this is what I get, but feel they care for the country, as it is in their and their supporters interests for the UK to be successful.
Labour  I expect this party to look after my interests, due to my Working Class background, but I get nothing from them.  They are too concerned for their own outlook, see Mr TB.
Lib Dems and others  Are any worth any mention?
So, do I support a party I expect to get nothing from and do not or a party I expect to get something from, but do not.
The choice is mine.

JOIN THE DEBATE: Students shun Sheffield MP Clegg’s apology – News – The Star


JOIN THE DEBATE: Students shun Sheffield MP Clegg’s apology – News – The Star.

I agree the apology is too little too late.

Re the fees, however, I was under the impression that the so called loan paid the tuition fees.  This “debt” was retained by the student until they finished their course and was then repaid from the salary they received from future employment.  I also believe that no repayment is required until they earn over £21000, this being the current figure. The repayment is then calculated on any amount over £21000 at a rate of 9%, Say they start earning £22000 then the repayment is 9% of £1000.  The repayment period being 30 years or retirement, which ever is sooner. Currently, based on the rate of 9% only students who eventually earn £38000 would ever repay their total debt.

In effect debt is the wrong word, as debt implies that it is a requirement to be repaid.  With the current student loan to pay fees, this is not the case, as  the loan repayment requirement finishes at 30 years or retirement, any amount not repaid is written off.

However, this does not alter the fact that Nick Clegg broke his pledge on fees and a some what apology after all this time is way too little and too late.

He is just perpetuating the thought that MP’s can not be believed in what they say and their ability to make promises and pledges is non-existent.