Paul's Point of View UK

Government Transparency

2012-04-05T11:02:00.001-07:00

So, with the publication of the First Tier Tribunals decision relating to the NHS risk register (which you can read here), are the Government going to live up to the expectations of the nation and finally release it for scrutiny? Or is this 'transparency' only limited to what the Government want people to see?

The tribunal’s decision clearly states 'The Appellant is required to disclose the Transitional Risk Register to the Second Respondent, with the name of the author of the document redacted, within 30 days of the date of this decision.' The decision was dated 5th April 2012, so in theory, the Government must produce the risk register by 10th May 2012 at the latest. The big question is, will they?

It is my opinion that, should the Government fail to produce the transitional risk register by the stipulated date, then all their posturing about transparency will be proved meaningless, and David Cameron will again be proved to be a liar. The Government cannot be selectively transparent, they either are transparent, or they are not. I further believe that, should the Government fail to act upon this legal requirement to produce the risk register, they will be displaying contempt for the people of this country and placing themselves above the law. This is a position normally associated with tyrannical dictatorships and it has no place in the democracy of the UK.

Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pasty

2012-04-01T02:22:00.001-07:00

You would think that putting someone in charge of the country’s economy, they would be a financial genius with qualifications on economics literally bursting out of their ears. Unfortunately, this is not the case with George Osborne; his best educational achievement is a BA in modern history - hardly of help when juggling the biggest bank account in the country. Perhaps this is the problem, George Osborne is NOT a 'Wonga Wizard' of Merlinesque proportions he is more like a poor quality sideshow act that uses sleight of hand to pick your pocket.

Image credit: M Holland under licence.

The economy needs to grow, there is no argument on this - growth expands businesses small and large creating jobs, reducing unemployment (duh, don't need to be an economist to figure that one out!) and generally improving the country’s economic outlook as a whole. Yet George Osborne is doing nothing to stimulate growth, this simple common sense approach has eluded the man in charge of the purse strings. There is only one way to increase growth, people like you and me, ordinary Joe public, need to spend money. How has the Chancellor decided this can be achieved? - By reducing the spending power of everyone on low to middle incomes, i.e., the majority of people in this country. The result is that businesses are contracting or going bankrupt, increasing unemployment at alarming rates, turning high streets into barren wastelands where banks and budget shops become the only ones able to sustain a presence.

I'm no economist, I wouldn't even describe myself as being particularly mathematically gifted, but even I can see how to achieve growth. Cut VAT and reduce the burden of revenue achieved from fuel duty. These two things affect people on low to middle incomes more than those on high incomes, again, you don't have to be a mathematical savant to figure it out - a higher proportion of a low earners income is taken through indirect taxation like VAT than from higher earners. Now, Georgie Porgie would argue that this will result in a reduction of revenue for the Government, but I argue that this would be offset by higher spending (maintaining the income levels from VAT), encouraging businesses to expand and therefore increasing the income from direct taxation (what they steal from your wage packet) as jobs are created and reducing the benefits bill because all those new workers will no longer be in receipt of unemployment payments. Even local authorities will benefit from this course of action as housing and council tax benefits bills will be reduced.

Again, with a reduction in fuel duty, the Chancellor will argue that it will result in a reduction of overall revenue for the Government. But would it? I cannot speak for everyone, but I do know that I would increase the amount of fuel I would use if it cost less. At the moment I just use my car for necessities, not for pleasure. Probably the same for most people on tight household budgets. A reduction would filter down through everything though, deliveries to retailers would be cheaper, ergo, food would be cheaper, clothes would be cheaper, even household utilities would be cheaper (provided the privatised utility companies didn't look upon this as a windfall income). More disposable income means more spending on things that are not needed just to exist - hey, look, the economy has started a recovery and the Government have maintained their income levels!

For all their education, the Government are still incredibly stupid, they lack common sense. Common sense says that if people have more money to spend, that is exactly what they will do, spend! Common sense says that if they spend more, businesses will earn more and need new staff to cover their increased production. Common sense says that if the unemployed become employed, the benefits bill will be reduced. Common sense says that common sense has eluded the historian in charge of the UK finances!

Another New Page!

2012-03-28T13:13:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to draw your attention to the latest page added to this blog - Lies. I get the distinct impression that this could become an overwhelming page to maintain, but I will have a go. Should anyone reading this know of any conservative lies that are not listed, please feel free to leave a comment and I will add them once I have checked the details.

The Victimisation Continues....

2012-03-23T15:03:00.000-07:00

The disabled members of our society have been targetted with the introduction of the Welfare Reform Bill. People without private health insurance have been targetted with the advent of the Health and Social Care Bill. Anyone who has the audacity to be poor in this enlightened society, has been targetted with the Legal Aid Reform Bill. And pensioners, they get special treatment by having their pensions cut with a simplification of the system presented in the Chancellors budget. If you happen to work, but for low wages or part time, you have also been targetted and will soon feel it in your wallet. And as for those revolting peasants who indulge in procreation, it's their own fault, they should have kept it in their trousers. So, if you are disabled, ill, old, have children or are poor you have a responsibility to make the rich richer and ensure that future generations of Bankers get to have big bonuses just like their predecessors.

It's not over yet though, George Osbourne has stated that the welfare bill has to be reduced further. He might be following a monetary policy that is leading to mass redundancies, diminishing the prospect of new jobs being created, increasing unemployment, but it is not his fault the welfare bill is increasing. It is the fault of all those nasty people who have the nerve to demand a pittance to live on when they lose their jobs, those awful old people who expect to stop working when they get to pensionable age and claim back money they have paid in as national insurance contributions for their entire working life or those terrible people who have the nerve to get ill or become disabled. They are the ones to blame, not poor old George. He has enough responsibilities on his shoulders trying to find ways to reduce the burden on all those poor rich people - do you have any idea how much it costs to send children to private schools and go jetting off for holidays several times a year or maintain a million pound plus mansion? It's no wonder the rich are feeling so hard done by! Sounds daft doesn't it? The joke is on us though because that is exactly how it is in the UK right now.

Unfortunately for me, I am stuffed! I am old, ill, disabled, a parent AND poor. I need to make plans for the future, decide what days I go without food just so I can ensure my children can continue to eat, decide which days my wife goes without food so we can continue to ensure the children can get to school and have uniforms to wear. These are some of the problems with being responsible parents and wanting things to be better for our children. There are many, many more problems and few solutions, but as a leper in this society, I surely deserve all the punishment that is being piled upon me by this Government we are, after all, in this together.

Never Voted in my Life!

2012-03-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

As the title says, I have never voted in my life, not for national OR local elections. The reasoning behind this was simple; I believed that ALL politicians were self-serving and as bad as each other. Then I developed disabilities, both physical and mental, and I started paying more attention to politicians and the policies they were making that would affect me personally. Over the course of the last few months, it has dawned on me that my reasoning for not voting was flawed to a degree, and that it did not take account of politicians who were worse than the rest. As such, I am now prepared, for the first time in my life, to vote.

With my disappointment over the Welfare Reform Bill, continued disappointment with the Health and Social Care Bill and future disappointment (?) of the Legal Aid Reform Bill something has been made abundantly clear. There are political parties that are destined never to receive my vote due to the huge amount of distrust they have instilled into me with their incessant vilification of disabled people, manipulation of figures to draw favourable headlines from the national press, surreptitious attempts to introduce privatisation where it is not wanted and the diminishing of my right to seek legal counsel when people abuse the system to my disadvantage. I cannot justify voting for a political party that would seek to deny me the small dignity of not being assumed a liar, of being denied medical care because it is not profitable or being less deserving in the eyes of the law simply because of my financial circumstances.

So, I now accept that I cannot vote for the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, for they are the very parties that are conspiring to deny me the rights that my parents enjoyed and that I spent a lifetime working for on the assumption that I would be entitled to them as well. I imagine the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are now shaking in their respective Gucci shoes and designer wellingtons knowing this. However, I have power now as I wave my single vote in the air and contemplate who to bestow the privilege on of being the first to ever receive it.

To my mind, there are three other options available to me - the Labour party and their steel toe capped working boots, the Green party and their ozone friendly sandals or UKIP and their bare feet (because they haven't decided what pair of shoes to put on). From my perspective, the most important objective for the future is to remove the coalition Government from power so, from a purely tactical point of view, the only real alternative is Labour. I don't readily identify myself as a Labour voter though, having been white collar most of my life, which is a problem - being apolitical for so long is going to prove to be a headache when it comes to granting the power contained in my single vote.

Who is going to convince me to part with my vote first?

How to Divide and Conquer - Maria Miller

2012-03-10T05:08:00.002-08:00

'The clear objective of the government is helping disabled people to live more independent lives', says Maria Miller. These might be the public objectives, but the reality is different.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/about-dwp/ministers/
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

Maria Miller has worked in marketing with the Grey Group, so it comes as no great surprise that she has a talent for media planning and manipulation. In her role as Minister for the Disabled she has used this expertise to build a support platform for the future. The most current example of this involves DRUK. Disability Rights UK (DRUK), made up from Disability Alliance, RADAR and the National Centre for Independent Living, looks set to become the new mouthpiece for Maria Miller and, in the process, a 'super charity' that no longer truly represents disabled people. The case in point is Remploy, whose objective is to provide employment opportunities for disabled people. On the face of it, this would appear the perfect example of how the Government is providing help for 'disabled people to live more independent lives', yet the funding for this project has been withdrawn. The result is that factories have to close, disabled people no longer have employment and are being thrown on the scrap pile created by Government misrepresentation. This has come about due to recomendations in a report written for the Government by Liz Sayce, formerly chief executive of RADAR and now chief executive of DRUK. Maria Miller has been accused by campaigners of fuelling hate crime by using misleading figures and disparaging statements about benefits claimants, and now she is going hand in hand with DRUK, they have suddenly become extremely secretive. Failing to provide a copy of Maria Millers speech when she recently spoke at DRUK's launch of its 'Guidance on Hate Crimes' seems, to me, to be overly suspicious - a public relations coup that has been passed up. It seems that DRUK is following the example set by Maria Miller. No doubt, at some point in the future, DRUK will be cited as a disabled charity that has been consulted and whole heartedly supports whatever policies Maria Miller cares to come up with. She can now claim support where none exists, and we already know how good this Government is at massaging figures to suit there own ends, so the press are likely to be given the impression that ALL disabled people support the closure of Remploy factories when the opposite is true!

A Much Needed Laugh!

2012-03-07T11:08:00.002-08:00

Most of the topics I have blogged about are heavy going, so I thought a laugh was in order. Hope you enjoy!

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the motorway. Nothing is moving. Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, “What’s going on?”

“Terrorists down the road have kidnapped David Cameron, Andrew Lansley, and Nick Clegg. They’re asking for a £10 million ransom. Otherwise they’re going to douse them with petrol and set them on fire. We’re going from car to car, taking up a collection.”

The driver asks, “How much is everyone giving, on average?”

“Most people are giving about a gallon.”

While walking down the street one day David Cameron is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

‘Welcome to heaven,’ says St. Peter. ‘Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.’

‘No problem, just let me in, ‘says David Cameron.

‘Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we’ll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity’.

‘Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,’ says David Cameron.

‘I’m sorry, but we have our rules.’

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises….

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

‘Now it’s time to visit heaven.’

So, 24 hours pass with David Cameron joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

‘Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity’.

David Cameron reflects for a minute, then he answers: ‘Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell. So, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage.

He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. ‘I don’t understand, ‘stammers David Cameron. Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.

What happened? ‘

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, ‘ Yesterday we were campaigning.. …

Today you voted.’

When we were an empire we were ruled by an emperor, when we were a kingdom we were ruled by a king. Now we’re just a country we’re ruled by David Cameron.

How Many Truths Can You Spot?

2012-03-05T13:32:00.000-08:00

Watch this video of David Cameron, see how many truthful statements you can find.

Andrew Lansley faces fresh protests during visit to hospital

2012-03-05T13:06:00.000-08:00

This despicable Government are just too stupid to see that they have got thing wrong on a colossol scale. They made promises to get into power, and now they break those promises with impunity. Always harping on about how they have to make tough decisions, misrepresenting facts, using smoke screens and illusion to distract people so they do not know what is going on in reality.

For example, with the Welfare Reform Bill (which they forced through in an undemocratic manner), they focused the nations attention on people receiving benefits. Making them out to all be a scourge on our society, vile scum who abused the system. Now, I don't doubt there are people who are milking the system, there always has been, there always will be, but the vast majority are not. They bandied about the £26,000 benefit cap and made it appear that most benefit claimants were well above this, when in fact it was a very small minority, and only because their rentals were so high. The press had a field day, printing what they were told, accepting figures provided by the Government without wondering if they were true. And, with all this to distract the nation, the Welfare Reform Bill was passed. Now the things they did not want highlighted are coming to the attention of the nation. But it is too late, things like the changes to working tax credits that are going to place thousands of families in the position of being better off on benefits are now being implemented. The Government have had countless years to hone the skills of their propaganda machine, and all seems to be running smoothly.

Andrew Lansley has conducted a stage managed visit to a hospital, and the press were not invited. You can read more about it here:

Andrew Lansley faces fresh protests during visit to hospital as campaigners vow to 'fight to the end' over NHS reforms

Yet another Bill that is ill conceived and most definately not in the interest of the British public; but most assuredly is in the interest of the donors to the Conservative party. David Cameron harps on about having more transparency in Government and giving more power to the people. When they people try to access this transparency, such as with the risk register for the NHS reforms, they try to stop the people from being given the information. Could this be because their lies are going to be exposed? The truth behind their manipulation of the British public is going to come to light sooner or later, the more they try to hide it, the more mistrust they will breed and the more determined people will become to know the truth! Like the Doctor in the video below, eventually the truth will catch up with them, then they WILL have to answer the questions they so easily avoid for the present.

There is a whole raft of legislation they are trying to push through which disadvantages ordinary men, women and children (need I mention Legal Aid?). Some time soon, people will start dying as a direct result of this Government and their grand plans and I can all but guarantee they will not be the wealthy 1% or friends of the Conservative party, but ordinary people like you and me.

Can You Trust Andrew Lansley With the NHS?

2012-03-02T02:51:00.000-08:00

The short answer is no! Andrew Lansley, Secretary of State for Health, composer of the Health and Social Care Bill cannot be trusted with the NHS. Why? Because he has a conflict of interest when it comes to the NHS. The General Principles of Conduct for MP's state:

Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties (Parliamentary Codes of Conduct).

It is widely known that Andrew Lansley accepted a donation of £21,000 from John Nash, the chairman of private healthcare provider Care UK and founder of the private equity fund Sovereign Capital, which owns several other private healthcare companies, to help fund his private office whilst shadow health minister. For unknown reasons, attention is not drawn to this fact. Furthermore, his wife, Sarah Low, is the managing director of Low Associates. Among their many clients are pharmaceutical companies SmithKline Beecham, Unilever and Procter & Gamble. Strangely, these companies are no longer shown on the Low Associates website.

Surely this represents a massive conflict of interest and raises doubts about the integrity of Andrew Lansley? Are these companies not the very people who stand to make money out of this Health Bill?

But what of the Conservative Party itself? Well, it appears that they also have strange bedfellows when it comes to the Health Bill. Lord Michael Ashcroft, who has donated over £5m to the Conservative Party over the past ten years, by chance, happens to be a key investor in Impellam Group. Among the many things that Impellam Group control is Medacs Healthcare which provides temporary staffing solutions to healthcare providers. Well, I cannot speak for everyone, but this again looks remakably like a major conflict of interest. Is this not another company that will benefit heavily should this Health Bill be passed?

And the Liberal Democrats are not exactly coming up smelling of roses either. Alpha Healthcare have made donations to the Liberal Democrat Party since 2004 to the tune of £540,000.

When all this is considered together, it certainly call into question the motivations behind the Health Bill and whether it is about improving patient care or just lining the pockets of those that provide funds to political parties. It certainly does nothing to inspire trust in politicians.

Secondary School Selection Process.

2012-03-01T09:26:00.000-08:00

My eldest daughter has got to this stage in her education. We live a long way from the first choice school (actually, it was the only choice we had due to a strange set of circumstances). I envisioned us being declined and having an allocation at a totally inappropriate school, then to go through the appeals process like we had to with my youngest daughter.

I intended to write a lengthy article about the criteria used to allocate spaces, and provide regular updates on how we were progressing with our appeal citing the respective laws we were using to strengthen our position. Bugger me if she didn't just go and get accepted on her own merits! She is over the moon, I am proud of her, but this article has fizzled out. Oh well, have to think of something else now!

Bailiff Industry Under the Spotlight!

2012-02-29T09:54:00.001-08:00

Ever had problems with the Bailiff Industry (I use that term loosely)? Bailiffs act on behalf of courts to collect for debts that have been judged, such as a county court judgements (CCJ). If you have not been taken to court, then they are just debt collecters who have NO POWERS! Even if you have been taken to court, there are still options available to you. For instance, it is possible to get the Bailiff action suspended. Where the bailiff is acting on behalf of the county court you will need to fill in a special form N245 - Application to Suspend the Warrant. This form can be obtained directly from your local county court or downloaded from the Courts Service website at www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk.

But not every Bailiff is reputable, and it is those who do not follow the correct process that need to be reined in and made accountable for their misrepresentations and flagrant abuse of the law. It is these few that give Bailiffs a bad name (not saying that a Vulture that profits from other peoples misfortune is a good name of course). As the list of complaints has grown, and the self regulation has failed, the Government has finally decided to act. The guidelines that Bailiffs currently act under are to be reviewed and regulation of the industry is to become law, including things such as what fees can be charged by Bailiffs. The Government are currently having a consultation on this very subject which can be found at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-bailiff-action

If you have had problems in the past (or not), have your say to try and let this Government get something right for a change!

The Government's Workfare Schemes: 10 Facts

2012-02-26T07:39:00.000-08:00

This has been copied from http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/news_details.php?id=231 and has been reproduced here with the permission of the author, Phil Shiner.

PIL acts for a number of individuals, including Cait Reilly, who are challenging the Government’s “Back to Work” schemes in the High Court. Intensive press coverage and the Government’s attempts to salvage this programme from its current crisis have led to a skewing of the facts. The following may therefore be helpful.Our clients do not object to work or to work experience.

Cait Reilly was doing voluntary work experience in a museum when she was sent to Poundland. Our clients, like the vast majority of jobseekers, are desperate to find paid work of any description, including stacking shelves. The term “job snobs” is therefore a misleading and offensive buzz word being used by the Government to discredit Britain’s 2.6 million unemployed. What our clients say they need is support from the Government to make the most of their skills and plug their skills gaps, in order to ensure that they not only enter the job market, but stay there.
The Government is not “paying them... through benefits” to work, as the Deputy Prime Minister has claimed today. Jobseekers allowance ranges from £53.45 to £67.50 per week. It is paid for one specific (and obvious) purpose – to support people whilst they seek employment. It is not remuneration for work, and even if it were it would mean that people on Back to Work schemes would be getting paid as little as £1.78 per hour, often whilst working for some of our biggest retailers. Many of those retailers are now realising that such a scenario is unacceptable and have either pulled out of the schemes or demanded that the Government thinks again.
People are not being given a choice. Ministers claim that work under these schemes is not forced but voluntary. This is not correct. The Community Action Programme, Work Programme and Mandatory Work Activity Scheme (the clue is in the name) are mandatory, and jobseekers will lose their jobseeker’s allowance if they do not participate. The Government says the sector-based work academy and work experience schemes are voluntarily, but Cait Reilly was told in no uncertain terms that her participation was “mandatory”.
The schemes do not work. Ministers claim the schemes help people into employment. Yet, the international research the Government commissioned before introducing them gave it two very clear answers:

“There is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and by failing to provide the skills and experience valued by employers”;

and

“Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.”

The schemes do not target benefits scroungers or “the something for nothing generation”: the Government’s internal guidance makes clear that such people who are taking advantage of the system are not eligible for the schemes. They must receive the appropriate sanction of removal of their jobseeker’s allowance as they are not “jobseeking”.
These legal challenges are not simply about “human rights”. What our clients object to is 1) the forced or compulsory nature of the work required, and 2) that Parliament has been by-passed by the Government in creating these schemes. They argue that this breaches basic democratic and legal requirements.
The Government schemes do not amount to slave labour, as some campaigners have suggested. The ILO’s Forced Labour Convention of 1930 defines slavery as connoting “ownership” over an individual. What our clients are arguing is that the Government schemes are “forced or compulsory” labour. This too is prohibited under UK civil and criminal law.
These schemes are not all aimed at the long-term unemployed. For example, the sector-based work academy can apply to any jobseeker, even if he or she has only been unemployed for one day.
Press attention has focused on the sector-based work academy, but that is only one of a plethora of complex schemes, many of which are much worse. The sector-based work academy involves 6-8 weeks of unpaid work. Other schemes involve six months, and there appears to be nothing to stop those six-month periods from being renewed. One of our clients was told that his Community Action Programme placement would last six months “to begin with”.
The Government’s sums do not add up. The Employment Minister has stated that “half” or “something like half” of those on work experience have received permanent jobs. He has not advanced any evidence to support this, and Tesco has offered only 300 jobs having taken on 1400 unpaid workers.

2012-02-24T05:38:00.000-08:00

Drop The Bill

Increase the pressure on Ca-Moron to drop the Health and Social Care Bill by signing this letter :

http://www.labour.org.uk/wheresmydebate

2012-02-23T05:14:00.001-08:00

How Arrogant is this Man?

David Cameron has had his little 'tete a tete' with his chosen health professionals, the ones who advocated change to the Health and Social Care Bill as opposed to those who didn't have any support for it. Sadly (for David Cameron), some of those at the meeting have now changed their stance, and have called for the scrapping of the bill completely.

Picture Source http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/official-pic-474.jpg

Licence Source http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

And still he wants to push this bill through!

The puppet, Nick Clegg, has finally said something too. He has claimed that if he, as a Liberal, felt this bill in any way paved the way for privatisation of the NHS, he would have withdrawn support a long time ago. I sincerely doubt the puppet could find his own butt without help from David Cameron, so these words are hardly re-assuring.

As an update, the petition against this bill is now at 158, 919 signatures and still growing. If you want to sign, it can be found here:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22670

You can also read an article about Prime Ministers Question Time on this very subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/feb/22/camerons-quips-fail-lift-blues

2012-02-21T12:31:00.000-08:00

We Need a Change

OK, here is the scenario, there has been a general election and no single party has achieved enough to take control and a coalition government is formed (sound familiar?). It transpires that the Prime Minister of this coalition, despite all the re-assuring words and promises used before the election, is so sure of his own superiority, that he will do his utmost to destroy the country whilst pouting and saying it is for the best. And, like a petulant child, he will ignore public opinion, experts, his coalition partners and his own government, digging his heels in and saying he is right - even when he is wrong!

Yes, you have guessed, I am talking about the Right Dishonourable David Ca-Moron. We are stuck with him! As it stands at the moment, there are only two ways to get a government removed before its term is completed.

1. Trust in MP's to do the honourable thing, you know, put the people of this country before their own self interest, and call a vote of no confidence themselves. Probably not going to happen.

2. Do the Guy Fawkes thing again. I have to be honest though, the whole Tower of London, beheading issue does act as a fairly strong deterrent on this one. So, probably not going to happen either.

There is a third option, but I discounted that as it involved foreign countries and invasion of the UK. Mind you, with the state of the immigration control in this country, maybe I should reconsider this possibility!

And this is where the change is needed, the people of this country need to have provision within the law to force a vote of no confidence and get governments which are inept removed before they do too much damage.

2012-02-21T02:55:00.000-08:00

The Loonies are out of the Asylum........

....and trying to influence the government. One of the more ludicrous suggestions has come from 'The Social Market Foundation'. They are described as a 'think tank', although it appears thinking is not one of their greatest attributes. They have put forward an idea that pensioners should be denied a free bus pass thus saving the government £1bn. The reason given is that providing bus passes adds 'nothing to the economy'.

Photo source http://www.flickr.com/photos/pikerslanefarm/2539101940/

Under CC Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en_GB

Well, these pensioners have spent fifty years or so 'adding' to the economy, some have fought for their country. Is this any way to express our gratitude? Is this how we demonstrate what an enlightened society we live in? Of course not! Let us hope the government do not embrace this ridiculous idea.

2012-02-19T23:57:00.000-08:00

What has Happened to Nick Clegg?

When it comes to the Health and Social Care Bill, the deputy PM has been suspiciously quiet. Perhaps he has tired himself out 'beating the drum for the youth contract' or perhaps this is the first sign of dissent within the coalition (well, we can all have our little fantasies).

The above image is licenced under creative commons http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en and the original image can be found at http://flickr.com/photos/15237218@N00/5433522907

2012-02-18T00:50:00.000-08:00

The Health and Social Care Bill Farce Continues

David Cameron is to convene a meeting of healthcare professionals on Monday to discuss the implementation of the Government's highly contentious NHS reforms. At Loughborough on 12th April 2010, David Cameron said:

"Real Change is when the whole country comes together and says that we are all in this together and we are going to achieve change together"

So, why is it that the healthcare professionals that are most critical of this bill are not going to be invited to this meeting? Well, the answer is simple, David Cameron only wants to invite 'yes' men to the table. It seems that we are going to achieve change together as long as we agree with David Cameron - expert opinion and public opinion are not included in this wonderful 'togetherness'!

At the same speech, David Cameron also stated that he would:

"put power in the hands of the people not politicians"

Well, the people are registering their objections but still the politicians do not listen. Nothing new there!

This bill represents a reorganisation of the NHS from the top down yet the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition agreements stated an intention to 'stop the top down reorganisations of the NHS that have got in the way of patient care'. Nice U-turn David!

2012-02-17T03:46:00.001-08:00

Have Politicians Forgotten Who They Represent?

In the 'Codes of Conduct for Members of Parliament' it clearly states that:

6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

How often do the party whips use threats and intimidation to force your MP to vote in accordance with party policy? Well, on contentious issues, the answer is 'all to often'. How can an MP discharge his/her duty to their constituents if they are being coerced to vote? Doing what the party wants is not always in the interest of the constitiuents, or even the nation as a whole. Sometimes, the ego of a politician appears to hold more importance than the interests of the country.

As an example, the Health and Social Care Bill currently going through Parliament will highlight this point. The bill is receiving overwhelming dissapproval from Unions, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Midwives. These are 'the experts' who have first hand knowledge of how the proposed changes will affect people like you and me. However, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health has said:

"In fact, the Bill will help address the very concerns about fragmentation that the experts raise. It will help the NHS and other public services work together better for children, young people and their families."

Who would you rather trust an expert or a spokeswoman?

And they are not the only people who are expressing their concern. The people of this country are registering their objections by signing a government e-petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22670 which calls for the entire bill to be scrapped. At last count, 139,479 people had signed this petition, and that includes me.

The fact of the matter is, this bill is intended to pave the way for privatisation of the NHS. Do you really think that this will serve your interests? Or will it serve the interests of shareholders? Members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have accused the Government of "misrepresenting" the Bill as being something that was necessary for the NHS.

David Cameron has said:

"As a parent, night after night, I've known what it is to have the NHS by your side."

"I've seen the dedication - the reassurance that if the worst happens, the NHS will be there for your family."

This is implying that when his disabled son, Ivan, died in 2009 he made full use of the NHS. Yeah, right! A man of David Camerons financial means relying on the NHS rather than private healthcare does not exactly have the ring of truth to it.

And there is more, senior Conservative MPs claim there is no rift in the coalition Cabinet over these controversial NHS reforms. I guess that someone should have told Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes, who has demanded Mr Lansley be shifted from his post. Or perhaps the Downing Street source who was quoted last week saying that the Health Secretary should be "taken out and shot". I guess 'no rift' means something completely different to me.

Does any of the above show that polititians are acting in the interest of the people they represent? I don't think it does. Will the government continue to push this ill conceived bill forward? Yes, they will. They may even go so far as to force it through in much the same way they have with the Welfare Reform Bill. Using the party whip to force MP's to vote against their conscience, reviving archaic laws to ignore the objections of the House of Lords and totally disregarding the will of the people. It makes a farce of democracy to have a government who were NOT democratically elected doing as they please rather than what the people want!