may day hmmm
Prime Minister Theresa May ‘campaigned’ in Leeds on 27 April. But people noticed something odd about her ‘strong’ appearance at a community centre in the city. Namely, that the entire spectacle was a stitch-up.
May didn’t invite the general public to the event. Instead, it was a private do. An invitation-only one. And eligibility for attendance hinged entirely on whether you were a part of the ‘Tory faithful’. Because according to The Guardian, the Prime Minister only invited Conservative campaigners.
And her decision to ‘campaign’ in such a safe space shows how ‘strong’ she feels her case for re-election really is.
May’s ‘ambitious’ plan
The Guardian‘s Jessica Elgot covered May’s appearance in Leeds. Elgot explained that May was in Leeds to ‘lay bare’ her “ambitions to capture some of Labour’s most historic seats in England”. It was this “bullishness” that May was bringing to the “voters” in Leeds, Elgot said.
Yet, how can May be described as bullish when she chose to limit her audience to party supporters? And how is May bringing her “ambitious” case to the “voters” in Leeds if she excluded all voters apart from Conservative campaigners?
The ‘national interest’?
Unsurprisingly, May’s not-so-gutsy move drew attention on social media. Particularly after one community centre worker confirmed that the rally was a private affair:
May’s cowardice appalled many commentators:
Some also rounded on the media for not jumping on May’s choice:
While others pointed out what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot. Both in terms of how the media would react if Jeremy Corbyn pulled the same stunt and how the Labour leader’s rallies fare in comparison:
Erasing the Conservatives
It has also struck observers that May’s banner at the event didn’t have the word ‘Conservatives’ on it. It merely used her name and the Tories’ general election buzzwords. The company that hosted the event, meanwhile, is facing criticism. Shine, however, claims it didn’t invite the Prime Minister. It says the Conservative Party simply booked and paid for the venue. But it’s now the second time a Conservative Prime Minister has spoken at the venue. And as Shine is a community-driven space in a Labour heartland, May’s appearance is raising some eyebrows.
Nevertheless, it’s May’s choice of audience that’s the real scandal. Because if she’s sincere about leading the country “in the national interest”, she’d better start inviting some of the nation to her rallies. And a room full of Tory supporters doesn’t count.
The Canary asked the Conservative Party to confirm whether the event was invite-only but received no response.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 28 April 2017
============================
back stabbers both partys have them
6 U-Turns in 8 months is not “Strong Leadership” Ms May!
Theresa May has U-turned on so many things I’m seriously struggling to understand her definition of strong leadership. Plus, how can you call yourself strong if you run scared at the mere mention of a live TV debate? Having all your answers carefully scripted in advance at PMQ’s to ensure you don’t say anything that’s going to piss off the back benchers, or members of your own cabinet, does not qualify you as a “strong leader”….
• In August last year May attempted a u-turn on George Osborne’s strategy of created directly elected mayors. It’s assumed she was against devolving powers from Whitehall to directly elected mayors for city regions because she was keen to avoid establishing ‘new power bases’ for the Labour party.
• October last year she announced that the government would publish plans to have consumers and workers represented on company boards and then literally a month later she announced that she would not mandate the direct appointment of workers or trade union representatives on boards.
• After stone walling and insisting that she and her government had carte blanche in regards to how they were going to handle the Brexit process, she announced that the government would release plans in advance and that there would now be a substantive parliamentary debate before the UK triggered article 50
• She backed Philip Hammond’s budget to the hilt and then u-turned on hiked national insurance contributions for the self-employed.
• She said she was determined to reduce net migration and has just announced a u-turn on net migration figures for overseas students
• She said there would be no snap general election and then announced a snap general election just weeks later
Sorry, but I’d rather choose an honest, principled, democratic leader with genuine conviction. I choose CORBYN!
Oh, and on another point, why don’t we just take a look at what Strong Tory leadership has done for this country shall we?...
DAVID CAMERON
• Introduced the Bedroom Tax
• Introduced Universal Credit and stronger penalties for errors
• Phased out Disability Living Allowance and replaced it with Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
• Introduced the benefits cap
• Introduced an Austerity programme
• Privatised the Royal Mail
• Hiked up University Tuition Fees
• Initiated the gradual privatisation of the NHS and Social Care Services
• Climbing rail fares
• Rapid growth in the use of food banks
• Put the demands of his back benchers before the Britain and agreed to an EU referendum that split the country and has left Britain in a precarious financial position globally and then resigned so he wouldn’t have to deal with the mess that followed.
MARGARET THATCHER
• Mass privatisation of state owned companies
• Deregulation of the finance sector
• Imposed public expenditure cuts on state education
• Abolished free milk for schoolchildren
• Recession and high unemployment
• Miners Strikes
• Severely weakened the power of Trade Unions
• Tried to introduce the Poll Tax
• Govt spending on UK Trade & Industry dropped by 38%
• Govt spending on housing dropped by 67%
Mrs Thatcher was ultimately betrayed and outed by members of her own cabinet, which demonstrate one thing very clearly in my opinion – there is no loyalty within the Conservative party there is only fear. You fall in line or the daggers will come out!
Posted by jeffrey davies on 28 April 2017
===========================
hs oh dear nearly gone
Theresa May’s secretive plans to replace the NHS in England with private US healthcare system Kaiser Permanente have been revealed just in time for the election.
Interestingly, Kaiser appears in a transcript of a conversation between disgraced US President Nixon and an adviser on one of the infamous Watergate tapes:
The secret conversation shows clearly that Kaiser's goal is to make as much profit as possible by providing as little healthcare as possible:
February 17, 1971
5:26 pm - 5:53 pm
Oval Office
Conversation 450-23
John D. Ehrlichman: On the—on the health business—
President Nixon: Yeah.
Ehrlichman: —we have now narrowed down the vice president's problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser's Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, “Well, I don't think they'll work, but if the president thinks it's a good idea, I'll support him a hundred percent.”
President Nixon: Well, what's—what's the judgment?
Ehrlichman: Well, everybody else's judgment very strongly is that we go with it.
President Nixon: All right.
Ehrlichman: And, uh, uh, he's the one holdout that we have in the whole office.
President Nixon: Say that I—I—I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I'm not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.
Ehrlichman: This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am—
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: This—this is a—
President Nixon: I don't [unclear]—
Ehrlichman: —private enterprise one.
President Nixon: Well, that appeals to me.
Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can—the reason he can do it—I had Edgar Kaiser come in—talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because—
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: —the less care they give them, the more money they make.
President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] and the incentives run the right way.
President Nixon: Not bad.
This is the real nature of the system being lined up by the Theresa May government after the election.
To replace the NHS in England with a private US healthcare system interested only in making a profit.
.
More on Kaiser Permanente - the healthcare system being lined up to take over the NHS in England - and Watergate:
=========================
tom pride writes
Kaiser Permanente is a private healthcare organisation based in California.
But unlike many other private healthcare companies in the US, Kaiser provides a complete model of integrated pre-paid insurance along with healthcare which is supposedly provided free at the point of need.
This is a system much like our own NHS but with three major differences – Kaiser’s healthcare provision is much more expensive than the NHS, the healthcare provision side is run for profit and unlike the NHS its cover isn’t comprehensive – it only covers those people who are in work.
Despite that, Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt seems to love Kaiser. He and other ministers have personally visited the company at its California headquarters – several times in fact:
And Kaiser’s own website lists other recent visitors from the UK, including many NHS hospitals and NHS trusts as well as HM Treasury and the Ministry of Health itself (click to enlarge):
We have already seen that US firms are looking to capitalise as the NHS becomes increasingly privatised, including Kaiser Permanente Foundation‘s senior vice president Hal Wolf who has openly called for the NHS to become “more like Kaiser Permanente“.
Alarmingly, Theresa May has specifically refused to guarantee she will not open up the NHS to US firms in a post-Brexit trade deal across the Atlantic.
Understanding the plans to replace the NHS with the Kaiser Permanente system explains why there has been a recent speeding up of the ongoing marketisation and privatisation of the NHS.
It also explains why the Tories were so desperate to push through their disastrous NHS reforms in the first place. A central plank of the NHS reforms was the formation of Clinical Commissioning Groups – which were openly based on Kaiser’s Permanente Medical Groups and which also happen to be a central plank of Kaiser’s healthcare system.
And understanding the plans to replace the NHS across England with the Kaiser Permanente system goes a long way to explaining why Theresa May has done nothing to resolve the worsening NHS crisis, which she is gambling will only make the public more keen to see changes to a system that is being deliberately broken.
So if the Tories win in June – say goodbye to the NHS in England and hello to Kaiser Permanente
=============================
Disability rights protestors demonstrate past the Houses of Parliament, in central London [Image: Getty Images].
People claiming sickness and disability benefits have been famously victimised by Conservative and Conservative-led governments since 2010. Thousands have died as a result of this treatment.
This Site welcomes reports that the vast majority of the 13 million people with disabilities in the UK are planning to vote – and This Writer hopes those votes are used to support the only viable alternative to the Conservative Party – Labour.
But there are many other people who have been victimised by the Tories – all of them in groups that are statistically less likely to register to vote, let alone use it: young people, those on benefits, and those hit by the Bedroom Tax. The Tories are planning to hit pensioners next, even though, as a group, they are more likely to vote Conservative.
If YOU fall into one of the above categories, please follow the instructions in the tweet reproduced below:
Bear in mind the following, also:
If you know anybody in the relevant groups, please pass this information on to them.
Scope, the charity for disabled people, tweeted an interesting number when the general election was announced. There are, it said, 13 million disabled people in Britain. Some 89 per cent have said they will vote.
The reason that number is worth paying attention to is that if the 89 per cent are true to their word, and if they use their franchise to hold the Government to account for its brutal treatment of disabled people, it might just spell trouble for Theresa May’s dreams of a three-figure majority.
Posted by jeffrey davies on 24 April 2017
===========================
jeffs post
The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the Department for Work and Pensions urging the UK government to scrap the “regressive” Tax Credits two child policy and ‘rape clause‘.
The family cap limits tax credits to only two children per family – unless the mother can prove that a third child was conceived as a result of rape or during an abusive relationship.
The letter warns of the “clear equality issues relating to the policy’s effect on women, on religious groups and on young people.”
EHRC Chief Executive Rebecca Hilsenrath accused the government of pushing through the changes without a sufficient impact assessment and warned the policy could be in breach of human rights laws, urging the Government to reconsider the changes.
She said: “The introduction of a two-child limit for Child Tax Credits is likely to impact on the living standards of children in poorer households with more than two children, and therefore may constitute a regressive measure in relation to the implementation of Articles 26 and 27 of CRC.
“Analysis by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found that this policy change will lower 200,000 children below the official poverty line. CPAG estimates that the biggest group affected will be working families with three children, who will miss out on up to £2,780 per year as a result of the policy change.
“The impact assessment published by the Department for Work and Pension for these changes was not sufficiently detailed to support proper scrutiny of the legislation. In particular it failed to mention the Public Sector Equality Duty, how its aims would be achieved, how the potential impact will be monitored or how adverse impact identified after implementation would be tackled.
“There was no evidence provided to support DWP’s assumption that the measures will incentivize families to only have two children if they cannot afford to have more.
“The policy could also have a disproportionately adverse impact on some religious groups, in particular those for whom family planning may be against their religious teachings. This may mean that children in some religious communities are more likely to be brought up in poverty.”
She added: “The Commission is also concerned by the Child Tax Credit (Amendment) Regulations 2017 and the operation of the exemption for children conceived as a result of rape.
“In our view the exception raises serious issues in relation to a child and mother’s right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
SNP MP Alison Thewliss, who has led the campaign to scrap the changes to Child Tax Credits, said: “The Tory policy that has become known as the rape clause, requiring women to disclose deeply personal information and prove that a third or subsequent child was conceived as a result of rape in order to claim tax credits, is both disgraceful and disgusting.
“I am glad that the EHRC has backed the calls for the DWP to rethink these vile policies, which are quite clearly a violation of fundamental human rights and contrary to the best interests of children.
“The EHRC has also recognised the situation in Scotland, where specialist agencies have expressed concerns about both the principle of the policy and the lack of sexual violence training and guidance provided by the UK Government to the third party professionals who are expected to carry out the traumatic rape assessment process. There are still no assessors confirmed in Scotland due to these deep misgivings.
“The two-child limit will drag hundreds of thousands more children below the poverty line, leaving working families unable to make up for the cut. The trauma and stigma that the rape assessment process will cause both survivors and children of rape is unthinkable.
“I have been pointing out the flaws in this brutal policy over the past twenty-one months. That the Tories haven’t even attempted to consider how these changes will affect some of the most vulnerable women and families in this country demonstrates a contemptible lack of compassion and human decency.
“It’s time for the DWP to stand up for the dignity and human rights of women and their families and scrap these inhumane policies once and for all.”
Posted by jeffrey davies [86.17.83.77] on 24 April 2017
reply | edit & publish | delete
remember voting may will end the nhs
Kaiser Permanente is a private healthcare company based in California.
But unlike many other private healthcare companies in the US, Kaiser provides a complete model of integrated pre-paid insurance along with healthcare which is supposedly provided free at the point of need.
This is a system much like our own NHS but with one major difference - Kaiser's healthcare provision is much more expensive than the NHS and the healthcare provision side is run for profit.
Despite that, Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt seems to love Kaiser. He and other ministers have personally visited the company at its California headquarters - several times in fact:
And Kaiser's own website lists other recent visitors from the UK, including many NHS hospitals and NHS trusts as well as HM Treasury and the Ministry of Health itself (click to enlarge):
We have already seen that US firms are looking to capitalise as the NHS becomes increasingly privatised, including Kaiser Permanente Foundation's senior vice president Hal Wolf who has openly called for the NHS to become "more like Kaiser Permanente".
Alarmingly, Theresa May has specifically refused to guarantee she will not open up the NHS to US firms in a post-Brexit trade deal across the Atlantic.
Understanding the plans to replace the NHS with the Kaiser Permanente system explains why there has been a recent speeding up of the ongoing marketisation and privatisation of the NHS.
It also explains why the Tories were so desperate to push through their disastrous NHS reforms in the first place. A central plank of the NHS reforms was the formation of Clinical Commissioning Groups - which were openly based on Kaiser's Permanente Medical Groups and which also happen to be a central plank of Kaiser's healthcare system.
And understanding the plans to replace the NHS across England with the Kaiser Permanente system goes a long way to explaining why Theresa May has done nothing to resolve the worsening NHS crisis, which she is gambling will only make the public more keen to see changes to a system that is being deliberately broken.
So if the Tories win in June - say goodbye to the NHS in England and hello to Kaiser Permanente ...
Posted by jeffrey davies on 24 April 2017
