caltonjock

More Savage Austerity Cuts In The Pipeline – Child Poverty – Education – More Despair For The Easy Targets – More Money For the Rich. It Isn’t Fair

The Child Poverty Act received Royal Assent on 25th March 2010.

The target is to eliminate child poverty by 2020 and legislation makes tackling child poverty a priority for all governments. The Child Poverty Act requires the Secretary of State, when setting the child poverty strategy, to consider which groups of children in the UK are disproportionately affected by socio-economic disadvantage, and to consider the likely impact of government policy on children in these groups. This will provide a mechanism to target children most at risk of poverty and will allow decisions to be made on the basis of whether they will help these children in the long term. Further reading : http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/child-poverty-act

A reality check is in order

Many crucial programmes that enabled over a million children to be lifted out of poverty over the period 1999-2009 have/are being dismantled forming part of savage, “austerity measures” introduced by the Tory government in 2010. UK wide major political parties are committed to extending and further increasing the aforementioned austerity programmes reducing state expenditure by £20-30billion. The brutal cuts forming part of the manifesto’s of the UK wide political parties will increase the numbers of children living in poverty by around one million over the lifetime of the next government.

But the Scot’s want a different approach

SNP policy rejects, “austerity” as the way forward giving favour to an expansion of the economy increasing the value of the state, better managing the balance of payments deficit and long term debt incurred at the time of the 2006-2008 financial crisis and the last five years of failed, “austerity” driven Tory party government which doubled to long term debt of the country.

Facts and figures don’t lie

* There are 3.5 million children living in poverty (households below average income) in the UK today. That’s 27 per cent of children, or more than one in four.

* There are even more serious concentrations of child poverty at a local level: in 100 local wards, for example, between 50 and 70 per cent of children are growing up in poverty. http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/poverty-in-your-area#map

* Work does not provide a guaranteed route out of poverty in the UK. Two-thirds (66 per cent) of children growing up in poverty live in a family (households below average income) where at least one member works.

* People are poor for many reasons. But explanations which put poverty down to drug and alcohol dependency, family breakdown, poor parenting, or a culture of worklessness are not supported by the facts. Population estimates of problematic drug users in England who access DWP benefits, Department for Work and Pensions, 2008, suggest that 6.6 per cent of the total number of benefit claimants in England were problem drug users. While drug misuse may prove to be a key reason this group of people finds it hard to escape poverty, it clearly has no explanatory power for the other 93.4 per cent of claimants.

* Child poverty blights childhoods. Growing up in poverty (households below average income) means being cold, going hungry, not being able to join in activities with friends. For example, 61 per cent of families in the bottom income quintile would like, but cannot afford, to take their children on holiday for one week a year.

* Child poverty has long-lasting effects. By 16, children receiving free school meals achieve 1.7 grades lower at GCSE than their wealthier peers. Leaving school with fewer qualifications translates into lower earnings over the course of a working life.

* Poverty is also related to more complicated health histories over the course of a lifetime, again influencing earnings as well as the overall quality – and indeed length – of life. Professionals live, on average, eight years longer than unskilled workers.7

* Child poverty imposes costs on broader society – estimated to be at least £29 billion a year.8 Governments forgo prospective revenues as well as commit themselves to providing services in the future if they fail to address child poverty in the here and now.

* Child poverty was reduced, (addressing major increases in the level of child poverty in the time of the Tory government), dramatically between 1998/9-2011/12 when 1.1 million children were lifted out of poverty (households below average income). This reduction is credited in large part to measures that increased the levels of lone parents working, as well as real and often significant increases in the level of benefits paid to families with children.

* Under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise once more from 2012/13 with an expected 600,000 more children living in poverty by 2015/16.10 This upward trend is expected to continue with 4.7 million children projected to be living in poverty by 2020.

The full report on child poverty can be found at: http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-PovertyinScotland2014-sample-chapter.pdf

Spongers, down and outs, overweight and alcoholics

The denigration of people in poverty is not new. The state assumes de facto responsibility for the care of ‘paupers’, and the terms ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ are once more prevalent in the language of politicians. The divisive, self-justifying distinction between the workless, rogues, idlers and scroungers on the one hand and the hardworking, law-abiding, responsible, taxpayer has not. Recently poublished research highlights how recent welfare reforms continue the states’s long tradition of shaming people who live in poverty. http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/adding-shame-poverty-public-politicians-and-media

The Conservative manifesto 2010 – education of our children is paramount:

* We will improve standards for all pupils and close the attainment gap between the richest and poorest. (but there remains a fast growing gap between achievements in reading, maths and science between the richest and poorest students).

* We will enhance the prestige and quality of the teaching profession.

* We will give heads and teachers tough new powers of discipline. (but violence in the classroom is a serious and growing problem).

* We will restore rigour to the curriculum and exam system and give every parent access to a good school.

* We will improve our school system to world leadership standard. (but Britain has slipped further down the world leaguetable for student achievement).

* We will make opportunity more equal for all students and address our declining social mobility.

http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/conservative-party-manifesto-2010-general-election/conservative-manifesto-2010-change-society-raise-standards-in-schools

So how did they do?

Not at all good – Under the auspices of Michael Gove, (whatever happened to him?) and his successors teachers are still overworked, underpaid and underappreciated. Schooling is still beset with brainless standardization with which students are increasingly non-compliant. The depressingly constant undermining of teachers and their skills only serves to devalue the learning process. Teachers thrive in a listening not telling environment and society would do well to encourage politicians and the state to take a back seat allowing the teaching profession to improve the learning process elevating their skills and place in society.

Tory, Labour and other UK Parties have failed our children – underfunding, overcrowded classrooms, poor payment of teachers, inadequate financial resources to schools and low attendance all beset education.

How do our children compare with other nations?

A UN report this week named the UK as the worst place to grow up, and Holland the best. Why? – The Unicef team assessed six different areas: material well-being, health and safety educational well-being, family and peer relationships, behaviours and risks and the young people’s own perceptions of their well-being.

In the Netherlands, 73.2% of children found their peers “kind or helpful” – but in the UK only 43.3% felt the same. More than a third of Dutch children liked school “a lot” but in the UK this was less than 20%. 31% of UK children admit to having been drunk on one or two occasions. In the Netherlands it is 12.9%.

One child – Chloe, 14, has just finished posting leaflets through letterboxes. She is bright, with high aptitude test scores but she has enormous difficulties at school and has been excluded 14 times. She has to be on her best behaviour for the next eight weeks or she is out. Chloe swears a lot at the teachers and answers back and so gets put in isolation all the time, where she has to sit in a cubicle at a desk on her own for seven hours. Chloe hates that and runs off. “They focus more on punishment than on rewards,” she snorts. The police have been called to her parents house a few times when Chloe kicked off and once she was almost charged with domestic violence, though she got let off with a warning. Chloe’s mum, Michelle, 36, says her daughter was “paralytic” when she got to her. The family doctor said Chloe was just a spoiled brat acting up. He sent her to a therapist but she “kicked off” there too.

In Holland secondary school children wear what they want and they say this is why they are happier. There are 10 “golden rules of school”, including no bullying, using bad words or mobiles and smoking is only allowed in identified smoking areas in the playground. But very few children smoke.

Feedback from children believe it is this tolerance that stops them pushing too many boundaries. They say they are treated like adults and are allowed to grow in their less rigid environment. “In Holland, we are much more free,” explained one child, in England, you have uniforms and we get to do more things with clothes and make-up and express ourselves.” A friend 16 added: “No-one is alone here. Here everyone has friends and I think we’re a bit more helpful – we help each other out.”
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/feb/17/childrensservices.uknews

rigid systems breed contempt

A poverty inquiry identified growing inequality in schools – The School-Wear Association, the body representing independent retailers which claims to clothe three-quarters of Britain’s schoolchildren, suggests it costs about £80 to kit out a state secondary school pupil with one new uniform set.

How does a low income family, struggling to pay rent, bills and food manage the cost? For an unemployed parent, it’s just not possible. Families in increasing numbers are turning to loan sharks and high credit lenders to ensure their children have suitable uniform and shoes so they do not suffer the stigma of standing out as poor. A typical parent response;

“I don’t know which schools the School-Wear Association looked at but £80 didn’t even cover half of what my daughters high school specified, and we don’t live in a wealthy area. The blazer alone cost £39, I cant remember the cost of the rest. The blouse and black trousers/skirt were the only items that could be generic, everything else had to be from named suppliers, including school sweatshirt, PE sweatshirt, PE T-shirt, PE tracksuit bottoms, tie, PE kit bag, even the PE socks had to be from the named supplier. Add school shoes, PE pumps, trainers for outside PE, two aprons (also specified supplier) for cookery and textiles. Contrast with when I was at school you could buy nearly ALL as generics, and even buy sew on logos for the blazers in some cases. Many children are ashamed of not having everything they need, or bullied because of it, which has a detrimental knock on effect on their confidence – and their education.” http://www.childrenscommission.org.uk/

Labour Party Politicos Make Loadsa Money Through The Charity Sector and The Gullible British Public

The Munchkins Need Feeding

Charities have become hungry monsters, needing ever more of our money to feed their own, not always charitable ambitions. Many registered charities claim that almost 90p in every pound donated is spent on ‘charitable activities’, but spend at least half their income on management, strategy development, campaigning and fundraising – not what most of us would consider ‘good causes’.

About 27,000 British charities are dependent on the Government for three quarters or more of their funding. Without Government cash, many would collapse. Nevertheless they spend much of their time and money lobbying the Government rather than doing what most people would consider ‘charitable work’.

Many of these charities were, “stuffed to the gunwales with Labour placemen” by Prime Minister Gordon Brown before he left office. Some used to work directly for Gordon Brown, while other third sector bosses worked in the last Labour government, or remain members of the party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/04/uk-charity-politics-labour-links_n_5763986.html



Save the Children

In 2010 Justin Forsyth and Brendan Cox were appointed to the board of Save the Children Newly appointed (Chief Executive Forsyth), was the former Director of Strategic Communications for Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Before that he was a Special Advisor on environmental and international developments for former Prime Minister Tony Blair. His ex Labour government colleague, Brendan Cox (appointed Director of Policy) was previously a special advisor in Gordon Brown's  cabinet team.

In 2012, Save The Children, was an organisation in trouble, lacking funds it was forced to conduct its first ever public fund-raising campaign in Britain. Tory MPs claimed its charity work was politically motivated.

Forsyth left Save the Children to take up the post of Deputy Executive Director at Unicef.

He was forced to resign from his post following media revelations about his own past workplace behaviour and mishandling of a former subordinate’s sexual misconduct.

It was revealed that when Chief Executive of Save the Children he faced three complaints of inappropriate behaviour towards female staff . The complaints included sending inappropriate texts and commenting on what young female staff were wearing.  He was also accused of mishandling allegations of sexual harassment and abuse against his close ally and subordinate at Save the Children, Director of Policy, Brendan Cox, in 2015. 

Save the Children said the complaints against Cox were investigated in accordance with its procedures and confirmed that Cox was suspended and a disciplinary process began but he resigned before it was completed.

Cox has since quit the two charities he set up in memory of his late wife Labour MP Jo Cox. More here:

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/feature/2018/02/22/former-save-children-staffers-speak-out-abusive-culture-under-justin-forsyth

Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (Cafod)

Labour Government spin-doctor Damian McBride resigned his position after it emerged on a political blog that he and another prominent Labour Party supporter, blogger Derek Draper, had exchanged emails discussing the possibility of disseminating rumours McBride had fabricated about the private lives of some Conservative Party politicians and their spouses.

Cafod appointed McBride as their Head of Media. He worked there until June 2014. He returned to the Labour Party as Head of Political Strategy for the Shadow Foreign Secretary, The Rt. Hon Emily Thornberry MP.

Trussell Trust

The high profile Trust runs a national network of food banks. Chris Mould joined the Trust in 2003 and was later appointed Chairman. He left in January 2018 to concentrate on his work with the Foundation for Social Change and Inclusion which operates in The Balkans as well as in Bulgaria.

But there is more to the Trussell Trust and Mould than meets the eye. Full story here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/well-trousered-philanthropists-tory-party-chums-and-food-parcels-for-poor/

Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (Aveco)

Head of the charity bosses’ trade body, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, Sir Stephen Bubb was a Labour Party member of Lambeth Borough Council for Clapham Town ward from 1982. He was chairman when the Labour group protested against rate capping by refusing to set a rate and was among 32 Lambeth councillors who were surcharged for causing the council a financial loss by wilful misconduct. The action disqualified him from being a councillor for five years from the end of March 1986.

He came under scrutiny in August 2013 after it was reported that his 60th birthday bash in the House of Commons had been partly financed by his own charity, ACEVO. And this despite the charity paying him a salary in excess of £100,000, he still felt it was acceptable for the charity to cover some of the costs, stating “seemed just right to celebrate my 60th with a tea party in the House of Lords on Monday!”

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)

Peter Watt Director of the NSPCC, was previously Labour’s General Secretary. He resigned following the revelation that a property developer had made donations to the Party through third parties. David Abrahams, gave almost £600,000 to the Party over four years. Watt admitted to officers of Labour’s National Executive Committee that he had known about the arrangement. Under the law, those making donations on behalf of others must give details of who is providing the money.

Read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7113255.stm

Royal Society of the Arts ( RSA)

Between 1998 and 2003, Matthew Taylor was the Director of the left of centre think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, In 2003 Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed him head of the Number 10 Policy Unit and gave him the task of drawing up the Labour Party’s manifesto for the May 2005 General Election.

Following the re-election of the Labour government he became Chief Adviser on Strategy to the Prime Minister and was involved in several initiatives engaging the public with the political process. He also had a key role in developing the Labour Party’s “Big Conversation” discussion forums.

In 2006 he was appointed Chief Executive of the charity, the RSA, an enlightenment, apolitical organisation committed to finding innovative practical solutions to social challenges.

National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA)

Geoff Mulgan was a special adviser to Gordon Brown from 1990 to 1992 when he was shadow Trade and Industry secretary. Mulgan described himself as ‘the Clinton campaign’s link to Labour, which involved lots of telephone calls with the Americans’. Mulgan was part of a 1995 ‘secret committee’ led by Peter Mandelson ‘to examine policy changes, that were central to the modernisation of the Labour Party. The group, set up just before Blair flew to meet Rupert Murdoch in 1995, was officially described as outside experts ‘helping to write sections of speeches and background papers’ for the Labour leader. But some senior MPs noticed that the committee was actually an exclusive policy-making forum

Mulgan discharged a number of key roles in the Labour Government between 1997 and 2004 including director of the Government’s Strategy Unit and head of policy in the Prime Minister Tony Blairs’s office.

NESTA was conceived in part thanks to the vision of Oscar-winning director David Puttnam, who recognised the UK’s failure to capitalise on its globally recognised talent for innovation and invention. The country was, in short, bad at turning inventions into marketable applications.

In an effort to reverse this, the UK’s first ever publicly supported national endowment was created with £250 million of National Lottery funding (later supplemented, in 2006, with a further £75 million of Lottery funding drawn down over five years). The idea was that a secure income source would enable greater risks to be taken with UK-based innovations, which could be backed over the long term without being at the behest of government funding cycles and shifts in the political wind.

In 2010, Mulgan was appointed Chief Executive of Nesta the body responsible for distributing the Labour Government’s £250 million endowment for science and technology.

Under his leadership it became an independent charity in April 2012 and its focus shifted towards innovation for public benefit as it concentrated its policies on tackling social problems in the public and voluntary sectors.

He was awarded a knighthood in the 2020 Queen’s Birthday Honours in recognition of his work to advance social innovation.

International Rescue

International Rescue is based in New York and is financially supported by the UK, US and other governments and billionaire, & political manipulator, George Soros.

David Milliband, from 2010 the President and Chief Executive of “International Rescue” based in New York, cost the charity £1million in his first year (taking into account his £300,000 salary, relocation fees and other costs, together with the costs of importing his sidekicks, Ravi Gurumurthy and Ollie Money, (his former political strategist and PR man).

Miliband has never come cheap: in one year as the MP for South Shields in South Tyneside, he grossed £288,000 in outside earnings on top of his parliamentary salary of £65,000.

2018: International Rescue fronted by David Miliband hushed up 37 sex abuse, fraud and bribery allegations. The Department for International Development cut off funding “based on claims of “fraud, bribery and sexual misconduct” among groups awarded funds. A total of £5.4million of taxpayer cash was eventually released. Investigations are ongoing.

Tony Blair expanded his empire to include oil-rich South Sudan. His charity, now has offices in presidential departments across five African countries. His reach in Africa stretches into Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Liberia, Guinea and now the world’s newest country.

David Brown, who worked for five years in the Prime Minister’s strategy unit under Blair heads up AGI’s South Sudan operation.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing questions over his role as adviser to Malawi President Joyce Banda following a corruption scandal dubbed as ‘cashgate’ which forced Britain and other Western donors to withhold budgetary aid. Blair and his charity the Tony Blair Africa Governance Initiative (AGI) has been working closely with President Banda since August last year. Conservative MPs and campaigners in Malawi are now demanding to know whether Blair and his team were aware of the corruption allegations. It said they want to know whether Blair was warned about corruption, and if so what he did about it. If his team was ignorant, then it raises potentially embarrassing questions about what AGI’s “governance” programme meant to achieve.

Common Purpose – The Insidious Virus At The Heart Of British and World Politics – It’s Members Work & Plot Against Scottish Independence

Common Purpose’s 33sixty programme gathered together 100 exceptional young leaders from the Commonwealth for a few days of in-depth conversations and leadership training.

This year the leadership programme was held in the vibrant city of Glasgow, Scotland, and was hosted by the University of Strathclyde between 11 and 14 April.

We give people from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society. We run local courses for 4,000 leaders each year in cities across the world and global programmes for leaders from over 100 countries across six continents. Common Purpose intends to be the global provider of Leadership Development to help people of the world to work together to solve common problems.

http://www.commonpurpose.org/who-we-are/about-us An a-z of Common pupose graduates –

http://www.cpexposed.com/graduates

An organisation that has been the focus of much criticism is Common Purpose (CP), a registered charity that was founded in the UK in 1989. As stated in an article by the BBC in March 2009, “Its critics say it is a secret networking organisation at the heart of the establishment, with a hidden agenda and influence. More than 20,000 people — identified as the next generation of leaders — have attended its courses, but if you are not one of them, you have probably never heard of it.

Common Purpose is in fact an international political organisation masquerading as a charity, with leaders of a new order being trained and placed in key positions around the world. The Common Purpose effect, we are told, is inspiring leaders around the UK and giving them the knowledge and connections they need to improve how society works. Over 120,000 leaders have contributed to or participated in a Common Purpose programme and this grows by at least 3,000 people each year. The tentacles of Common Purpose explained;

http://kencraggs.livejournal.com/2064.html

A secret society? – “Common Purpose”, organisers do not deny trying to identify future leaders, but they say their agenda is merely to open up the potential for success to a more diverse range of people. And the organisation’s website says: “We are always balanced and owe no historical or other allegiance to any other group.” But there is an unasked question. Should public funded institutions like the police, local authorities and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff?

Some of the courses cost as much as £5,750. A Freedom of Information request by Conservative MP Philip Davies uncovered the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions had spent £238,000 sending its people on, “Common Purpose” courses between 2002 and 2007 And while there is no evidence that, “Common Purpose” has anything to hide, it is not the most open organisation all of it’s business is conducted under, “Chatham House” rules. Which means everything that is said in dialogue or meetings is unattributable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7929210.stm

Francis Maude MP conspired with others to prevent the public seeing details of the contracts through which the, “Cabinet Office Leadership Committee”, attended, “Common Purpose” training courses and additional contracts for the same purpose for, “Common Purpose” to train the Top 200 Civil Servants. Despite legitimate, “Freedom of Information” requests and Maude’s boasts of Conservative transparency, the Cabinet Office is fighting to withhold the information. Why? Because details will clearly show insider dealing and that Common Purpose is key to the Conservative party machinery. The Tories are now the Emperor with no clothes. Corruption, abuse of Freedom of Information rules and dirty deals with, “Common Purpose” hidden from the public.

http://www.cpexposed.com/latest-news/common-purpose-heart-conservative-party

The Rotherham Common Purpose Effect- The ongoing scandal concerning the industrial scale of abuse of young children in Rotherham provided us with an opportunity to bring into sharp public focus any networks of Common Purpose operatives found within the strategic partnerships made up of various public sector organisations in Rotherham and the wider geographical area.

The 159 page Jay report ‘Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 – 2013’ makes more than uncomfortable reading. A flavour can be obtained from the following extracts from the Executive Summary of that report:

Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. The Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham.

For 16 years, not only did the police and social services turn a blind eye, sometimes the police even harassed those who were whistle-blowers. Is there a provable behind the scenes connection between those leading South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham MBC Officers? Read the full article which exposes the widespread presence of Common Purpose managers in positions of responsibility.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/rotherham-common-purpose-effect

The Leveson botch job – Julia Middleton, (one of the most gifted of the New-Labour net worker’s) is the Founder, Chief Executive and President of, “Common Purpose” a registered charity described as a, “Leadership Training Organisation”. The charity boasts a, “considerable reach” throughout senior positions in public life. Many millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been spent sending public servants on its courses.

Common Purpose, “alumni” are encouraged to NETWORK and ASSIST each other, though a full list of their identities is not publicly available. They have a private, (password controlled) website, so that identities are well protected. Members who disclose information from this site face expulsion. Meetings are held under the so-called, “Chatham House” rules, under which no one can be quoted by name. The increasing influence and widespread introduction, throughout society of, “Common Purpose” followers is a cause for growing concern and it is to be hoped the political will exists to marginalise it’s influence before it is too late.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233681/Leveson-Inquiry-Mail-dossier-raises-disturbing-questions-influence-quasi-masonic-nexus-people-know-best.html

In the newly published register of ministerial interests Mr Cameron advises he is patron of an initiative run by Common Purpose, a leadership organisation whose founders set up one of the most vocal lobbying groups for media regulation. However, Mr Cameron failed to declare the post for at least two years despite two opportunities to do so in official registers. The disclosure comes days after the approval of a controversial cross-party charter introducing a system of Press regulation underpinned by statute and is likely to raise questions about why Mr Cameron did not register the link to a group closely associated with efforts to regulate the Press until last week.

A Downing Street spokesman said the omission in the previous registers of ministers’ interests, published in February and December 2011, was due to an “administrative oversight”. However, Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said that, although Mr Cameron’s failure to declare the connection was likely to have been a simple mistake, the Prime Minister should not associate himself with Common Purpose. “I would always advise caution when it comes to being involved with any organisation that has close links with Common Purpose,”

Mr Davies, a member of the Commons media select committee, said. “Common Purpose is a very secretive organisation which I think the Prime Minister would do well to be wary of. “They are trying to get their tentacles into every nook and cranny of the Establishment to pursue their Leftist, pro-European political agenda. “Of course, Common Purpose don’t want a free Press because a free Press exposes what they are up to.” Common Purpose has attracted controversy over the links between it and the Hacked Off campaign, fronted by Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant, the actors, which has called for greater regulation of the press.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423070/Press-row-PM-faces-questions-over-link-to-charity.html

Common Purpose and immigration control. The United Kingdom Border Agency UKBA WAS the border control agency of the UK government and part of the Home Office. It was formed as an executive agency on 1 April 2008 by a merger of the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), UKvisas and the Detection functions of HM Revenue and Customs. The decision to create a single border control organisation was taken following a Cabinet Office report which reported existing systems were not fit for purpose.

Rob Whiteman, (Common Purpose) was appointed Chief Executive in September 2011. Over 23,000 staff worked for the agency, in over 130 countries. It was divided into four main operations, each under the management of a senior director: operations, immigration and settlement, international operations and visas and law enforcement.

The agency came under formal criticism from the Parliamentary Ombudsman for consistently poor service, a backlog of many hundreds of thousands of cases, and a large and increasing number of complaints. In the first nine months of 2009–10, 97% of investigations reported by the Ombudsman resulted in a complaint against the agency being upheld. The complainants were asylum, residence, or other immigration applicants.

On 26 March 2013, following a scathing report into the agency’s, (poisoned culture and flawed leadership bordering on incompetence) by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it was announced by Home Secretary Theresa May that the UK Border Agency would be abolished and its work returned to the Home Office. Its executive agency status was removed as of 31 March 2013 and the agency was split into two new organisations;

1. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) focusing on the visa system.
2. An Immigration Enforcement Organisation, (IEO) focusing on immigration law enforcement, previously known as the, “Border Force”.

The Interim Director Generals of the two organisations have been appointed. Sarah Rapson will bring her customer-focus experience that she gained from the Identity and Passport Service to (UKVI). David Wood, an experienced ex-Police Officer and former Director of Operations of the (UKBA), will head up IE. We are told to expect a tough, hard-line command that will see the strict application of the UK’s immigration laws (which are only going to get stricter!)

March 2013. UKBA Chief Executive, Rob Whiteman was moved sideways to a much smaller job, (but retained his full salary) as Director General, Operational Systems Transformation at the Home Office. Only a few short months later Whitemann was appointed to the post of Chief Executive of CIPFA, (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy). It is the professional body for people in public finance. So he falls on his feet. Common Purpose protects it’s own

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10114217/Immigration-chief-system-may-never-be-fixed.html

The public very rarely sees anyone in Whitehall being held to account for mistakes. This has created what we have called “Teflon civil servants” – those officials whose career progress appears unaffected by spending cock-ups which have cost taxpayers millions or even billions. Not everyone gets this magic Teflon coating. Yet by lining up the different spending scandals side by side, we were able to watch senior officials moonwalk through Whitehall suffering barely a scratch.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10118384/Teflon-civil-servants-who-never-feel-the-heat.html

Common Purpose control of the press and media, backed by their ongoing high level collaboration with Cameron and his Cabinet Office, means the end of free, open and accurate press and media reporting in the UK. Add the dangerous catalyst of Behavioural Change via Common Purpose and the governments Applied Behavioural Psychology units and we are in a Soviet State. Just a coincidence then that the roots of common purpose and common cause is Gramscian Marxism – itself closely aligned to Alinsky ideology embedded in Tory and Labour policy. Journalists and media people need to wake up and very fast.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/leveson-inquiry-control-press-and-media-david-bells-common-purpose

It has 80,000 trainees in 36 cities, 18,000 graduate members and enormous power but Common Purpose is largely unknown to the general public. It recruits and trains “leaders” to be loyal to the directives of Common Purpose and the EU, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine or subvert, the NHS being an example. It has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, the church, many of Britain’s 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA’s (Regional Development Agencies).

http://www.tpuc.org/692/

Common Purpose is a networking organisation dependent upon total secrecy for its success and continued existence. Common Purpose creates control over its members by doing them ‘favours’, such as finding them lucrative employment in powerful positions, covering for their mistakes, and benefits from accessing its secret network. In return, Common Purpose requires that its graduates act always on its behalf, as salespeople for their snake-oil products, exploiting their positions, and helping the organisation grow in power.

http://www.stopcp.com/index.php

In the NHS we have witnessed the deliberate neglect and deaths of thousands of patients. The NHS management responsible under Sir David Nicholson shows no remorse or guilt, and certainly no one has resigned. Why should the big man? he was only carrying out his masters orders, and David Cameron MP has backed him to the hilt. The implication is that the NHS is now controlled by low-empathy and ‘re-framed’ individuals who see the old and seriously sick as detrimental to high profits or the efficient working of the State. The core of the rot in the NHS is the central Common Purpose Working Group. As usual a body which does not declare its members, for which minutes of meetings seem to have gone astray and about which simple questions have resulted in lies and conflicting information emanating from within the beast of the NHS.

http://www.cpexposed.com/latest-news/what-has-happened-common-purpose

Common Purpose trained and supported managers are in place cross-party throughout political and government structures with more than £100 million of taxpayers money spent on Common Purpose courses for state employees. It also has similar members in the National Health Service, BBC, police, legal profession, religion, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries,! Parliament and Regional Development Agencies.

http://www.rense.com/general78/dicke.htm

Selection of videos:

20 Dec 2010; Brian Gerrish – Some Things He Knows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrwA-FTzho4

28 Sep 2011; Manipulation Of Your Mind by Government Agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfaIe4OWN8g

31 Oct 2011 Brian Gerrish – Exposing MP’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhi95Dabeo4

16 Jun 2012; Common-Purpose-Building the Foundation of the Beast System. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkLhUgwad7c

14 Aug 2012; Common Purpose Exposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmMArP235Oc

24 Mar 2013; Brian Gerrish presents more documentation about Common Purpose and the latest updates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRm9GUtkXQg

21 Jun 2013; Common Purpose, the organisation planning the take over of the UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkb6-v77_00

29 Sep 2014; David (Common Purpose) Cameron’s dirty little secrets exposed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpG2iAyBBC0

16 Jul 2014; David (common purpose) Cameron’s Masters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hVV2Xo0m-Y

Lin Homer – Civil Servant Deemed Unfit For Service in a Banana Republic Gets Her Reward – Early Retirement – a Damehood and a £2.2Million Pension Pot

Whitehall mandarin made a Dame in the 2016 New Year’s Honours list despite coming under fire for mishandling of tax-dodgers is standing down

The head of HM Revenue and Customs quit the Civil Service with a £2.2million pension pot (one of the biggest in the Civil Service, swelled by an additional £70,000 to £75,000 last year) and a promise not to take a job in the private sector which will embarrass ministers.

Dame Lin Homer, who has run HMRC since 2012, will leave in April after MPs criticised a series of failings and “abysmal” levels of customer service for members of the public.

Dame Lin was also under fire for securing only one prosecution from a list of 6,800 UK-related secret Swiss bank accounts provided in 2010 by French authorities. In her previous job running the UK Border Agency, Dame Lin was censured by MPs for her “catastrophic leadership failure”.

Homer epitomised all that is wrong with the UK Civil Service. Unaccountable Civil Service mandarins enjoying self-congratulatory praise whilst abusing the protection of the State, covering up massive cock-ups costing the UK taxpayer many billions. A summary of her worst efforts follows.

Additionally a number of unsavoury incidents (some involving Cameron’s sidekick, Chief Civil Servant, Sir Jeremy Heywood) occurred in the course of the Scottish Independence Campaign giving urgent notice that the Scottish parliament must have authority over Civil Servants working in Scotland. The Smith Commission failed to address the issue and it needs to be raised with Westminster soon.

A Scottish, civil service, with no ties to Westminster, clear of the tentacles of “Common Purpose” would better serve Scotland.

The marked increasing incidence of recurring catastrophic leadership disasters in the, “UK Civil Service” is of concern. Very many inadequate civil servants are/have been promoted well beyond their abilities, through their shadowy, “Common Purpose” network contacts. Hence the increasing number of financial, transport, media, immigration and other disasters which have and continue to blight the UK. The UK civil service, put in place by the public, charged with the mission always to serve their needs is not fit for purpose.

March 26 2013; Who are her backers? The Unstoppable Rise of Lin Homer, (Common Purpose Member)

Born in Norfolk, Lin Homer studied law at University College London, before working at Reading Council for two years then Hertfordshire Council, where over a period of 15 years, she rose to the position of Director of Corporate Services. Now a member of “Common Purpose” This provided the springboard for her first major town hall job, in 1998, as chief executive of Suffolk Council.

http://4liberty.org.uk/2013/03/26/who-else-is-behind-people-like-lin-homer/

4 April 2005; Judge upholds vote-rigging claims – Lin Homer Threw rule book out the window,

Homer was parachuted into the same post at Birmingham City Council, on a jaw-dropping £174,000-year.

In 2005 she was accused of throwing ‘the rule book out of the window’ in a major postal votes scandal in Birmingham that ended up before the courts.

Election judge Richard Mawrey said fraud in the city ‘would have disgraced a banana republic’.

He described Mrs Homer’s decision to allow postal ballot papers to be transported to the count in shopping bags as ‘the direst folly’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4406575.stm

25 March 2013; Jerry Hayes – Solicitor and ex Tory MP – Lin Homer, eat my shorts. Allah UKBA!

What is even more fascinating is how LIn Homer has soared effortlessly to the Whitehall stratosphere.

I first came across her in 2005 and found her perfectly agreeable. She was the Chief Executive of Birmingham Council and I was parachuted in to represent two Labour councillors accused of electoral fraud.

It was the first electoral commission in one hundred years. It was as a result of a petition moved by the splendid John Hemming, now a Lib Dem MP.

It was an eye opener exposing the corruption of the postal ballot system which according to the Commissioner, Richard Maurey QC “would have disgraced a banana republic”.

Let me set the scene:

“My chaps were found in a warehouse in the dead of night in front of a table groaning with postal ballot forms, pens and tipex. As we say in the trade this caused one or two evidential problems. Worse, heads of Asian families were hoovering up votes within their households. And (not connected with my clients) there were accusations that postmen laden with postal ballots had been threatened with having their throats cut if they didn’t hand them over.

It didn’t say a lot about British democracy. It spoke volumes.

But most shocking of all was the utter chaos of the count. The Commissioner remarked that the transportation of voting papers via carrier bags was the “direst folly”.

And after the Lib Dems had raised an almighty stink it was discovered that Tesco bags of uncounted votes were discovered in council offices.

The Commissioner commented that Lin Homer as Chief returning Officer had “thrown away the electoral rule book”.

http://jerryhayes.co.uk/posts/2013/03/25/lin-homer-eat-my-shorts-allah-ukba

18 Nov 2013; United Kingdom Border Agency savaged by MPs

But later that year she was chosen by the Home Office to run what was then called the Immigration and Nationality Directorate – this time on £200,000, plus bonuses

Already in chaos, it was on her watch in 2006 that we learned of the mistaken release of 1,000 foreign criminals.

It later emerged some 450,000 asylum cases had not been dealt with but left in boxes at the Home Office.

Appearing before the Home Affairs committee Homer, now head of the newly formed UKBA gave an undertaking to fix things.

But despite promises from former chief executive Lin Homer and her successors as head of the UKBA since the UKBA was founded in 2008, nothing was being done to try to find asylum seekers whose claims had been rejected and to remove them from the country.

The UKBA had supplied wrong and misleading statistics to the Home Affairs Committee since it was formed in 2008.

Senior UK staff ‘misled’ the Committee; The UKBA’s senior staff misled the Committee on so many occasions that it was clear that senior staff were either deliberately misleading the Committee or thoroughly incompetent.

Files were so poorly compiled and were missing so much information that it was impossible to carry out security checks on applicants for asylum.

Progress in dealing with historic cases had been slow and poorly performed. The Committee expressed doubt that checks on archives of historic cases to try to determine whether the applicants were still in the country were carried out properly.

The UKBA was not working properly with the police to find and detain foreign nationals who are awaiting prosecution for criminal offences.

The Committee was especially scathing in its criticism of Lin Homer. It accused her of trying to ‘evade responsibility for her failings’.

Ms Homer told the committee in January that she had always given the committee all the figures that had been requested as soon as she had them. The committee refutes this.

The new UKBA was meant to clear up the mess, and Mrs Homer became its first chief executive, on an astonishing £208,000 a year.

But among a fresh run of scandals was the revelation that nearly 400 of the 1,000 foreign prisoners were told they could stay in Britain and dozens remained untraced.

She was quizzed over more than 100,000 items of mail left unopened as staff struggled to deal with 147,000 immigration case files, some dating back to the Nineties, parked in a ‘controlled archive’. It later emerged that in 40,000 cases, individuals could still be in the country and were potentially untraceable.

Ms Homer apologised that the cases had not been checked against up to 19 databases, including the Police National Computer and anti-terrorist watchlist, and said she regretted she may have ‘inadvertently misled’ the committee over the size of the backlog and whether security checks had been carried out.

Mr Vaz accepted her apology – but said if it happened again it would be reported to Parliament as a ‘contempt of the House’.

Tomorrow’s report is expected to express MPs’ fury that Ms Homer, 56, does not appear to accept she failed during her time as head of the UKBA – and cast doubt on her ability to carry out her duties at HMRC.

She was paid almost £1 million in salary and bonuses during her time at the beleaguered agency.

The report is expected to conclude Parliament should be given a stronger role in appointing top civil servants – a view likely to be shared by No 10, where senior figures have expressed frustration at the way Whitehall tries to block key reforms and rejects interference over its appointments.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21921926 (includes video report)

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2013-11-18/uk-immigration-savaged-by-mps

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298171/Britains-tax-chief-faces-sack-shes-slammed-report-performance.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

10 Oct 2012; Rewarding Failure – permanent secretary of the UK Transport Department Lin Homer lasts barely a year.

Millionaire mandarin Lin Homer, Permanent Secretary at the DfT throughout 2011 when details of the new rail franchise business model were being thrashed out was today named by Sir Richard Branson as one of a handful of officials at the department whom his Virgin Rail team met during 2011 to voice concerns over the bid process.

Those concerns were ignored, said the rail boss whose warnings proved correct last week when the Government U-turned on its decision to award the lucrative franchise to his rival First Group due to an alleged catastrophic business model error.

The mistake is estimated to cost taxpayers £100million and the DfT has now been labelled “not fit for purpose”.

Ms Homer’s meteoric rise through the civil service — she received another promotion last January — prompted one MP last night to question whether there was an unchecked “reward for failure” culture at the heart of Whitehall.

http://www.geralforum.com/board/1564/540216/ http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/10/rewarding-failure-2454398.html

25 March 2013; Appointment of HMRC head Lin Homer raises ‘serious concerns’

The Commons’ Home Affairs committee said in a report published today, it was “astounded” at Homer’s appointment to chief executive and permanent secretary at HMRC at “what is a challenging time for that organisation”.

It added that the appointment raises “serious concerns about the accountability of the most senior civil servants to Parliament”.

http://www.international-adviser.com/news/tax—regulation/appointment-of-hmrc-head-lin-homer-raises

6 November 2013; Public being charge extortionate telephone premium rates in calls to HMRC

Homer admitted to MP’s that tax payers are charged premium call rates upon telephone enquiries made direct to HMRC and that there was an inordinate time taken to answer enquiries. But she was dealing with the matter.

Homer decided that HMRC will close all 281 of their Enquiry Centres before the end of 2014. Replacing the service with an updated, “super dooper” call centre system, passing the buck to the Citizens Advice Bureau and other voluntary organisations to provide tax advice to the public.

Watch Lin Homer (Chief Executive & Permanent Secretary) and Ruth Owen (Director General Personal TAX HMRC) squirm when Ms Hodge has a go at them about 0845 numbers! Priceless!!!

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=12413&st=15:25:50

5 November 2012; Homer admits Government powerless to force multinationals to declare profits

Homer briefed MPs that over half of Britain’s biggest 770 firms funnel profits overseas and the Government is unable at the present time to prevent these big international corporations from paying almost no tax on their profits in this country.

She offered that they achieve this by declaring their profits in foreign countries with tiny tax rates – even if they made those profits in this country.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/taxman-admits-government-powerless-to-force-multinationals-to-declare-profits-8282771.html

30 July 2013; £135 million collected from leaked Swiss list

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has recovered £135 million in lost tax from individuals named on a leaked list of HSBC’s private banking operation in Switzerland.

This is considerably less than the amount pulled in by the Spanish and French tax authorities, who have recouped £220 million and £188 million respectively.

Speaking at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), HMRC chief executive Lin Homer said that 130,000 names were on the so-called Falciani list – named after the former employee of the bank who handed over the details.

Of the 130,000, HMRC had identified 6,800 UK-based entities at some 5,000 UK addresses.

Ms Homer said however that the poor quality of the data meant that just 3,400 taxpayers have been contacted so far – resulting in a yield of just £135m. She said however that HMRC’s efforts “were not yet finished.”

Asked about the Lagarde list – a subset of the larger HSBC database – Ms Homer said that “major progress” had been made in tackling 15 live cases. Of these, two have been settled as civil cases, four remain open, five have settled within the Swiss disclosure agreement and four are still being negotiated.

HMRC’s actions over the Liberty tax avoidance scheme were also considered by the PAC, with Ms Homer confirming that £400 million of tax was at stake.

According to HMRC data, of the approximately 2,000 users of the scheme, the tax authority had failed to serve Section 9 notices in 30 cases, which HMRC’s internal review suggested had put ‘well below’ £10m of tax at risk.

HMRC were also censured over errors which saw the department overstate the amount of extra revenue collected by £1.9bn compared to targets. Ms Homer apologised for the mistake, which she said was down to an incorrect calculation of the baseline from which later calculations were taken.

She is under pressure from the, “Commons Public Accounts Committee”, who asked about, “sweetheart” deals she authorised, giving immunity to around 6,000 British names linked to HSBC bank accounts in Geneva.

At least 500 of these wealthy tax dodgers are being or have been investigated but it is expected they will be offered immunity in exchange for payment of a penalty AND their tax bills AND allowed to keep their identities hidden AND be protected from prosecution”?

11 February 2015; MPs debate HSBC scandal: Politics Live blog

MPs from the Commons public accounts committee have launched a withering attack on HM Revenue and Customs over its response to information it received about clients of HSBC’s Swiss division dodging tax.

Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said accused Lin Homer, the HMRC chief executive, of a “pathetic” response.

Hodge also said HMRC was sending out a “really rotten message” to people considering evading tax because its action was so weak.

She said HMRC was sending out the message that “it’s a risk worth taking – the worst that can happen to you if HMRC can be bothered to catch up with you is that you may have to pay, you won’t have a prosecution, you won’t have any shame, you won’t be an example to anybody else, you’ll get away with it”.

She went on: That’s a terrible message to get out to British taxpayers, it’s a really rotten message.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/feb/11/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog (Video coverage of the debates) <a href=”https://caltonjock.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/lin-homer.

State Pension Bombshell – Less Than Half British Retirees To Get Full Pension – So the 55 Year Old Plus No Voters Get Their Return – Listen to Gordon Brown at Your peril- He Will Return Towards the End of the GE Campaign To Promise you more Goodies

January 2014; Three quarters of women fear the struggle to survive in old age over pension uncertainty

Three-quarters of women fear they will struggle to get by when they reach retirement age because their current income is too low for a decent pension, a study shows. Research also showed widespread confusion among working age women over the effect of changes to the pension system and the rising retirement age. The study by the Pensions Advisory Service found that almost four in 10 women did not know when they would be able to draw their pension, because of changes to the qualifying age, and six in 10 had no idea if they had paid enough National Insurance.

Overall, it showed that seven in 10 did not feel confident about making decisions when saving for retirement. Meanwhile 76 per cent do not believe they will have enough income to be financially comfortable once stopping work.

Around 40 million people currently of working age will receive the new single-tier pension, which is due to come into effect in 2016, simplifying the state pension arrangements. It will run alongside the Government’s landmark plans to automatically enrol people into workplace pensions.

Michelle Cracknell, chief executive of the Pensions Advisory Service said: “The odds of women being able to provide for a comfortable retirement are stacked against them from the start. “Women are much more likely than men to have career breaks, work part-time and have low-paid service sector jobs. “The price they pay is an incomplete state pension in their own right and not much, if any, private pension to add to it.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10592474/Three-quarters-of-women-fear-struggle-to-survive-in-old-age-over-pension-uncertainty.html

April 2014; Government to give life expectancy estimates with pensions advice

Pensions minister Steve Webb has announced plans to give retirees rough estimates of their life expectancy as part of pensions advice from April 2015.

Specialist pensions experts will calculate how long older people have to live, based on their gender, lifestyle and location. The move is a reaction to concerns people will be irresponsible with their pensions, now that there are fewer restrictions around withdrawing their pot in one go.

The news comes a day after Office of National Statistics (ONS) figures revealed people in the UK are living longer, but stark regional contrasts persist. The area with the highest life expectancy is Purbeck in Dorset, where the average woman will now live to 86.6. The figure is 82.9 years for a man in the same region.

In Glasgow life expectancy is 72.6 for men and 78.5 for women.

Webb highlighted this geographical contrast, along with lifestyle considerations, as one of the main reasons behind the policy.

“The idea is that you come to think about retiring, but you don’t know how long that retirement is going to be,” he said. “My idea is to say to somebody, look, someone of your generation, living in this part of the country, you’ve not smoked, you could easily live for 27 years.”

Webb added the consultations would not be bespoke, but based on a chart for people with similar circumstances. He also said the Government was conscious the consultations should not be “crass and insensitive”. http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1143568/government-life-expectancy-estimates-pensions-advice

February 2014; The new state pension winners and losers – and what you can do about it

Single-tier pension winners;

• People who contracted out into a personal pension.

• The self-employed. Currently they are only entitled to the basic state pension of £110.15. Under the new system they will get the full £147 provided they notch up 35 qualifying years.

• Women and part-time workers. Broken work histories and low part-time earnings have meant many have not built up full state pension in the past.

Single-tier pension losers

• People who have never contracted out of the state system.

• Young people. Losses increase over time: someone aged 49 on £26,000 a year will be £29 a week worse off, while someone in their mid-30s will be £40 a week worse off by the time they retire, according to the TUC.

• Existing pensioners. Anyone who reaches state pension before 5 April 2016 will be excluded from the single-tier pension. Some could have got more under the new rules
You win and you lose.

• People in private-sector final salary schemes that are contracted out will get more state pension but will pay more national insurance. Employees currently contracted out will see an increase of 1.4% in their NI contributions from 2016 because their schemes will become contracted in.

What can you do

So if you are a pension loser, is there anything you can do about it? Find out what you have built up so far, so you can work out how much more you need to save. To receive an estimate of your future state pension go to; https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement

Think about buying extra years. Millions of people may be able to buy up to £25 a week of extra state pension. It is aimed at pensioners and those due to reach state pension age before April 2016, and will allow people to swap a cash lump sum for extra state pension worth between £1 and £25 a week. It is suggested pensioners will be allowed to pay from £900 to as much as £25,000 to top up their pension.

You may be entitled to top up your state pension with voluntary national insurance contributions (NICs). The 2014/2015 top-up is expected to be around £850 for standard class 3 voluntary NICs. However, you have to be eligible. Those entitled to pay class 3 voluntary NICs include everyone who has reached state pension age (though you can only pay for the past six years), plus some other groups. For more information; https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions/who-can-pay-voluntary-contributions http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/10/state-pension-winners-losers-single-tier

January 2015; Fewer than half retirees will receive full state pension

The government has admitted that fewer than half of all pensioners will receive the full £150-a-week new “flat rate” state pension from 2016 despite promises by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith that it will give workers “clarity” about their retirement income. In response to a freedom of information request, the Department for Work and Pensions said only 45% of the 3.5 million people who will retire between 2016 and 2020 will receive the full £150 a week.

The new single-tier pension will from April 2016 replace the existing two-part system of basic state pension plus the state second pension (also known as Serps). A final figure for the combined pensions will be released nearer to the date of introduction, but is expected to be around £150 a week. However it is confirmed that because millions of workers are “contracted out”, they will not be entitled to the full amount.

Under contracting out, employees used a rebate of national insurance contributions to build up a separate private pension pot. Others, such as mothers and the self-employed, have frequently failed to build up a sufficiently long national insurance record to qualify for the full amount. Under the new system, employees will need to have 35 years’ of NI contributions to obtain a full pension, compared to 30 before. The figures reveal that one in three retiring workers will be paid a state pension of no more than £133.56 a week rather than the £150 many have been led to expect.

A pensions advisor said: It is imperative individuals receive a proper state pension forecast. Without this, they could get a nasty shock when they do reach state pension age.” It is possible to obtain an estimate of the state pension you will get at retirement from, https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement which also has information on how to pay in extra now to qualify for the full pension. The government says you are more likely to be contracted out – and therefore not eligible for the full new state pension – if you work in public sector organisations such as the NHS, local councils, the civil service or in teaching; http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/jan/12/half-pensioners-full-state-pension-government

January 2015; Less than half British retirees to get full pension

The UK government admits that less than half of all British pensioners will receive their full £150-a-week state pension from 2016. The Department for Work and Pensions says only 45% of the 3.5 million people who will retire between 2016 and 2020 will receive the full annuity. The new single-tier pension will from April 2016 replace the existing two-part system of basic state pension plus the state second pension (also known as Serps).

Now Rodney Shakespeare, a London-based professor of economy and political commentator, believes the pension system is being manipulated. “The pension system is part of a general cutback in state benefits of one source and another. Behind this is a collapse of the real economy, and that is because the UK system like that of Europe and in the Western system generally does not put any money supply into productive capacity. It only puts it into the banks and those who have existing assets and it all ends up in a sucking up of wealth to the one percent.”

“Just about half of the people who are retiring in the next year or two are going to have much less in state pension and they had been conned and they had been deceived. They were allowed in the past, in addition to their taxes not to pay an element of the national insurance pension contribution,” Shakespeare went on to say. Under the new system, employees will need to have 35 years’ of National Insurance (NI) contributions to obtain a full pension, compared to 30 before. The figures reveal that one in three retiring workers will be paid a state pension of no more than £133.56 a week rather than the £150 many have been led to expect. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/12/392794/UK

Trident to Be Transferred To Wales – Dependent On A large Number Of SNP MP’s Being Returned to Westminster In the General Election

January 2015; Trident – Secret plan for nuclear submarines

Defence officials have secretly been conducting well advanced, closed-door contingency planning exercises examining proposals to move, from their base at Faslane in Scotland to Wales, Britain’s four Vanguard Trident ballistic nuclear missile armed submarines.

Coulport on Loch Long, eight miles from Faslane, where the warheads are stored (The sites are kept separate for safety reasons) will be converted to munitions storage in support of the conventional fleet.

Eliminating any need to build storage facilities at Milford Haven plans are to retain Trident warheads, not allocated to submarine use, at Aldermaston, in Berkshire. This best case scenario has the advantage of having a direct route, (using the M4) between locations. The change will achieve significant financial savings through the elimination of duplication of security of storage and associated personnel costs.

It is expected savings will be allocated to the build of docking facilities for the submarines, (which is not expected to be significant). The change will be completed within the lifetime of the next parliament. Faslane is to be retained as an operational naval base providing facilities for other submarines of the fleet and an increased basing of surface NATO warships providing security of the northern part of the NATO alliance.

It is understood relocation of Trident has been agreed with Labour, assuming the SNP are returned to Westminster in large numbers and hold the balance of power. The deal will be implemented in the event of a hung parliament in the 2015 general election and the SNP commit to the support of a Labour government. The SNP yesterday welcomed a YouGov poll showing that, when ‘don’t knows’ are removed, 53 per cent of people in Scotland agree that the UK should give up nuclear weapons.

Labour’s First Minister in Wales, Carwyn Jones, is said have indicated he would be happy to see Trident submarines relocated to Wales, a natural deep water port and work has now begun on the practicalities of shifting Britain’s nuclear defence systems to Pembrokeshire.

Additional financial powers covering a number of areas, similar to proposals for Scotland, are expected to be to be devolved to Wales forming part of the deal.

A Labour spokesman said: ‘Our position on Trident is clear and unchanged. Labour believes Britain should be leading international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament while maintaining a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent.’ which is a different different position to that of the Tories. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929226/Trident-quit-Scotland-Wales-Secret-plan-nuclear-subs-triggered-rise-SNP.html

Jim The Unionist Murphy – Politics and Religion – Conflicting Views – Election Strategy 2010 and 2015 – A Summary of Posts to Date

January 2015; Jim Murphy plays the class warrior card

a. If Murphy were a bibulous carnivore, I’m sure he’d happily stand Boris Johnson a beer and a burger for the huge boost the Mayor of London has given his hopes of reigniting Labour’s flame in Scotland. By attacking so vehemently Murphy’s plans to use the taxes on home owners in Chelsea and Kensington to fund an extra 1000 nurses in Scotland, Boris has earned the new Scottish Labour leader’s eternal gratitude. Mind you, I suppose a glass of beetroot juice and a nut cutlet would be a more appropriate reward from Mr Murphy – a teetotal vegan – but the response from Boris, in describing the plan as “vindictive”, has been like manna from heaven for Scottish Labour.

b. It may well have been a wholly cynical and desperately short-term and short-sighted ploy, but these are desperate times, and the one thing that Murphy needs to prove to a one-time Labour congregation in West Central Scotland is that he’s no Blairite Right-winger; rather, that he’s an in-your-face class warrior ready to hammer the toffs. And if someone like Boris Johnson, who’s seen by many as the epitome of an Eton-educated posh boy, takes Jim to task in such terms, then that can only be to Labour’s advantage on the doorsteps of places like Glasgow, Dundee, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire, which all ignored their former party’s advice and voted Yes in September’s referendum.

c. Murphy’s unashamed, and frankly provocative, plan to equate what is essentially a tax on the English to boost Scotland will increase the pressure to scrap Barnett. The truth, of course, is that there is absolutely no need to use English taxes to pay for the extra Scottish nurses – that was little more than a cheap trick which, thanks to Mr Johnson’s ill-judged intervention, achieved the desired result.

d. Murphy was determined to make an impact with his first major speech as Scottish leader. It wasn’t much of an effort but with a little help from an unlikely friend, he’s succeeded in proving he’s a genuine class warrior who’s not scared of taking on the English, so no doubt he and his cheerleaders will be well satisfied. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/11329251/Provoking-Boris-Johnson-could-yet-prove-a-masterstroke-for-Jim-Murphy-as-he-plays-at-class-warrior.html

January 2015; Jim Murphy woos voters by insisting ‘I’m no Unionist’

a. Murphy’s campaign to persuade independence supporters to back Labour in the general election has attracted derision after he insisted he had “never been a Unionist”. The Scottish Labour leader said his family’s Irish Catholic background meant that belief in the 308-year-old Union between England and Scotland was not part of his “political tradition”. He said the Better Together referendum campaign had seen a “temporary” alliance between the dogmatic Unionism of the Tories and Labour’s principle of “socialist solidarity” between the people of Britain. The tour hit the headlines after Yes campaigners pelted him with eggs and vitriolic abuse, but since becoming Scottish Labour leader he has attempted to woo those who backed separation on September 18.

b. With opinion polls suggesting the SNP is on course to make major gains in May’s general election at Labour’s expense, he has explicitly appealed to 190,000 people who backed his party at the 2010 general election but voted Yes in the referendum.

c. Murphy emphasised that he was not a nationalist, saying there was no such thing as scottish identity or culture, and questioned whether “the party of Keir Hardie” has to prove how Scottish it is to beat the SNP.

d. Sandra White, an SNP MSP, said the Scottish Labour leader was trying to “rewrite history” to “distance himself from the Tories”. She added: “Does Jim Murphy really expect people to believe that despite having spent the entire referendum campaign arguing for a No vote, he does not believe in the union? It is utter nonsense and a sign of desperation that he would even attempt to claim otherwise.”

e. A Scottish Tory spokesman said: “It’s a great pity that, for short-term political reasons, Murphy now feels the need to distance himself from that great cross-party effort last year. But with Scottish Labour now trying to ape the Nationalists in Scotland, it is perhaps not that unexpected.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11343778/Jim-Murphy-woos-Yes-voters-by-insisting-Im-no-Unionist.html

January 2015; Murphy: the Scottish Nationalists are ‘sluggish, lethargic and off the pace’

a. Murphy, the new Scottish Labour leader, has described the Scottish Nationalists as “sluggish, lethargic and off the pace,” saying he has been “amazed” at how easy it has been to take them on. Since being elected last month, the former Scotland secretary said he had found the Nationalists far less formidable than he had been warned, despite recent polls which suggest the SNP could be on course to take dozens of seats from Labour at the general election.

b. Murphy said that despite the dire predictions of the opinion pollsters, Scottish Labour was “avowedly more confident” under his leadership, and has a target of not losing a single seat to the SNP. “I’m confident we’ll get there by the general election,” he said. “What you have to do is stand for something, and you say to those people who voted Yes that that was last year’s disagreement, and whether you keep [David] Cameron in power in May is this year’s decision. “The SNP aren’t going to be the biggest party, and the biggest party gets to decide who’s in government.

c. “I’d like to see Scotland lead the UK rather than leave it, and in May we have the chance to lead the UK away from a Tory government. “We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.” He refused to be drawn on whether he would quit his Westminster seat in order to fulfil his pledge to serve as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, even raising the suggestion that he could remain Scottish leader while not being either an MP or MSP. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11377345/Jim-Murphy-the-Scottish-Nationalists-are-sluggish-lethargic-and-off-the-pace.html

January 2015; Will the real Jim Murphy please stand up?

a. Labour supports the British nuclear deterrent and even if a costly replacement for Trident was shelved and something cheaper – like a Cruise-based system – was decided upon, the missiles would still be submarine-launched. And as all of the Royal Navy’s submarines are due to be based on the Clyde within five years, Britain’s independent deterrent would still be situated in Scotland – a fact that the SNP would, presumably, oppose.

b. So what’s Labour to do? Clearly, it’s best option would be to halt that Nat tide and hang onto all those Westminster seats and, thus, help Mr Miliband get that overall majority that the polls are currently saying is beyond his reach. Charged with that uphill task since the beginning of December is Jim Murphy, one of the heroes of the successful defeat of the Nats in the referendum.

c. Whether he goes from champ to chump is now Scotland’s hottest political topic. Murphy is a talented politician – even his Nat opponents concede that – but his main problem at present appears to be that he can’t make up his mind what manner of politician he is.

d. Tagged from the start as an avowed Blairite, he’s been treated as such by those once termed the Brownies in Labour’s ranks and it was unfortunate for Jim that the ‘wrong’ brother won the Labour leadership. The victory for Ed quickly saw Murphy demoted from the defence portfolio to that of international development in the Shadow Cabinet.

e. Although he’s denied the Blairite label, he didn’t help his cause by appointing John McTernan, his former special advisor and also Tony Blair’s one-time political secretary, as his chief of staff when he assumed the Scottish leadership.

f. But in an attempt both to bury that image and also to recapture those Labour voters who voted Yes against their party in the referendum and who now appear to have deserted it in droves, Murphy is brandishing his left-wing credentials.

g. He deliberately picked a fight with Tories like Boris Johnson by saying that he’d use the mansion tax in London to pay for Scottish nurses. He tried to outbid the SNP by saying he’d ban fracking until all the environmental issues connected with it were resolved. He claimed the SNP’s council tax freeze and new property taxes as benefitting the better off and he pledged that a future Labour-controlled Scottish government would re-nationalise the country’s rail services.

h. Bizarrely, at least in light of his sterling service for the No campaign last year, he assured those Labour supporters in West Central Scotland, who associate the term with the sectarian politics of Northern Ireland, by insisting he wasn’t a “Unionist”.

i. Whilst all of this will be seen as pure political posturing to regain that traditional Labour vote, it’s doing nothing for those other Unionists – Tories and Lib Dems – who may be prepared to vote tactically for Labour to stop the Nats. “ Murphy used to say that you can’t win from the Left. But that’s where he is just now and he won’t get many Centre-Right votes from there,” said one senior Tory yesterday.

j. Adding to the confusion is the fact that he won’t tell us if he’s standing for election in his Renfrewshire seat in May’s general election. All of which leads to one obvious question: Will the real Jim Murphy please stand up? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/11372609/Will-the-real-Jim-Murphy-please-stand-up.html

The Roman Catholic vote – Murphy’s Strategy, (to date) in the 2015 General Election

a. December 2014: Murphy voted morally correct on only 4 out of 36 important moral issues.

i. The Christian Institute maintains a record of each MP’s voting record on moral issues. Murphy’s record is appalling. On the occasion of 36 votes in parliament he voted only 4 times in a morally correct manner. http://www.christian.org.uk/mpvotes.php?selection=&value1=198&submit1=SHOW&value2=1

b. December 2014; Roman Catholic Canon Law & Jim Murphy

i. One of our bloggers wrote to Bishop John Keenan (Paisley) to draw his attention to the public statements of Jim Murphy MP, affirming his support for abortion. Jim Murphy is a Catholic of the Diocese of Paisley who is currently seeking to win the Labour leadership in Scotland. Click here to read more. Under Church law, manifest public sinners – and that includes those who support abortion – cannot receive Holy Communion. This is not a matter left to the discretion of any priest or bishop – Canon # 915 prohibits Communion to public sinners and it is a grave sin for any priest or bishop to flout this law. We’ve had this discussion more than once – click here to reach one of our previous conversations on the topic.

ii. Bishop Keenan declined to reply to our blogger, electing instead to delegate the matter to his Vicar General. Now, Paisley is not New York. You can go for a walk round Paisley and meet yourself on the way back. So, one might fairly expect the Bishop to answer his own mail, especially correspondence on a matter as serious as that under discussion here.

iii. The upshot of the responses from the Vicar General is that the Bishop takes pro-life issues seriously and is dealing with the matter of the “pro-choice” [i.e. pro-murder] MP privately and anyway “neither you nor I are entitled to know what transpires between a bishop and another’s soul.” What the heck does that mean? Nobody is asking what is going on in Jim Murphy’s soul but we have every right to know whether or not the Bishop is doing his duty to protect the MP himself from continuing on his – literally – damnable route by receiving Holy Communion in a manifestly unworthy state, and also whether he is doing his duty to protect the rest of the faithful from being scandalised. If Jim Murphy had publicly admitted to (let’s use a euphemism) “harming” children, the Bishop would have been in front of the TV cameras in jig time to express his shock horror and to discourage Catholics from voting for him. Surely unborn children deserve similarly robust protection from Catholic priests and prelates?

iv. The upshot of our blogger’s response to the Vicar General’s correspondence is that for the bishop to deal with this matter “privately” is not good enough since the scandal is very public and requires the enforcement of Canon 915. http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/12/10/canon-law-jim-murphy-mp/

c. Comments;

i. Faith of Our Fathers; Jim Murphy should heed the words – What does it profit a Labour Leader if he gains the Whole Party but suffers the loss of his Soul. Or read St Thomas More,s last words – I am Gods good servant, but the Labour Parties Leader with all the trappings first.

ii. Petrus says: I agree with everything said so far. Bishop Keenan would rather take the easy option. I certainly question his commitment to prolife issues if he is unwilling to take a public stance on this. Mr Murphy didn’t hesitate to outline his support for abortion in public. The bishop’s failure to speak out is a cause of scandal to the faithful.

iii. How many Catholic members of the Labour Party will have voted for Mr Murphy not knowing his views on abortion or thinking that the Church really doesn’t have a problem with politicians being pro abortion. I’m afraid Bishop Keenan has the blood of unborn babies on his hands through his silence. We should also remember that the Bishop has also failed to protect the dignity of the Blessed Sacrament by allowing a public sinner to receive Holy Communion.

d. Dec 2014; My fellow Catholics are the lapsed unionists behind SNP surge in the polls

i. The Catholicism of the Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy has attracted some attention this week against a backdrop of fascinating political developments in Scotland. For there is plenty of evidence that people of Irish descent have been to the fore in the near – quadrupling of SNP membership to 92,000 since the referendum, which threatens to undo Labour at the 2015 UK general election.

ii. Within weeks of the referendum, Glasgow had a near five – fold rise in SNP membership and nearby Motherwell and Coatbridge had six-fold increases. These are the heartlands of a community once defined by deep Catholic loyalties. Their neighbourhoods are shared with people who adhere to a Protestant culture, but they are less likely to have been at the crest of the SNP wave. According to one poll, just 31% of non Catholics backed independence compared with no less than 57% of Catholics. http://theconversation.com/my-fellow-catholics-are-the-lapsed-unionists-behind-snp-surge-in-the-polls-35343

e. December 2014; Scottish Secular Society Founder Gary Otton accuses Murphy of being “a catholic fanatic”, “a Pope Benedict fan” and “a religious fanatic”.

i. Otton posted four different Facebook threads about Murphy in the space of two days, all making reference to Murphy’s religion and support for denominational schools. Robertson described some of the comments as “disturbing”. He said, “the Scottish Secular Society have posted several stories about ‘Catholic fanatic/extremist/Pope Benedict fan’ Jim Murphy over the past few days. I find it particularly disturbing this constant referral to Jim Murphy as Roman Catholic – what does that have to do with anything? It comes worryingly close to the kind of anti-Catholic sectarianism that plagued the West of Scotland – perhaps it still does. It is of no relevance or interest to me that a particular political candidate is Roman Catholic or not. Mr Murphy should be judged on his political views and abilities, not what church he belongs to. It is ironic that of all groups the Scottish Secular Society continues to highlight religious affiliation as though this were somehow a disqualifying factor.”

ii.Otton defended his remarks. saying, “The Scottish Secular Society have no problem with Mr Murphy’s beliefs, but a very great problem with the way in which we fear they will influence his political decisions. In particular, we don’t approve of support for the idea that bishops can be put in charge of sex education in Catholic schools. We are also concerned that he will defend privileges for organised religion, segregating children on the basis of their parents’ religion in denominational schools with separate staff rooms and entrances. We are utterly opposed to sectarianism in any shape or form. There is also general agreement amongst secularists that unelected religious representatives, both Catholic and Church of Scotland, voting on how Councils should deploy their limited education budgets is absurd. Murphy has been reported in the press praising the US because religion has a bigger role in politics. That is not a scenario the Scottish Secular Society would welcome in Scotland. Opinions on Facebook’s Secular Scotland are personal and social media is the appropriate place to express them. The Scottish Secular Society is the appropriate organisation to challenge the religious privileges.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/fury-secular-society-chiefs-sectarian-4775349

f. December 2014; Jim Murphy Fury at Secular Society chief’s ‘sectarian, anti-Catholic’ slur

i. Scottish Labour leadership hopeful Jim Murphy has hit back at remarks from a leading secular society figure accusing him of being “a catholic fanatic”, “a Pope Benedict fan” and “a religious fanatic”. The comments, made by Scottish Secular Society Founder Gary Otton on Facebook, have been dubbed “disturbing” and are “worryingly close to anti-Catholic sectarianism”, according to one of Scotland’s leading religious figures. The next Free Church of Scotland Moderator, Rev David Robertson, said the East Renfrewshire MP has been targeted by opponents because of his catholic faith. http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/fury-at-secular-society-chief-s-sectarian-anti-catholic-slur-on-scottish-labour-leadership-hopeful-jim-murphy-2828196.html

Murphy’s Strategy in the 2010 General Election – Lovebomb the Catholic voter

a. January 2010; Murphy Makes His Play For the Catholic Vote

i. Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “Jim Murphy is taking the Labour Party into dangerous territory when he calls on it to make a special play for the religious vote. “His personal religious enthusiasm may be blinding him to the facts. It is no longer the case that clerics can dictate the way their congregations vote. People are too independent-minded now to be herded into the voting booth by religious considerations alone.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8529789.stm

b. February 2010; Jim Murphy – risks alienating voters by over-playing religion

i. Labour’s Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy, risks alienating the Party’s core vote if he continues to insist that it embrace a religious agenda, says the National Secular Society. Reacting to Mr Murphy’s speech in Westminster today to Labour think tank, “Progress”, Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said, “Murphy is taking the Labour Party into dangerous territory when he calls on it to make a special play for the religious vote.

ii. His personal religious enthusiasm may be blinding him to the facts. It is no longer the case that clerics can dictate the way their congregations vote. People are too independent-minded now to be herded into the voting booth by religious considerations alone. The society that we live in today is very different to the one that existed fifty years ago, and we want our politicians to reflect that change. Even in the last twenty years Scottish mass attendance has almost halved.

c. The Labour Party should rein in Mr Murphy before he does it permanent damage. A poll by ComRes published last week showed that half of those who define themselves as Christian say that religion is of “little importance” to them.”

i. He went on to say, “If the Labour Party starts favouring religious voters by promising socially regressive legislation, dictated by out-of-touch and dogmatic religious leaders, it risks alienating huge numbers of people. Other polls have shown that ordinary Catholics are completely out of sympathy with the teachings of the Catholic Church on issues such as contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality and abortion. A 2007 YouGov poll showed that only a quarter of Catholics (and only a seventh of the population) agreed with Catholic dogma on abortion. This suggests allying a political party to religion is electorally very dangerous. This is why the electoral results of the Christian Party are pitiful.”

ii. He added, ” The British Social Attitudes Survey, published last month about religious leaders trying to influence how people vote in an election, showed that 75% of respondents thought that they shouldn’t, while 67% think religious leaders should stay out of Government decision-making. When asked: “If many of our elected officials were deeply religious, do you think that the laws and policy decisions they make would probably be better or probably be worse?” Nearly half of respondents thought they would be worse, whereas only 26% thought they would be better.” http://www.secularism.org.uk/labour-risks-alienating-voters-b.html

d. February 2010; Murphy’s faith card unlikely to win votes

i.. It is interesting to note the Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy, intends playing, “the religion card to win votes” This is the same Mr Murphy who, last month, was reported as aiming to counteract the threatened opposition of the BNP in his East Renfrewshire Westminster constituency, by uniting, “Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups to battle the party, which he described as ‘abhorrent’”.

ii. However, it should be noted that this is also the same Mr Murphy who was apparently happy to support the present government in its attempts to add further restrictions to the Equality Bill – thankfully blocked by the House of Lords – that would have removed the right of churches and other Christian organisations to refuse to employ persons who do not share their core beliefs, in particular those whose sexual conduct is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. http://www.scotsman.com/news/murphy-s-faith-card-unlikely-to-win-votes-1-792087

e. Comment:

i. Calton jock: at interview Roman Catholic candidates seeking a job as housekeeper to the parish priest might be asked, Do you wear a condom during sex? An affirmative answer would be sufficient grounds to reject the candidate. Bonkers Spud.

ii. Rev C Brian Ross, Motherwell: I think it would be more accurate to say that, instead of “Labour trying to reposition itself as the natural party of religious voters” it is trying once more to get the endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church in particular which used to be taken for granted. Labour knows that a candidate being given the Church’s blessing is worth a lot more than thousands of pounds spent on leaflets through doors. Unless the SNP candidate is called John Paul, I suppose.

iii. Barry Lees, Greenock: You describe MP Jim Murphy as being a “devout” Catholic, that is: he subscribes to all the tenets, beliefs and instructions of that faith. That being so, he cannot speak to other faiths in the way he does because one of his beliefs and prayers he will offer is for the conversion of England, and so the United Kingdom, to the Pre – Reformation beliefs and practices. Others can fill in the many fault lines in his attempt to win votes.

iv. Tom Reilly, Edinburgh: Jim Murphy’s religion, or lack of it, is of no concern to me, nor I imagine to most in Scotland. His use of religion, and his “devout” Catholicism, to further his, and Labour’s, ambitions is disgraceful. To quote Keir Hardie, it is an insult to the founders of the real Labour party. Today’s Labour is no inheritor of those principled, decent men and women, who strove to improve the lot of those at the lower reaches of society.

v. Bill McLean, Dunfermline: Jim Murphy is taking Labour into dangerous territory when he calls on it to make a special play for the religious vote A poll by ComRes published last week showed that those who define themselves as “non-religious” are equal in number to those who say they have a religion. If Labour starts favouring religious voters by promising regressive legislation, dictated by out-of-touch and dogmatic religious leaders, it risks alienating that half of the population who say religion has “little importance” in their lives. Other polls have shown that most ordinary Catholics are completely out of sympathy with the teachings of the Church on issues such as contraception, euthanasia, homosexuality and abortion. Why, then, would they want such issues on the agenda of a political party? His personal religious enthusiasm may be blinding Mr Murphy to the facts. One of those facts is that it is no longer the case that clerics can dictate the way their congregations vote. People are too independent-minded now to be herded into the voting booth by religious considerations alone.

f. February 2010; Church launches attack on Labour government

i. The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has accused the Labour government of conducting a “systematic and unrelenting attack on family values”. The attack came as Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, a practising Catholic, claimed religious faith had a role in British politics. Mr Murphy said in a lecture that Labour best represented people of faith. But Scotland’s most senior Roman Catholic accused the government of “undermining religious freedom”. And a spokesman for the Scottish National Party said Mr Murphy was guilty of “crude electioneering” by trying to “corner the market regarding people’s faith”. A tangible example by the government over the last decade that it acknowledged or endorsed religious values would also have been welcomed Cardinal Keith O’Brien

ii. Mr Murphy focused on the key part “values voters” can play in the election when he delivered the Progress lecture in London on Tuesday evening. He argued that faith values have always been “at the very foundations of the Labour Party”. In his lecture, the Scottish secretary said: “In the US, faith has long played a central part in politics. Not surprising for a country where 60% of people say that God plays an important part in their lives. “But it’s wrong to think that it plays no role in British politics.” The MP for East Renfrewshire added: “Faith voters massively outweigh ‘Motorway Men’ or ‘Worcester Woman’ or any other trendy demographic group identified by marketeers.”

iii. He also told the audience that like faith, the family was “another force for good” and “the most important thing in our country”. The minister added: “As well as providing a supportive intellectual environment, it’s a potential source of financial support in difficult days.” His comments were in contrast to the stated attitude of former Labour communications chief Alastair Campbell. Despite former prime minister Tony Blair’s strong religious faith, Campbell famously said: “We don’t do God”. Mr Blair himself said he had avoided talking about his religious views while in office for fear of being labelled “a nutter”. Jim Murphy said religion was at the “very foundations” of the Labour party

iv. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Roman Catholic church in Scotland, welcomed Mr Murphy’s “recognition of the role played by faith and religion in society”. But he added: “A tangible example by the government over the last decade that it acknowledged or endorsed religious values would also have been welcomed. “Instead we have witnessed this government undertake a systematic and unrelenting attack on family values. This is a charge I personally put to Gordon Brown when we met in 2008 and I have seen no evidence since then to suggest anything has changed.” Ironically, Mr Murphy had been due to mention the Cardinal by name in his speech by saying: “When the Cardinal speaks, people listen.”

January 2015 A summary of all posts on my blog about Murphy

a. But those same figures argue that his personality, ideology and Westminster background make him ill-equipped for the task at hand. “He’s the Marmite-plus candidate,” one Labour MP told me, noting that his, “fraught relationship” with Douglas Alexander had, “got worse” during the referendum campaign. “Jim Murphy’s the last person you would want to heal the wounds of a divided party.” https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/29/all-about-jim-murphy/

b. Murphy’ great idea – the Employment Support Alllowance (EMA) opens the door to George Iain Duncan Smith and the Tories

Murphy was Welfare minister in the last Government and oversaw the introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA), etc, no mention by the faux anti-imperialists about that. He has simply never met a blairite policy or a party-line in his entire electoral life he didn’t agree with. https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/10/jim-spud-murphy-love-him-or-hate-him-he-is-not-returning-to-westminster-holywrood-beckons/

c. Murphy the Quisling

Jim Spud Murphy: I find it difficult to express my disgust for Quisling Murphy. In every situation he takes the smarmy anti Scottish line. Have people like this no pride? Do they ever tell the truth? Is their personal career all that matters? How exactly do they differ from the bankers? https://caltonjock.com/2015/01/13/video-record-exposing-murphys-role-in-the-betrayal-of-the-dunfermline-building-society-be-warned-he-is-a-snake-in-the-grass/

d. Miliband Pulls the strings

So, the argument advanced by Murphy that only Labour can ensure removal of a Conservative government is a misnomer since the influence of the Scottish Labour membership over the mainstream Labour party is restricted and very much neutered by the fact that Miliband calls the shots over national policy which Scottish Labour will need to bend the knee.
https://caltonjock.com/2015/01/12/whos-pulling-murphy-strings-its-a-fallacy/

e. The Student Years

In 1995, the leadership of the National Union of Students forced through their policy dropping support for free education and living student grants, in order to smooth the way for the next Labour government to introduce fees. https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/29/jim-spud-murphy-1992-1997-the-student-union-years-and-his-carefully-planned-and-jammy-rise-to-political-office/

f. Give him the rope and he’ll do the rest

The unionist London parties at Holyrood are trying to kid us on that they are leading the way with the direction that Scotland is taking… but they’re not. Everything they are doing is being dictated by the popularity of the SNP. Issues are being seriously talked about now that unionists laughed at us about just a couple of years ago. A prime example is the the ‘Scottish Six’ and the fact that 8.6% of the licence fee is raised in Scotland but only 2.6% of it is spent here. https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/26/jim-spud-murphy-best-way-to-let-him-hang-himself-is-to-watch-him-in-action-a-selection-of-the-best-of-his-u-tube-videos/

March 2003 The Iraq debate Alex Salmond’s finest hour at Westminster exposed the sanctimonious arguments of Blair who ignored three million marchers and went ahead with the Invasion anyway

Mar 2003; Alex Salmond’s contribution to the debate

Fundamentally, the debate is not about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction or even oil, though oil is certainly a factor. The debate is about a new world order, with an unrivalled superpower adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive strike, and how we accommodate that and come to terms with that new world order. Eighteen months ago the United States had an atrocity committed against it and it is still in a trauma. The point was made a few minutes ago, and it is undoubtedly correct.

On 12 September 2001, the day after the attack on the twin towers, the United States was at its most powerful. In its moment of greatest extremity, the United States was at its zenith. In addition to its unrivalled military might, it carried total moral authority throughout the world. A hundred or more nations signed messages of sympathy, support or solidarity with the extremity that the United States had suffered.

Now, 18 months later, that enormous world coalition has been dissipated. I do not take the position that it was only a gang of four who gathered in the Azores. I accept that there are more countries—or at least countries’ Governments who are signed up, but the coalition of the willing for the campaign against Iraq is very narrowly based. Anyone who wants confirmation of that should just count the troops: 300,000 United States and British troops, and I understand that 1,000 Australians have been asked for, and 100 Poles have been offered. That is a very narrowly based coalition indeed.

The Prime Minister believes that the way to accommodate the situation is to accept that the United States will be predominant and that the rest must fall into line. They can try to restrain it, but they will have to fall into line with the views of the United States Administration. That is a wrong-headed policy, and it is taking people into ridiculous positions.

In his undoubtedly powerful speech today, the Prime Minister argued that the weapons inspection process had never worked. He came close to saying that it had all been a waste of time. I remember a speech in October last year at the Labour conference in which another powerful speaker went into enormous detail to show how successful the weapons inspection process had been in the 1990s and how it had led to the destruction of chemical weapons, the chemicals used to make weapons, the armed warheads and the biological weapons facility. He concluded that, “the inspections were working even when he(Saddam Hussein) was trying to thwart them.”

I watched that speech on television as did many others. The speaker was President Bill Clinton. The television was doing cutaways to Ministers, including the Prime Minister who all nodded vigorously when President Clinton said that through the 1990s that policy worked and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction than were destroyed, for example, in the Gulf war. The Prime Minister is now denying what he accepted only last October.

We are told that the majority of the Security Council would have voted for the second resolution, if it had not been for the nasty French coming in at the last minute and scuppering the whole process. Let us get real. Have we listened to what other countries were saying? The Chileans proposed an extension of three weeks, but they were told by the United States that that was not on. In the debate in the General Assembly, country after country expressed their anxieties about not letting the weapons inspectors have a chance to do their work. They were told that the nasty French—I am not sure whether the Conservative party dislikes the French more than the Liberals, or vice versa were being extremely unreasonable, but the French position, and the Chinese position in order to become acceptable, resolution 1441 had to be amended. Everything has been consistent in the opposition of countries that are against a rush to military action.

Somebody should speak up for the French, because their position has been consistent, as has that of the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese, the French and the Russians issued a declaration on the passage of resolution 1441. It sets out exactly how the British and the United States ambassadors agreed that it was not a trigger for war. The reason that those countries did not want a second resolution was not that it would be a pathway to peace I wonder who dreamed that up in Downing street. The reason was that they saw it as a passport to war, so obviously they opposed a resolution drawn in those terms. The majority of smaller countries in the Security Council and the General Assembly countries did not want to rush to war because they saw that there remained an alternative to taking military action at this stage of the inspection process.

We are told that the Attorney General has described the war as legal. We could go into the legalities and quote professor after professor who has said the opposite, but one thing is certain: when the Secretary General of the United Nations doubts the authorisation of military action without a second resolution, people can say many things about that action, but they cannot say that it is being taken in the name of the United Nations. (1)

The argument is that it will be a salutary lesson, that a dictator will be taught a lesson and that that will help us in dealing with other dictators. I suspect that the cost of the action — I do not doubt the military outcome for a second will be so high in a number of ways that it will not provide a platform for an assault on North Korea or Iran, which form the rest of the “axis of evil”. I do not think that the policy of teaching one dictator a lesson and then moving on to other dictators can work. Most of us know that it will be a breeding ground for a future generation of terrorists. That is not the case because people like Saddam Hussein. The images that will be shown throughout the Muslim world will not feature him, although, without any question, he will be more attractive as a martyr when he is dead than he has ever been while alive. The images that will be shown are those of the innocents who will undoubtedly die in a conflict that will be a breeding ground for terrorism.

Will the nation building work? The record of the United States on nation building has not been impressive. Let me say something about one of the other countries that is being reviled at present Germany, which commits far more troops as a percentage of its armed forces to helping to secure the peace in the various trouble spots of the world for the United Nations.

We are told that the Prime Minister, (this is the essence of his case) will try to restrain some elements in the United States Administration and make them take a multilateral approach, but that, if that does not happen, when push comes to shove he has to go along with their policy. I say that there is a broader United States of America than the United States Government. I believe that many sections of opinion in America would welcome a vote from this Parliament today that says “Not in our name”, because the real America wants to see a stand for peace, not a rush for war.

(1) The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said that if the US and GB went ahead with an invasion of Iraq it would be in breach of the United Nations charter.

Extracts from other contributions to the debate

Dr. el-Baradei and his teams of inspectors inspectors reported to the UN that Iraq did not possess nuclear weapons and its biological and chemical weapons stocks and productivity wa severely diminished. This being the case from where is the immediate intent to attack the United Kingdom, the United States, neighbouring states or other states to come from?

It has been suggested that Iraq might not intend to attack anyone but that it could pass them to terrorist organisations. But George Tennet, on behalf of the CIA said: “it is important when talking about what connections countries have with terrorism to distinguish between unconditional terrorist organisations, which would be liable to wish to use weapons of mass destruction, and political terrorist organisations, such as the Mujaheddin-e Khalq Organisation and Hamas, of which there is evidence that Iraq has had connections, would not have a purpose in doing so. And there is no verifiable evidence of any connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”

Blair said the question is how Britain and the world face security threats of the 21st century which is a weird statement since in the context of the debate he was referring to weapons of mass destruction and the political belief of UK parties is that such matters should be resolved through non-proliferation and multilateral disarmament.

The Bush Administration have adopted a strategy of counter-proliferation. Saying; “It is okay if our friends develop nuclear weapons, but not if our enemies do,” and they choose who are the friends and who are the enemies. In this context it needs to be remembered that Iraq was regarded as a friend and was supplied with weapons and munitions by the US and the UK during the 1980s.

Of more concern is that the policy of the Bush Administration says; “We can develop new nuclear weapons or try to make nuclear weapons more usable, and we can decide to breach the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the security assurance that we gave under that treaty.” That is a serious aspect of the overall problem of weapons of mass destruction, especially when it is added to the doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Blair made the point that war on Iraq was not on his agenda when he became Prime Minister in 1997, and he said that George W. Bush had told him that two days before 11 September it was not on his agenda. It was on other people’s agenda namely, that of the hawks that George Bush appointed to his Administration.

Blair said that the UK needed to view the US as a major power and partner. But there are major misgivings if it means that the United States takes the decision and the UK is expected to follow suit. That is not a partnership.

If the House of Commons votes for a pre-emptive war against Iraq, the question of precedence needs to be first discussed and resolved because the hawks of the Bush administration have already said that there are plans for other pre-emptive divisive wars. The US plan of the world of the future identifies closely with the vision set out by Blair in Brighton in 2001, when he spoke of, “the moral power of a world acting as a community”.

President Clinton’s Powerful Speech to the labour party Conference in Blackpool October 2002, (6 months before the invasion of Iraq

https://www.c-span.org/video/?172964-1/foreign-policy-issues

His advice, readily embraced at the time by Tony Blair and all of his ministers was ignored in the rush to war. Bush and Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the terrible consequences of this have been visited upon many nations of the World, (in particular Afghanistan and the middle East).

Blair and Bush are now retired and very wealthy earning financial fortunes from speeches, advisory activities in support of many governments around the world and other business.

But many thousands of our armed forces were killed or returned home maimed through physical and or mental injury. The remaining years of their lives will be spent in pain and poverty as will the many thousands of families who lost their sons and daughters.

But Blair get his reward from the Queen. Now Lord Blair he is readying himself for a return to government should the Labour Party displace the Tories at the next General Election.

The War Game – The Reality Of A Nuclear War – The Harrowing Film Produced By The BBC But Never Shown

This award winning film was produced by the BBC but never shown on national television due to the messages it carried.

The recent vote in Westminster to retain and further develop Trident nuclear weapons at an astronomical cost expected to exceed £200 billion reminded me of the film I first viewed some 35 years ago. I am fervently against the retention of nuclear weapons which, as sure as night follows day will bring about the scenario enacted in the film.

We present the US television premiere of Peter Watkins’ film “The War Game,” a graphic portrayal of what would happen in the event of a nuclear attack on Great Britain. The movie was so powerful and realistic that the BBC banned it from TV despite the fact that the film had been commissioned by the BBC and had won an Academy Award in l966 for best documentary. Although it has been shown in a few movie theatres in the US, it has not been presented on TV. “The War Game” is shocking, but is not sensationalized. It was carefully researched and based on actual events which occurred in World War II during and after the mass Allied raids on Germany and the atomic bombings of Japan. Recorded February, 1983 “The War Game” Copyright 1965 Copyright February, 1983 https://archive.org/details/AV_179-THE_WAR_GAME-_THE_REALITY_OF_NUCLEAR_WAR

Labour’s Legacy to Glasgow – Decay, Failure, Crime, Substance Abuse, Bitterness and Misery.

David lives in the gang-infested inner-city sprawl of Calton – the place with the lowest life expectancy in EUROPE. It is a drizzly Monday morning in Glasgow and the Triple Two Lounge in the shadow of Celtic Park is already doing a roaring trade. Out-of-work bouncer David McCabe stubs out his roll-up and takes a gutsy slurp on the first of his eight daily £2.20 pints of Fosters. Pasty-faced David’s epic, taxpayer-funded booze-ups end with an artery-clogging fry-up washed down with a four-pack of Tennent’s at his subsidised flat nearby. Looking a decade older than his 26 years, David says: “My grandad is 71 and still likes a drink. It doesn’t seem to have done him too much harm.”

A boy living in Calton today can expect to live to just 54. Locals living among the graffiti-scarred council blocks of Calton drily observe: “If the booze doesn’t get you here, the blade will.” Calton, along with Easterhouse and Castlemilk in Glasgow, are the only places in Britain where murder – usually by stabbing – is the most common cause of death among the young. Someone is admitted to a Glasgow hospital with knife wounds every six hours. Medics expect as many as three Glasgow smiles – where victims are slashed from mouth to ear – every weekend.

The city’s smartest restaurants, designer boutiques and museums are a short stroll away from Calton, in Merchant City. Yet here down-and-outs swill cider outside homeless hostel the decrepit Belgrove hotel and a “baggie” of heroin is a tenner. The area’s grinding poverty – where 30 per cent are unemployed – would be recognised by Charles Dickens and pioneers of the Labour movement.

Today’s Labour Party, after 50 years in power, have failed many of the people of Glasgow’s East End. Last year a World Health Organisation study citing Calton said a “toxic combination” of bad policies, economics and politics creates social injustice that is “killing people on a grand scale”. Local GP Dr Robert Jamieson, 54, has spent the past 22 years working in the heart of Calton. “Drinking has got worse and so has the violence,” he explained wearily. “The healthy and wealthy got healthier and wealthier compared to the poor.

Back at the bar, unmarried David, like his father before him, has been on benefits for most of his adult life. He pays for his lager from his £66-a-week incapacity benefit and whatever he can scrounge from family and friends. Overweight and pale, he explained: “I’m on the sick because of my drinking. I’ve got an enlarged liver. “I’ve done a few days work as a bouncer and a cleaner but not recently. My dad has been out of work most of his life.

Full report:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=561_1256060940

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Whitehall mandarin made a Dame in the 2016 New Year’s Honours list despite coming under fire for mishandling of tax-dodgers is standing down

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: