Hug a Hoodie take 2? i sometimes think hard about what this party would do or promise for your vote. It’s always easy in opposition but when the brown stuff hits the fan! where do they really stand. Been through Thatcher don’t make the same mistake again. It’s only the rich who end up better in the pocket not the likes of you or me. So if you are thinking of voting tory for the first time ask someone about 50 what they think,don’t waste your vote.
EXCLUSIVE: Means-tests to hit middle-class hardest
David Cameron plans to scrap universal benefits regardless of income, a think-tank claims.
The Tory leader hinted in a speech that popular child benefits and winter fuel payments for all – paid no matter how much people earn – will go, with middle income families worst-hit.
Andrew Haldenby, of think-tank Reform, said Mr Cameron’s speech mentioned they would bring in a “new age of austerity” and a “never-beendone-before” approach to spending.
Mr Cameron said: “It’s not easy for governments to take money from people. But when there are millions in poverty and we must focus on priorities, can we honestly say it’s right for people on £50,000 to get benefits?” Mr Haldenby, backing Mr Cameron, said he was “hinting at taking benefits from middle-class families.” Scrapping winter fuel payments, paid to over60s starting at £250 a year, and children’s allowance of up to £20 a week, would lead to means-testing.
Tory leader David Cameron this week apologised for Section 28, the controversial law brought in by the Conservatives in 1988 banning local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light.
Mr Cameron, the first Tory leader to speak at a gay pride event, said: “I am sorry for Section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. I hope you can forgive us.”
His words were described as “historic” by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights campaign Stonewall, adding it would remove a major obstacle in the way of many of Britain’s three million gay people voting Tory.
Mr Donaldson, 46, a married father of two, used his Commons second home allowances to pay for films in his hotel room nearly every time he travelled from Northern Ireland to the capital on parliamentary business.
In total, Mr Donaldson submitted second home claim forms, including receipts, relating to 68 pay-to-view movies.
Hotel sources confirmed that films he put on his expenses during 2004 and 2005 were in the highest price category offered to guests, covering the latest blockbusters and adult movies.
All of the expenses claims were paid in full by the House of Commons fees office.
Most of the films appeared on the hotel bills as “Room Service 2”, meaning that their nature was not obvious to officials. On one occasion, the item “Room Service 2” was circled on the receipt by Mr Donaldson or staff working for him, and the word “food” written next to it, before the claim was submitted.
According to Commons rules, MPs were only allowed to claim for items “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” relating to their parliamentary duties. After being approached by The Daily Telegraph, Mr Donaldson and DUP sources confirmed that he would repay costs relating to room service, mini-bars and “entertainment” from his hotel stays, totalling £678.90.
Examination of the receipts indicates that the combined price of the 68 films he charged to the taxpayer was £555.54. During 2004 and 2005, Mr Donaldson generally stayed for two to three nights a week in London, claiming the cost of his hotels on his second home allowances.
In 2005, he purchased a flat in Greenwich, south London, with a fellow DUP MP,
Sammy Wilson, and the hotel claims stopped as he began claiming for his share of the mortgage interest payments instead.
Receipts submitted by the MP before then show that the films he claimed for ranged in price from £7.50 at the Marriot, County Hall, to £14.95 at the Renaissance Hotel, Heathrow Airport. He was billed for 30 films during his stays at the Jolly Hotel St Ermine near Westminster, Mr Donaldson’s hotel of choice, at a cost of £7.95 a time. On four occasions he put the £9.95 cost of watching films at Hilton Hotels on his expenses.
At present, the films on offer which would fall into the highest price category at the Marriott are Sexy Scenes 2009, series 2, series 5 and series 7, Hotel For Dogs, Friday the 13th, Role Models and Death Race.
Asked to explain the references to “Room Service 2” on his hotel bills, Mr Donaldson’s solicitor, John McBurney, said: “Clearly it is impossible to be precise in relation to each and every item. However, it would have been common practice to have used pay TV, including internet access and other media services.”
In a statement issued on Friday night, the MP denied watching any content of an adult or pornographic nature, saying: “Such material was not viewed on the date alleged, or at all.”
The DUP is committed to Christian values. Peter Robinson, its leader, said: “Mr Donaldson has been asked to pay back any expenses which have not been properly incurred and I understand that he intends to do so.
“In the light of his categorical denials, Mr Donaldson is clearly entitled to a presumption of innocence. If any evidence to substantiate the allegations can be provided we would of course wish to consider it.”
Published by Hannah Wooderson for 24dash.com in Central Government , Education
Friday 3rd July 2009 – 4:56pm
Inquiry launched into school admissions ‘rule breaking’ Children’s Secretary Ed Balls announced an inquiry today into parents “playing the system” to get their child into a good school.
It comes after a council dropped its legal case against a mother accused of using a false address to get her son into a popular state primary.
Mrinal Patel, 41 (pictured), was taken to court by Harrow Council in north London for allegedly using her mother’s address when she applied for a place for her five-year-old son Rhys at Pinner Park First School in January last year.
Harrow Council brought the case under the Fraud Act 2006 but today it said “issues” had been raised over whether the Act could be applied.
Mr Balls said he had asked the schools adjudicator Ian Craig to investigate how many parents are giving false information and if councils have the right powers to deter parents from “breaking the rules”.
“I’ve asked him today to look at whether the scale of this problem is more significant than we’ve thought, whether at the moment the powers which authorities have to withdraw places are being used, whether those powers are sufficient to deter parents from unfairly playing the system and breaking the rules, and whether we need to take further steps,” he told BBC Radio 4′s The World At One.
The inquiry will report back in November.
Mr Balls said the legal advice he had received was that the Fraud Act did not apply in cases like that of Mrs Patel.
“It’s never been our intention to make this issue an issue of criminal sanctions and the use of the criminal law,” he told the BBC.
“We have a very clear set of legal powers in the admissions code which says that if a local authority has any reason to think that a parent has falsified information, they can then withdraw the place.”
Mrs Patel is believed to have been the first parent in England to face prosecution for school admissions fraud.
She claimed she lived at Willow Court, Fulbeck Way, Harrow, and had chosen the north London primary school because “it was close to home and she could walk”, Harrow Magistrates’ Court heard last month.
But four months later, when her son had been offered a school place, council staff found the address she used did not match its tax records.
It was alleged she was living in Streatfield Road, Harrow – her current address.
Mrs Patel told the BBC she was relieved and the council’s decision proved she was innocent.
Councillor David Ashton, leader of Harrow Council, said: “The initial hearing has raised issues over the use of the Fraud Act 2006.
“While we stand by the substance of our case, subsequent legal advice is that technical legal arguments over the interpretation of the Act could pose a risk to the success of the action.”
The council decided to withdraw the action to avoid potentially hefty legal costs, Mr Ashton said.
Mrs Patel told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “It’s a great relief for me and my family. It’s been an extremely difficult ordeal and I’m happy to put the matter behind me.
“I have from the outset denied the allegations and the council’s unconditional withdrawal of the proceedings confirms my innocence.”
Mrs Patel said that when she made the application, she had been living at her mother’s address in Willow Court and had no intention of going back to her matrimonial home – although she did return after four weeks.
She acknowledged that she had wrongly stated on the application form that she had been living at her mother’s address for 14 years but said she had been under a lot of pressure at the time.
In the academic year for which Mrs Patel applied – 2008/09 – 411 parents expressed a preference for Pinner Park, and 90 places were offered to children living less than a mile from the school, according to Harrow Council.
Mr Ashton said; “This case was never about persecuting mothers who wish to do the best for their children. It was about defending the integrity of the school system against those who might seek to flout it.
“We always seek to resolve issues over school admission by dialogue. However, we will continue to consider court action as a last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.”
Lots of tickets left and no booking fee. Card carrying members 10% discount .
Oh well better than the dole?
|
|
||||
The Conservatives have reacted angrily to claims by two openly gay ministers that many Tory MPs are homophobic. Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw told the BBC News website: “a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”. Foreign office minister Chris Bryant said: “If gays vote Tory they will rue the day very soon.” But Alan Duncan, one of two gay shadow cabinet ministers, accused the two men of “stirring up hatred and division”. Mr Duncan said: “This is the last gasp of Labour’s desperation. Bradshaw and Bryant are simply trying to stir up hatred and division from the last century and it’s both unwarranted and unworthy. “It’s simply untrue. I believed we had reached the happy point where politics had been taken out of this altogether. But these remarks show that Labour is actually the nasty party. “I have publicly paid tribute to Tony Blair for his achievements, particularly on introducing civil partnerships. David Cameron this week said that on section 28 we had to admit we got it wrong. The party has changed. I bet in Labour backwaters there are plenty of people who don’t like the fact that Ben Bradshaw is gay.” Gay pride The Conservatives are keen to stress that their prospective general election candidates include a number of gay people, including party vice chairman Margot James, and that the next generation of Tory MPs will be more socially liberal in their attitudes than their predecessors.
In a survey of 144 prospective Parliamentary candidates in winnable seats for the ConservativeHome website, 62% say same sex couples should be given the same benefits as married couples, while 31% disagree. Tory leader David Cameron this week apologised for Section 28, the controversial law brought in by the Conservatives in 1988 banning local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. Mr Cameron, the first Tory leader to speak at a gay pride event, said: “I am sorry for Section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. I hope you can forgive us.” His words were described as “historic” by Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights campaign Stonewall, adding it would remove a major obstacle in the way of many of Britain’s three million gay people voting Tory. But Mr Bradshaw and Mr Bryant urged gay people to study Conservative voting records on issues such as gay adoption and hate crimes, which they say reveal a streak of homophobia. In a joint statement with gay work and pensions minister Angela Eagle they said: “The Conservatives seem to have missed the point on this, yet again. David Cameron has apologised for his support of Section 28, but the argument has moved on. “Why are the Conservatives rejecting important equality legislation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people in the shape of the Equality Bill? Why did Cameron and his frontbenchers oppose fertility rights for lesbians?” They also questioned the stance of the Conservatives’ new allies in the European Parliament. “The reaction criticism like this provokes in the Conservative ranks shows they haven’t changed on this. Cameron hasn’t confronted his party on this issue and they should be judged on their actions, not their soft words.” Poll findings And Commons leader Harriet Harman, whose Equalities Bill currently making its way through Parliament would outlaw discrimination on grounds of sexuality, urged people to disregard Mr Cameron’s words on Section 28. She told Pink News: “I don’t think anyone should be fooled by the apology, which is already 25 years too late. It is not the view of the Tory party. They have voted against the Equality Bill. If they were sincere, they would support it.” And she backed the comments by Chris Bryant and Ben Bradshaw, saying: “The essential heart of the Tories is homophobic.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose wife Sarah will be joining Saturday’s Pride London event, sent a message to the organisers praising their campaign. He said: “This government is committed to standing at your shoulder in the fight for equality and we are guided by one very simple principle when it comes to LBGT (Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender) rights: you can’t legislate for love.” It comes as new research suggests a rising number of gay people are planning to vote Conservative at the next election. A membership survey by Jake, a networking group for gay professionals, found 38% would vote Conservative at the next election, 1% higher than the general population, according to an average of recent opinion polls. Labour came third on 20% behind the Liberal Democrats – even though 86.6% of those surveyed said Labour was the party that had achieved most for gay people and just 4% said the Tories were “gay friendly”, compared with 44% for Labour and the Lib Dems. Jake surveyed 506 of its members anonymously on their voting intentions between 18 and 21 June and carried out a separate survey of 600 of its largely male membership on their general attitude towards the big three parties. | ||||
Well Cllr Lindley seems to think i was whittering on about a new party in Salford and he did not no who they were. Ask your Boss we spoke about it on wednesday.
Regards….
The essential heart of the Tories is homophobic 
