Tag Archives: Austerity

Government Urges GPs To Cut Pain Relief For Women Giving Birth

Posted on by

A lot of things make being a woman seem unfair. Periods, unequal pay, the biological clock, having your breasts stared at. But life is unfair and you just get on with your life. I mean, there is only a certain amount of time a person can stress over things, but yesterday I read something that I think is worth stressing over. Whilst reading the March 2013 edition of Easy Living magazine, in an article entitled, ‘How Can That Fit Through There?’, I read the following:

“In August 2012, new guidelines were drawn up for GPs, urging them to encourage mothers-to-be to have a natural labour with as little pain relief as possible in a bid to save the NHS money – given that an epidural costs £200.

Frankly, if the NHS needs to cut things then a women in the worst pain imaginable trying to push a baby through a 10cm hole is not the most humane choice. If men gave birth, would these ‘guidelines’ have been put through? I don’t have children, but I have been in a relationship for three years and it is on my mind whether or not to have them. This piece of information is not encouraging. I doubt any of the taxpayers money was considered when it came to Kate Middleton and her morning sickness (and neither should it).

If women stopped having children the world would stop. We need to be given more respect for the ordeal of being pregnant for nine months and then giving birth. Childcare is also expensive. Maybe this is the governments answer to the population crisis? Anyway, it feels like an attack on women and completely inhumane. If someone gets drunk and falls over do they get pain relief? Yes, and they should. I don’t want to live in a country where a doctor will see someone in pain and not give them pain relief. If the government really wants to save money why don’t they cut the £400 per month food allowance MPs get while families rely on food banks to feed themselves. Or the money to pay their rent and mortgage. Most of the population does not get paid expenses on these things.

We are not ‘all in this together’, some of us have a great deal more pain to bear.

Politicians Get £400 Per Month Food Allowance While Families Go Hungry

Posted on by

It has not been a good time for the general public recently. In the past few years we have learned that some of our politicians are corrupt (the expenses scandal), that some of the Metropolitan Police Force was on the pay role of News Corporation, and that some of the press dealt in illegal activities to get their stories. Is anyone on the straight and narrow these days?

While ordinary people feel the pinch along with everyone else MP’s are legally claiming £400 per month on food. In fact, politics is the only career that I can think of where your get a food allowance and also get your rent or mortgage paid. All by the taxpayer, who can barely afford to live.

Recently I watched a brilliant documentary that was on the BBC called Britain’s Hidden Hungry. This was along the same lines of an excellent Marie Claire magazine article that I recently read. The documentary focused on food banks in Coventry. Food banks are on the rise now as families tighten their belts. Their are 11 food bank in Coventry. They are called Hope Centres and are set up by a Christian charity. A voucher is given to you by social services if you are deemed in need. Each voucher gives you 3 days of food.

Two more food banks are opening every week. The food bank in Coventry fed 10,000 people in 8 months. These food banks are on the rise all over the UK. Sometimes people need them as they have fallen down a benefits hole. One young women in the documentary who was in full time education only ate one meal a day because she was not eligible for benefits. She was even told to have a child by an employee at the benefits agency so she could apply for benefits.

I know quite a few politicians and they are not all corrupt and horrible. Some of them go into politics to help people and do good. But you have to wonder why in the current economical climate they are making cuts to benefits and the price of everything is rising above inflation that MP’s still get their food and rent paid for them. Especially as their constituents will be surviving on the bare minimum. If they really want to make more cuts, maybe that would be a good place to start?

Some MP’s do not even seem grateful at being in the only profession I can think of that pays for your food and rent and are still taking advantage of the situation.

David Amess is one of 27 MPs who claim expenses up to £20,000 a year to rent a second home in London while letting out the property and pocketing the cash. But he is doing nothing wrong according to parliamentary rules, just moral ones then.

Amess’s constituency home is in Essex, a mere 41 miles from Westminster. One wonders why MPs cannot commute like the rest of us. Amess owns a home in South West London, rents another at the expense of the taxpayer AND was claiming expenses to stay in a hotel in London.

The MP hit taxpayers with 23 separate expenses claims for ­hotels since July 2011.

Is one of the reasons so many MP’s are happily pushing through more austerity measures, because the austerity never affects them? Maybe a dose of reality is in order.

As far as possible, boycott the nasty 35 {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

Imagine this: every day a big kid at your school takes the money your parent/carer gives you for a measly meal of chicken burger and chips and a can of cherry pop. You’re left asking your mate for a bite on their corned beef sandwich and a couple of crisps.

When you go home you’re asked how school was, to which you reply, in your nonchalant way, fine! The next question, intrusively, is: “…and how was your lunch?” Your only option, in order to save face, and those long dreaded conversations which end in the questioner calling the school, embarrassing, is to lie and say it was fine – even though you had none, and even if you had it would’ve been crap as your school employs a woman with 6 cats to make what might colloquially be called the food.

Imagine the next day that person who steals your food money says they have food for you, but you have to do errands for them. You ask what kind of errands. Their response is to get you to clean their shoes, and the shoes of all their friends, while someone who used to do your job watches you to make sure you do it right. After you’ve done that, they give you a small amount of food – an amount so small that it would take that person only 0.25 of a person’s food money, out of the 20 or 30 they steal from, to afford the food.

Imagine then the wage packet of your parent/carer halved because some people, in the city, started to fuck around, making money by giving someone else’s money to people who were earning 10 times less a year. Your parent/carer decided to continue giving you the same lunch money (on the naïve thought it went towards a decent cause – which was taken by the bully anyway – but the quality of your clothing diminished, your dinner became smaller and of worse quality, you had to move out of your flat near the trees to a flat near no trees, and your lasagne dish turned into Welsh rarebit with peperoni and pasta).

All the time, the bully at school supports your “austerity”, after all, they still get their labour (ie your lunch money) but you get less, and are, thus, less inclined to seek alternatives to the existence of opening your arse to the shaft of a bastard!

Well, believe me, this is what is happening with the 35 bosses of the “big companies” who think it would be a mistake for the chancellor to “water down” his budget, reducing half a million jobs in the public sector and possibly doing the same amount, perhaps more, to the private sector, in order to level national debt – something which has been a reality for-flipping-ever, and is nowhere near as rocky as was Canada, who in the nineties were 101% in debt of their gross domestic product (so, Ozzy Osborne can stop using them as an example).

Yup, we’re being shafted by the cuts, all of us, no matter what sector you are in; the chancellor is screwing you over. Oh, unless you are a loan shark – you’re making a killing!! And the bosses of 35 companies don’t mind, because they still buy your labour under value, still make tremendous amounts of cash, and you continue to live in your prison.

Hey, I don’t know about you, but I might take the only power I have this Christmas – how I love Christmas – and take my money elsewhere. Yup. I will not buy anything from those 35 companies mentioned here. Because if the government wants to screw us over, I want nice people to at least lend me their hearts. If they can’t do that, then fuck them.

We're not at Home to Champagne Charlie {Politics}

Posted on by
As has been widely reported, this year’s Conservative Party Conference, like its predecessor, will feature a ban on what many might see as the Tories’ beverage of choice – champagne, naturally. We are told that at last year’s conference, the drink would have been seen as a premature celebration of victory – and it’s true that nothing is punished by the British public more swiftly than perceived arrogance; just ask the Labour Party after their narrow loss against John Major’s Conservatives.

At this year’s Conference, the mood (or at least the mood the Party wants to project) is sober and business-like. The past few months since the election could be seen, perhaps, as a ‘phoney war’, a kind of hiatus – up until now, cuts have been discussed, options tabled, and Ministers have argued for the necessity of continued spending in their Departments. Now, within two weeks, the axe will begin to fall in earnest and the public will begin to see what 25% cuts in Government spending actually look like.  Accountancy firm BDO and other experts have warned that the cuts are likely to push the country into a second recession, as businesses make their own cuts in anticipation of shrinking markets. Against this background, it would be foolish, indeed, to celebrate too overtly in front of the cameras.

Yet the Conservatives, in fact, have much to celebrate. Of course, winning the election, for one thing, even if the result was the Coalition. Perhaps even more important is how smoothly the Coalition formed and how harmonious it is for the most part – It’s been said of David Cameron that he prefers consensus to confrontation, and he seems to be thriving on it.

But it’s not just about consensus – this is a radical Government – if anyone had missed that point, it was made clear by David Cameron’s invitation to Margaret Thatcher to visit 10 Downing Street in June. Margaret Thatcher herself was the leader of the most revolutionary administration since the Welfare State was born in 1945 under Clemet Attlee.  Thatcher’s revolution, of course, was about shrinking, not enlarging, the State, and David Cameron intends to complete it.

Under Thatcher, the State got out of the business of running industries. Under Cameron, the State will continue to provide the essentials to those who have no alternative, but it will no longer be a viable option for those who prefer not to work to rely on the State as a lifestyle choice. The planned cuts in Housing Benefit for the long-term unemployed are part of this strategy; while they may sound harsh, Ian Duncan Smith’s intended radical reforms to the welfare system will ensure that taking work always pays and that the culture of warehousing people on benefits for life is brought to an end.

The process will undoubtedly be painful, particularly for those State employees who lose their jobs in this process. But we should remember one thing – while the 1980s were also painful for many as the economy changed from State Socialism to free enterprise, by the mid-1990s Britain’s economy was rock-solid, house prices were reasonable, and levels of employment were increasing.

David Cameron’s rejigging of the economy is unavoidable, not least because the country is broke – but people may be pleasantly surprised to see what emerges from the process.

It would be hard to blame Conference delegates for taking a discreet swig of champagne from a paper cup, given the circumstances.

Stephen Canning is the editor of The Tory Boy ( http://www.thetoryboy.com ) one of the fatest growing online political news blogs. He is also the Chairman of the Braintree Conservative Future and is actively involved in local, regional and national politics. Join him on Twitter (@StephenCanning) for regular political news and information.

The Fat of the Land {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

There is a simple reason why I predict the two taser shots received by Raoul Moat on the morning of 10 July had nothing to do with his eventual death. Not because disruptions to ones nervous system couldn’t release a spasm that would set off a trigger to an unfortunate whose gun happened to be pointed at his own head. No (although I’m sure you can find these conspiracies on Moat’s popular facebook fan page). Rather, a bit of shock therapy could shake a bit of sense into the bugger.

Subsequently, I would like to prescribe a bit of shock therapy to our health minister Andrew Lansley if he expects fatty food producers to take it upon themselves to cut salt, sugar and spice (and everything that’s nice) out of the nations food, now that the regulators are out.

With no regulation, why wouldn’t Dave Osler be right to say:

“Anti-obesity campaigning in Britain will soon be brought to you courtesy of Bombay Bad Boy-flavour Pot Noodles, Snickers, Golden Wonder and Fanta. Or at least it will be, if Andrew Lansley gets his way.”

Lansley recently told food manufacturers that if they were to be nutritionally responsible then they could be spared regulation. The next week it is revealed that the Food Standards Agency is to be abolished.

This has been met with calls that government has “caved in to big business”. Either that or food manufacturers, in a week, suitably impressed Lansley that they would be culinary ethical (to coin a phrase). Although Labour health spokesman, and leadership candidate, Andy Burnham, probably hit the nail on the head when he said that: “It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.”

The same food companies that Professor Terence Stephenson, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, among many other leading doctors, asked Lansley and the government to stop giving a platform to by allowing them to advertise their products during sports events, shortly after Lansley announced that manufacturers of crisps and confectionery could play a central role in the Change4Life campaign.

One of the main beneficiaries of austerity, be that the killing off of the FSA or for customer popularity, is bad foodies. McDonalds, it was reported in 2008, defied the credit crunch by recruiting 4,000 people to fill ‘McJobs’.

KFC, also back in 2008, according to one report, enjoys “strong growth as Britons are drawn towards cheaper eat-out deals in the face of the recession.”

There were gasps of horror when George Osborne announced OBR predictions of 2m more private sector jobs within five years(although how much of this should be taken at face value is questionable, with the early departure of Sir Alan Budd, whose parting gift was to say the Treasury needs more outside regulation – and he should know). The McJob could be the future; which means less unionisation, less workers rights, and an almost robotic allegiance to the French fry.

There has been one overall winner of this period of negative economic growth, and that is bad food. Unhealthy people die, so why wouldn’t our government want to cosy up to the winners. Lets just hope the public isn’t reminded that Andrew Lansley is being bankrolled by some dreaded private health firm now… (whoops).