Cameron Misleads Country Over Welsh NHS in PMQs

Last Wednesday in the first Prime Minister Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons for weeks, as Cameron sought to avoid facing the opposition and the country about his government's failings.

Ed Miliband made all his questions about the NHS and as usual David Cameron avoided answering them, or perhaps more to the point he chose to give answers to questions that he was not asked.

In full arrogant flow, Cameron said "we will not take the advice [on the NHS] of the party opposite" even though Labour, (the party opposite) when in government actually saved the NHS from total destruction. They had the unenviable Herculean task of finding the billions of pounds investment the NHS needed to reverse the 18 years of successive Conservative government chronic underinvestment and virtual terminal decline which began in earnest when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister and continued unabated under former Conservative PM John Major.

If Labour had not won the general election of 1997 and helped pulled the NHS up by its boot straps and massivley increase investment and if it was not for the unselfish dedication and unending hard slog of health care professionals and workers between 1997 and 2010, we would have without doubt lost our NHS years ago.

During last Wednesday's PMQs exchanges between Cameron and Miliband, the prime minister made a number of accusations about the NHS in Wales rather than answer the actual questions he was asked, (which were about Accident and Emergency Departments in England) trying instead to divert attention away from the horrendous problems now emerging in the NHS in England by trying to infer that the problems in the NHS in Wales were somehow the fault of Labour.

What David Cameron did not want to tell the public was that if the NHS has been cut in Wales, it is because they had no choice, the Welsh National Assembly can only spend the money it is given by Westminster. Cameron accused the Assembly of cutting the NHS budget by 8%, yet it was  the Coalition government who cut overall funding to Wales by a massive £2bn. Also the prime minister was lying (yet again) as faced with an overall cut in funding the WA cut spending on health by 1% , not 8% as the PM said in the House of Commons. The WA can only deploy the money it is given by central government and faced with spending money on health or education, the Assembly chose to increase spending on education as over the tenure of the previous Labour government Wales had seen spending on health trebled.

There is absolutely no denying that the NHS in Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh government in Cardiff, but nevertheless it still has to work on the funding it is given to it by Westminster, and rather than use the NHS in Wales as a political football, perhaps the prime minister should acknowledge the problems his government are causing to the Welsh NHS with their massive funding cuts, rather than immediately go on the defensive and go to his default position of attack? After all he has been in government for almost three years now and he cannot continue to blame everything on the previous Labour government, especially when Labour increased funding to Wales and the Tories have cut it!

The problems that Wales are having within the NHS today are specifically because the coalition government have cut funding and the prime minister is being deeply dishonest to suggest otherwise. Further, the problems that Wales are having within their NHS are starting to emerge all over England, again as a direct result of the Tory controlled coalition government's policies. People should look to the problems in the Welsh NHS and heed them as a warning and unite and try to stop them happening in England.

Also Cameron has once again been caught out in a blatant lie!

Cameron may like to suggest he is increasing spending on the NHS but the facts are that he and his government are not only responsible for funding cuts in Wales, they are responsible for real term funding cuts in the NHS in England. He and his government have actually cut the NHS budget for two years running and he owes it to patients, staff and the general public to go to the House of Commons and make a statement correcting his misleading statements. He also needs to stop trying to shift the blame about what his government's policies have caused to the NHS and its staff and the NHS in Wales and the Labour Assembly elsewhere, when he knows that these problems are a direct result of his policies.

Cameron Rebuked By Andrew Dilnot over public expenditure on health.

Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Andrew Dilnot CBE

Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall
LONDON
SW1A 2NS
4 December 2012

Dear Mr Hunt

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH

The Statistics Authority has been asked to consider, in the light of the published official
statistics, various statements made by the Prime Minister, by yourself, and on the
Conservative Party website. For example, you said in the House of Commons on 23 October
that “real-terms spending on the NHS has increased across the country”
1 and the Conservative Party website states that “we have increased the NHS budget in real terms in
each of the last two years”.
2 We are aware that there are questions of definition here. The year on year changes in real
terms have been small and the different sources, including the Department of Health Annual
Report and Accounts and the public expenditure figures issued by the Treasury, are not
necessarily exactly the same.
The most authoritative source of National Statistics on the subject would seem to be the
Treasury publication Public Spending Statistics, and I note that these figures were used in a
Department of Health Press Release in July 2012. The most recent update to those figures
was published on 31 October but the July 2012 release gives a more detailed breakdown. I
attach a note prepared by staff of the Statistics Authority summarising some of the relevant
figures from the two Public Spending releases.

On the basis of these figures, we would conclude that expenditure on the NHS in real terms
was lower in 2011-12 than it was in 2009-10. Given the small size of the changes and the
uncertainties associated with them, it might also be fair to say that real terms expenditure
had changed little over this period. In light of this, I should be grateful if the Department of
Health could clarify the statements made.

1 HC Deb, 23 October 2012, c815
2 http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Health.aspx

I am copying this to the Cabinet Secretary, to the Permanent Secretary at the Department of
Health and to the National Statistician.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Dilnot CBE

Source: UK Statistics Authority

To date neither the prime minister or the Health Secretary have gone to the House and rectified their misleading statements, in fact the prime minister just keeps on telling the same lies and keeps on deliberately misleading the public and the Speaker allows him to get away with it.

This cut in real terms funding has led to the loss of over 7000 nursing jobs and dangerously full hospitals and over flowing Accident & Emergency Departments and will lead to the problems that Wales is currently experiencing.

Today we learn that the government are going to stop "ring fencing" the NHS, that's a joke because as we can see from the above letter from Dilnot, this government have never ring-fenced the NHS, it was all one massive lie and deliberate deception. It has also been revealed that A&E Departments in England have failed to meet their targets for 30 weeks. The government were warned months ago that the pilot schemes 111 Urgent Care hotline which replace NHS Direct, was resulting in a massive upswing of patients ending up in A & E Departments and placing a huge pressure on ambulance and fast response teams, but they did nothing. In fact I warned about it several times on this blog Here;  Here and Here

Many NHS professionals were worried about the government's intention of replacing trained NHS Direct staff with NHS 111 operators who had little or no medical experience and had often undergone just 60 hours of basic training. Andrew Lansley, the then Health Secretary said these were just pilot schemes, yet these "pilot schemes" were introduced across the country and took place without prior consultation in parliament. Since these so called schemes were introduced reports have been leaked that telephone operators unable to seek timely qualified medical opinion to help their callers have been referring them to Accident & Emergency Departments. The government has also been forced to bail out their new and troubled Urgent 111 Healthcare with £8.4 million in order to keep NHS Direct going while they try to sort out the problems that their reforms have caused in replacing NHS Direct with their confused NHS 111 version.


We are told that the government are now drawing up plans to transfer £1bn from the NHS budget into social care for the elderly, while at the same time this government who promised us faithfully there would be 'no further top down reorganisation of the NHS', before introducing reforms the biggest in the NHS 64 year history, have wasted over £3 billion on an NHS top down reorganisation that no one wanted using money could which could have been used for elderly care, instead it has been wasted and frittered away and has found its way into Tory support groups, Tory lobbying groups, Tory doning private health companies etc, all employed to find ways to privatise our NHS by stealth. Capita the huge outsourcing company who has taken over NHS Direct now known as Urgent Health Care NHS 111 has donated over £1.5 million to the Tories over a period of ten years! See HERE

The NHS is already having to find £20bn of savings, so now they will have to find a further £1bn, which will add to the already immense pressures on the NHS and this could possibly lead to further cuts in the NHS in Wales.

The radical changes introduced at the beginning of April are unlikely to be felt for a few months but when they are felt, then financial chaos could ensue and if the NHS has suddenly to find a further £1bn in costs, the implications for patients using the NHS could be dire.

The public has been catapulted into a system whereby about 30% of  CCG GPs have shares in private firms that will be bidding against the NHS for contracts. How much of this £1bn that is to be awarded to social care for the elderly is going to end up in the bank accounts of private care providers? Already these private companies have taken over from qualified community nurse teams that gave a much higher quality of care at a fraction of the price, this could lead to a further erosion of this service.The competition rules that the Tories and Lib Dems have introduced into the NHS could lead to lucrative strands of health care being cherry picked by health care companies out to make profits for their shareholders. Taxpayers money will find its way out of the NHS and into the bank accounts of shareholders, leading to further cuts in funding to the NHS as more money is taken out via the back door, the "back door" that this government aided and abetted by Liberal Democrats have opened widely for the profit making of private health companies to walk in and out of with arms full of taxpayers cash!

Yet David Cameron comes to the House of Commons and lies through his back teeth about the NHS and is allowed to get away with it.

The answer to the problems being caused in the NHS is to get this government out and allow Labour to repeal the Health and Social Care bill.

What we should all also be asking, is why our prime minister, David Cameron is consistently lying to us not just about the NHS, but about pretty much everything and why the right wing press and the broadcast media are allowing him such an easy passage!

Thatcher's Dead and The Tories Rewrite History!

I wasn't going to mark the passing of Margaret Thatcher but I had a change of heart due to the great rewriting of history since she died, by the "great and the good" (Tory sycopahnts).

I will not rejoice her death and I will respect that she was someone's mother and grandmother (even if her family couldn't be bothered to rush back to the country to be with their mother in her final hours) because to do anything different would render me a person I am not and "that woman" has already taken so much from me so I categorically refuse to allow her, even in death, to take even more.

When the news of her death broke I felt nothing, it was later that the sense of mourning came.

I mourned the closing of the coal mines, the steelworks, ship building and the loss of manufacturing. I mourned the loss council housing which is the main cause of such pain and distress today suffered by those who cannot afford to buy, cannot afford private rents and who desperately need social housing. I mourn the loss of the time before Thatcher's government started privatising everything that wasn't nailed down. I mourn the era when we had a stricken country after coming through WW2, but still managing to to build homes, the NHS and welfare state, even though rationing was still happening. I mourn the loss of a time when when  we had some sense of community and responsibility and a real want to help others less well off.
I mourn the jobs my husband (and millions like him) lost as a direct result of Thatcher's policies that killed British industry.

I don't mourn the years horrendous strain Thatcher's policies placed upon us until it finally broke our backs. I don't mourn the time when so many people thought their only option when faced with bankruptcy, redundancy, and losing their, businesses, their homes and their dignities was to commit suicide -  lest we forget, because  according to the Office National Statistics (ONS), suicide is once again on the rise and to go with that, we have another Tory government in all but name and this one is even unelected!

Do I pay respects at the loss of this divisive figure? Yes. I pay respects to the thousands of miners Thatcher made redundant and recall with deep sadness the divisions and rifts she caused in families and I hope now with "that bloody woman's" passing those terrible rifts can start to heal.

I never wanted my own children's lives or the lives of my precious precious grandchildren to be blighted like  ours were during the 18 years of Tory hell. When the Tories went out in 1997 I prayed we would never see the like of them again and then along came the - "sons of Thatcher", implementing her failed monetarist policies behaving like Thatcher on speed.

This unelected government ram austerity down the throats of the people who never caused the problems, Cameron and Osborne (like their "mother") are once again dividing society and are blaming people for being poor and are encouraging workers to turn against each other. They continually tell us that as a country we do not have any money. Then Thatcher dies and we are told by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, we can afford to waste spend upwards of £10 million on a state  ceremonial funeral for the most divisive prime minister in British history!

During the miners strike Thatcher stopped social security payments to help with miners funerals. Today people in their darkest hour and need are denied help burying their loved ones, e yet we are forced to pay over £10 million for one divisive woman's funeral?

At a time when people should have been trying to save for old age, they were struggling virtually penniless to pay ever rising bills, the poll tax. They had no hope of saving for today because they had no job, their jobs were cruelly taken away by Thatcher. She did not want to subsidise the national industries, yet like this government today, she thought nothing of subsidising her mates in corporations and financial sector. Now these people are referred to as little more than "benefit cheating scum" and "shirkers" who have never worked. They are the product of Thatcher's policies, yet suddenly the country's ills are all their fault, just as they were once the fault of the working class before under Thatcher.

This funeral today is a final smack in the teeth for the millions whose lives she totally ruined. It is a slap in the face of the workers who actually built this country, who Thatcher referred to as "the enemy within".

What about the closed pits and the derelict communities? What about the decimated shipbuilding and the Sheffield steelworks?The empty spaces in Stoke where potteries once stood? The now gone textile mills of the North West? Why did Thatcher and still her sycophantic followers today believe that having decimated British industry everyone was going to find a job selling each other "financial services"? How did she think this was ever going to happen? And one of the biggest 'hilarities' of this present unelected Tory buffoonery (government) was to come in and say "we are going to manufacture our way out of recession", where? How? yet since they came in the very small amount of manufacturing Britain had left was doing fairly well and since this government came in, that too has fallen off a cliff, it's Thatcherism repeating itself - again!

Now people are told they should show respect for Thatcher because she is someone's mother and she has died! Yes Thatcher is the mother of a daughter that refers to black people as "gollywogs" and an arms dealer son who cost this country millions when he got lost in the desert. Mark Thatcher the now 59-year-old – who was convicted in South Africa in 2005 over his involvement in a failed coup in Equatorial Guinea – has achieved a certain fresh respectability in the eyes of the world, by now being entitled to call himself "Sir" Mark.
Talk about respect, if Mark Thatcher had any kind of respect for the people of his native country he would not have dreamed of calling himself "Sir Mark", what has he ever done that is good for this country that he thinks it is OK for him to call himself this?

The title is a consequence of the bestowal on his father Denis, in Mrs Thatcher's own resignation honours as prime minister, of an unusual hereditary baronetcy. When his father died in 2003, the title passed to Mark: it was thus the last of several favours his mother did for him, thanks to her position.

 I personally would spit in his eye rather than refer to him as "Sir Mark". Just more pointless upper-class twaddle and trash and the politics of the inherited.

I was put off by the celebrations of a M. Thatcher’s death. 

Margaret Thatcher’s policies resulted in a great deal of anguish and poverty for a great many people. She was ruthless: 

“She supported the retention of capital punishment,she destroyed the country’s manufacturing industry,she voted against the relaxation of divorce laws she abolished free milk for schoolchildren, she supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out), she gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration, she gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership), she was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed – the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million….” 

I could add to this list.Her policies actually hurt people .Although I have no wish to celebrate her death I can understand how people feel, especially as we have a Tory government whose policies are mirroring Thatchers. No I do not think its about left wing people celebrating Thatchers death, I think people remember the awful time they had and are simply expressing that. I don’t think you will find anyone celebrating Major’s death. 

Written By  A.Blogger

Respect for Thatcher? Perhaps we will show respect for her in death when she can come back and show respect for what she did to the lives of millions of people and when she can rise and say she is sorry for the pain and suffering and the ruined lives she caused.

I'm not a hypocrite, I loathed everything she stood for and no amount of Sycophantic Tory MPs and Z list celebrities rewriting history will ever make me change my mind.

Lies, Damned Lies and the Tories

Michael Green; Sebastian Fox erm Grant Shapps is at it again. The Conservative party chairman, (the man tipped to be a future Tory leader) who brought us "How to get stinking rich quick in a recession" via Michael Green (aka Tory party chairman Grant Shapps) from one of his fake websites "How to Corp" now re-registered from Michael Green's to his wife's name 'Belinda Shapps' is now turning his "skills" to faking on the Conservative party website.

Last week this photo appeared:

Photo of young Australian models which appeared on Tory website last week.
The exact same photograph appears on an Australian universities website!

It was supposed to show us the average age of the team that will be campaigning for the Tories in the 2015 general election, a young vibrant team raring to go to support the Tories, not their usual older average age.

Michael Green Grant Shapps it appears never learns. The above photograph was taken from a website in Australia and it depicts Australian models and not young Tory party activists all set to campaign which is the image Shapps and Cameron's spin doctors and new election strategist, attack dog Lynton Crosby wanted to portray.

Once the deceit was discovered the photograph was hastily taken down and replaced with the one below. It depicts David Cameron with a group of school kiddies who will be unable to  campaign let alone vote in 2015 because they will still be too young!

Have the Tories got any proper young activists they can use, or do they plan to keep on trying to deceive the public and show false images?

David Cameron's Team 2015 - comprises of kiddies to young to vote

Here is Michael Green Grant Shapps who once bragged about the number of planes he owned used a photo of a fake Christian family to attack the unemployed. This time it is a fake family taken from an advert advertising a parenting book. (pity it's not a book that teaches Tory politicians how not to lie to the public)

It's not the use of stock photographs that is the problem, it is the deceit that Shapps and the Tories use, they are actually trying to portray something as genuine when it is not and while they insist on doing this, then how can the public ever believe a single thing they say?

They seem to have a thing about looking their age, remember the deceitful pictures of an airbrushed david Cameron during the last election?

Left - David Cameron how he really looked in the 2010 general election campaign
Right -  After he was airbrushed to show a more youthful David Cameron

Back in 2010 when asked about the infamous airbrushing his florid cheeks and double chins out the NHS poster, David Cameron said that he didn't want to talk about the poster, but he did want to say that he would cut the deficit not the NHS, pity, not even that has come true, in fact he has increased the deficit and cut NHS spending in real terms!

David Cameron tell lies about Britain's debt in his party election broadcast.

He said:

“So though this government has had to make some difficult decisions, we are making progress. We’re paying down Britain’s debts.” (Click to Listen!) 

"David Cameron’s policy is to increase Britain’s debt by 60 per cent, more than any European country. To increase it more over five years than Labour did over 13 years.  Just yesterday, we learned the national debt had hit £1,111 billion and it’s heading to £1,400 billion. 

By no stretch of the English language can this be described as “paying down Britain’s debts.” What Cameron said is not an exaggeration. It’s a straight falsehood, and one that demeans his office. He has previously used different language, saying that he is “dealing with the debt”. The below graph says it all: 

 As Cameron says in his party political broadcast, he’s only half way through his term of office. So what progress does he intend to make on national debt in the remainder of his parliament? His deputy, Nick Clegg, has previously boasted that his government is “wiping the slate clean of debt”. An utterly misleading analogy. Here are the Treasury’s published plans: It is hard to avoid the conclusion that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have an agreed strategy: that it is not important to tell the truth about how much debt their government is saddling voters with. That a little deception is no bad thing." Fraser Nelson 

You can quite clearly see that from 2010 when the Tory led coalition took over, far from pay off Britain's debts, they are actually increasing them!

Full Article at The Spectator

It really is quite shameful. Financiers are, quite literally, prosecuted for this kind of thing.

When he mentions "the excellence in Britain's schools" he means having people who are not qualified as teachers running the school and teaching your children!

David Cameron in an election address to NHS workers during the 2010 General Election campaign

"There will be no more top down reorganisation of the NHS - a few weeks later he ordered the biggest NHS reforms in the 64 year history of the NHS." David Cameron.

Here the Conservatives are at it again in Northern Ireland

It is just one lie and one deception upon another and as  Cameron said in his video, "do try to keep up please"!

Can the Conservative party do anything at all without manipulating, misleading and lying to the public?

Cameron, Osborne and IDS and Mick Philpott, Narcissists One and ALL!

With the recent controversy over how to implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations over the phone hacking scandal, you would have thought that the Daily Mail would have exerted common sense and a little self control over its banner headlining of the the tragic Philpott children case. Not so, it lead with one of the most vile sickening headlines I have ever seen in a newspaper, it even manged to outshine the Sun newspaper's usual gutter press antics and that's really saying something.

Obviously self regulation is not working and it's hard to understand how the Daily Mail  thought it was going to get away with this, especially as they are in the process of trying to reject the light touch regulation that all three major political parties had eventually agreed on along with the Hacked Off campaigners. This headline was deeply offensive to all those forced to live on welfare, many of whom find themselves in that predicament precisely because of the incompetence of the government that is now insulting them! This kind of headline is a shameful indictment of a newspaper editor and a government that think they can do as they wish. As it is now evident for all to see that the press are totally incapable of self regulation, urgent legislation is now needed to prevent an occurrence of this despicable attempt to divide and rule our nation. As if this tragic case were not bad enough, the Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, the chancellor George Osborne and latterly in a calculated move, the prime minister, decided to use this tragedy as a means to cause deep divisions between our people in order to justify their attack on the welfare state.

It seems to have by-passed the single shared brain cell of Paul Dacre, David Cameron and George Osborne that 6 children died in that fire started by their own parents and that the children have names, Jade, 10 and her brothers John, nine, Jack, eight, Jesse, six, Jayden, five and Duwayne, 13 -  is it really too much to ask that they did not use these innocent children as political footballs? For Paul Dacre and George Osborne to try and politicise this tragic case and use the deaths of those poor innocent kiddies as a tool with which to try and legitimise the Conservative government's attack on the welfare state is simply unconscionable. When the judge passed sentence on Mick Philpott, she said; "he had no moral compass", she is right, he hasn't, however, neither has Paul Dacre, David Cameron or George Osborne. There should be no place in public life for people prepared to stoop to this level,and there is no absolutely no excuses for what they tried to do, it was despicable..

Over recent months there has been growing speculation that George Osborne's judgement and character is fatally flawed and that he is simply not up to the job but by making these comments;

It's right we ask questions as a government, a society and as taxpayers, why we are subsidising lifestyles like these. It does need to be handled.

Osborne has clearly confirmed those suspicions. That he even thought it was OK to use the deaths of six innocent children is bad enough, but to make those comments live on national television  without a trace of understanding how insulted some would be by them, is an utter disgrace and an embarrassment to this country and he has demeaned the high office he holds.

What Mick Philpott did has absolutely nothing to do with living on the welfare state, he is a particularly vile manipulative violent narcissist who viewed his partners and 17 children as chattels. The money he got from the welfare state was just a bonus and just another tool which he used to control the women in his life along with keeping them pregnant. What Philpott really wanted was absolute power and control and this control even extended to his friend and neighbour Paul Mosely, who also fell under the destructive influence of Michael Philpott. The judge commented when sentencing him: "what Mick Philpott wanted, Mick Philpott got" and "Mick Philpott was the centre of his own universe" and she was right, but for Osborne to try and say this was in some way the fault of the welfare state is totally ludicrous.

If all recipients of benefits are "vile products of the welfare state" then by the same token are we to assume that all Tories are the vile products of the "well-off state"? Should we then  assume that all Tories are lying adulterers who cheat on their wives and children, and conspire with friends to have journalists beaten up and their ribs broken, just as the Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson did? Audio of Boris and Guppy  conversation. Was the welfare state responsible for the psychopathic behaviour of Fred and Rosemary West?

Using a tragic and mercifully rare case like this as a political weapon is the lowest form of politics and journalism, and Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre and prime minister, David Cameron and George Osborne's motives are crystal clear they are to: - demonise and shame welfare claimants; to blame the poor, disabled, sick, low waged and unemployed for a financial mess which has nothing to do with them; to present the provision of benefits as somehow shameful and wasteful; and to support the Conservative government's cuts to welfare spending.

Philpott's wife and lover actually went out to work while he stayed at home and "cared" for the children. Many men do this these days, fortunately they are not violent manipulative narcissists like Philpott, they are good decent, honest men and there is nothing wrong with role reversal, in fact it is a way in which many households operate today to get around expensive child care costs. This is the kind of situation this government maintain they want more of us to do, so where is the logic in Osborne's and Cameron's comments? Again it clearly shows their comments for exactly what they were - naked political opportunism!

Philpott  was a truly violent terrible controlling character but would have been exactly the same if he were not receiving benefits. His elected lifestyle was never about money, money was secondary, money was just another tool to Philpott and it was used to control, everything about him was controlling. He had to control every aspect of the lives of "his" women ("bitches") and children and life inside that house. Philpott had two women which he used on alternate nights. Such was his control over them he forced his wife to perform lewd sex acts on his friend and neighbour Paul Mosely while he watched. He forced his wife to take part in demeaning "dogging" sessions. He even forced his wife into performing a sex act on Paul Mosely in their hotel room a few days after the fire that killed their children! Philpott then used that knowledge with which to control Mosely. Paul Mosely was so infatuated with Philpott, he even started to look and dress like him, growing the same kind of facial hair etc. This is not a "vile product of welfare UK", this is a vile product of a violent deluded control freak.

 He had both women going out to work and their wages and and working tax credits and child allowance were paid into his bank account. He had total control over that household, total control over the finances and total control over anyone and everything in that house. That fire was started because Mick Philpott's former live in lover decided to get her children and herself out of that oppressive situation and this just didn't happen one day, women who live in abusive relationships just do not just get up and go on a whim, there must have been some kind of trigger, some kind of build-up, something must have gone badly wrong which gave her the strength and courage to get her children and herself out of there. Maybe she sensed danger, maybe she knew what he was planning (in order to get a larger house), who knows? I dare say the truth will emerge one day.

However, when she went it enraged Philpott because he felt his control slip and his power start to diminish and that lost control brought about his rage and sparked this criminal act, it had nothing to do with the welfare state. It had nothing to do with money, it had everything to do with that woman becoming frightened enough for her children to stand up to him and disobey him and it was what Philpott perceived as his loss of control over her and loss of face to his friends and neighbours that led to the terrible events of that fire and the deaths of six children.  If he threatened her, then this was him carrying out that threat in order to scare her, just like he did when he tried to murder a former girlfriend and her mother. It is evident for all to see that whenever his control was challenged violent episodes always followed. It wasn't the welfare state that was to blame when Philpott tried to murder his former girlfriend and her mother, he wasn't on welfare then, he was in the army! Once again the facts make the comments of Osborne and Cameron a compete nonsense.

Violence is how he controlled people he tried to make them too frightened of him and his actions to break free. Whenever saw him on TV he was nearly always verbally aggressive, intimidating and physically threatening. He referred to the women in his life as "bitches". He always spoke in sexually explicit and often degrading terms, he said that he would service one of his women on one night and then the other on the next night, and that their lives were built around him. How is this behaviour  a 'product of the welfare state?' Do we blame the welfare state for producing psychopaths? No of course not and this is exactly the same.

Looking back over Philpott's life is easy because Philpott himself has made his life common knowledge and by appearing on TV in the Jeremy Kyle show and having former Tory MP Ann Widdicombe stay for one week in order to make a fly on the wall documentary for TV, he put even more of his "private" life and his flawed character into the public domain.

• He was jailed for 7 years for stabbing an ex-girlfriend 13 times, almost killing her because she left him taking their children. 
• He was due in court to answer a particularly nasty road rage incident, which was played out in front of his own children and he threatened and punched an innocent motorist in front of the motorist's terrified child, because Philpott thought that the man had cut him up. (Again we see the need for power and control, even over a stranger!)
• He drop-kicked his 3 year old baby sending the poor little child across the room because the child disobeyed him.
• He ruled his children's lives never letting them play with friends past the garden gate. 

His entire life is a litany of documented events like this, yet Philpott had previously been hailed as a "good father"?!
This was mentioned when he appeared on the Jeremy Kyle show. No one was brave enough to tell him that it takes more than keeping children clean and well dressed to be a good father. Jeremy Kyle remarked about how well the children behaved, I wonder if the children were well behaved or were perhaps just too terrified of him to put a foot wrong? What kind of lives did those children live behind closed doors with Mick Philpott a violent manipulative aggressive man?

No "good father" would even think of putting his children's lives in danger by setting a fire. Good fathers protect their children they do not throw them into the paths of danger. Good fathers (like Philpott's good neighbours) would have tried to get his children out of that house, not stand there acting and pretending to cough while his babies died. How is this a "vile product of welfare UK"?

Mick Philpott was not a good father, he was never a good father he was a cold blooded, calculating manipulative violent narcissist and the welfare state has absolutely nothing to do with his behaviour. Everything we saw of Philpott was an act he put on for the camera, or for show. An act put on for anyone who happened to be around. He wanted everyone to like him, he wanted people to think he was a good father, he wanted to be the centre of attention and he wanted total control and if he didn't get it, when he thought his control was under threat then we saw the real Philpott emerge.

• The need for total control was there for all to see. In the film clip of the Jeremy Kyle show we clearly  hear Philpott controlling Mairead saying; "tell them what we said", in fact, Kyle picks up on this immediately and comments about it.  
• We heard Philpott in police tapes telling Mairead to stick to their story. 
• We heard him totally controlling her while they were sat in the back of a police car.
• We heard him ask her if she cried when speaking to the police and if so how much, he then added that he was crying hysterically.
• His friend reports that when Philpott identified his children in the mortuary he (the friend) was in despair and crying, but Philpott was walking around cracking jokes!
• Philpott attended karaoke session at the pub and was singing, while Mairead was laughing and joking, just a few days after their children had perished in a fire he started.
• He totally controlled what Mairead did with her own body, forcing her to have sex with other men while he watched.
• Philpott wrote: "When we get out of here will go to the graves of our babies, get drunk and rape each each other" again he is controlling Mairead. He was even controlling his children's final resting places, like a dog marks his territory. 

To gain further control of their situation Mick Philpott asked police to call a news conference. In the video clip of the news conference, he broke down sobbing covering his eyes with a hankie,  Mairead by his side said nothing and sat crying with her head down she could not look at the camera. This was pre planned contrived act, Philpott probably thought he was losing control, so thought of this in order to regain it.
Immediately I sensed there something very unnerving about that conference, it rang hollow and their actions were odd to say the least. When Philpott spoke he said; "I've just been to *my* house, and what we've seen *I* just cannot believe"  he  then very quickly corrected that statement and said; "*our* house ".  Mixing up the metaphors in actual speech like that (especially when "distressed") is very unusual. That was a major Freudian slip and it showed a great degree of planning. I wondered at the time that if he is so distraught why even think of correcting one small word and why was it so important to him?   Apparently he went out from that appeal and pretended to collapse on the floor and then after a few moments he just got up and started joking, not a tear in sight. His behaviour was apparently littered with bizarre incidents like this. I would not be surprised to learn that the police had behavioral psychologists looking at this couple while they made their news conference. His actions put me in mind of  the Madeleine McCann case, where her parents were accused of being too cold, calm and collected, in news conferences etc ergo they were seen by some as guilty, so to try and preempt this situation Philpott has put a huge act on. He is a sly, cunning manipulative narcissist and this is what narcissists do - and they do it very well!

I believe everything we saw of Philpott was a cold and calculated act. He is an ex-con who had dealings with the police, he probably realised very early on that police were suspicious of them and I believe his bizarre behaviour was probably in itself another of his acts. Faced with doing life in prison, or life in a secure psychiatric institution, I believe he was laying the ground for the latter. Six of his children were soon to be laid to rest and even then he was controlling the situation and thinking of himself. References to "my beloved wife" is yet again another calculating act, when did Mairead go from being one of his "bitches" to becoming his "beloved wife"? Was she his beloved wife when he moved in his lover and began impregnating her? Was she his beloved wife during dogging sessions? Was she his beloved wife when he ordered her to have sex with his friend  in front of him, even just days after six of his children were killed?

This whole tragic situation is about a man who had to be in total control no matter what, and thought nothing of using threats of violence and intimidation to get what he wanted and maintain that control, it has nothing to do with the welfare state, and David Cameron, George Osborne and Paul Dacre are just as bad as Philpott for even suggesting it! They are using the same kind of bullying, intimidation and manipulation as Philpott used to get what they want.

Philpott will be exactly the same in prison, eventually he will carve out a life for himself in there and he will use violence, threats and intimidation in order to gain control the situation and use it to his advantage. He will succeed because Philpott is a manipulative narcissist. For the moment he will be kept segregated and he will be putting on the mother of all acts, trying to win prison staff round to his side and no doubt he will be protesting his innocence and putting on the "good father" wronged and look woe is me "I am innocent" routine, this is because he is a narcissist and this is what narcissists do, and they are usually very very clever at it doing it too! It has nothing to do with the welfare state!

People who have narcissistic tendencies are always very good liars, in fact, they lie so much it becomes pathological and some have not only managed to fool others, they have managed to fool themselves too. Narcissists put a great deal of time and energy into trying to come across as affable and likable, but it is an act - it is always an act and sooner or later that act always slips!

Which leads me back to the government. I have now come to the educated conclusion that it is not the welfare state that has much in common with the narcissistic behaviour of Mick Philpott, in fact it is certain members of the British government that have more in common with him! Right from the early days of this government I felt that Cameron, Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith were portraying narcissistic traits, in fact I made several posts about this very subject on this blog. I am not a trained psychologist, but I do have qualifications in psychology.

It is probably usual to get some degree of narcissistic behaviour in any government of any colour. Arguably you have to have some form of narcissism to even want to be a politician these days, and it is probably also usual to get quite strong narcissistic behaviour in one person inside any government, but here is where it gets "frightening",  I truly believe we have probably got  three full-blown narcissists inside the cabinet, which is unusual but to make matters worse these people are at the top of Government.
If this wasn't bad enough, enter a fourth narcissist in the form of Lynton Crosby, who is now the Tories election strategist and who's touch can be seen on immigration and welfare.

We now have three people and a fourth unelected person with absolutely no empathy, and with a lust for total control running this country. Don't make the mistake of thinking narcissists are strong, they are not they are weak and their behaviour and need of power and control can be easily spotted and exploited by others with agendas of their own. Narcissists only appear strong to weaker people and narcissists in a managerial role are less likely to make any meaningful moderation to their extreme behaviour. When they want something they will be over pleasant and polite and charming (they are really good at this deception), but as soon as they get what they want, they will quickly revert to type.

I'll set out some of the similarities between the behaviours of David Cameron, George Osborne and Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Philpott.

• Narcissists are bullies and they all share many behavioural traits.
• Grandiose sense of self importance
• Fantasy behaviour
• Need for control and power
• Need for admiration
• Has sense of entitlement
• Inter-personally exploitative, taking advantage of others to achieve own ends (attacking welfare state)
• Belief that they are special 
• Lack of empathy, unwilling to understand needs and feelings of  others
• Hate speech (eg: attack immigrants or those on welfare)
• Arrogant
• Can turn charm on and off like a tap

All three of these men show an extremely unpleasant bullying side of their natures.

David Cameron in the House and his need to bully and  belittle females, or make spiteful deeply personal derogatory comments about the opposition which completely transcends what is acceptable behaviour. Like Philpott, if Cameron doesn't get what he wants he loses his temper and becomes nasty and verbally aggressive. Cameron using the poor, sick and disabled as whipping posts to whip up hatred over welfare recipients.

George Osborne another bully, who is intellectually lacking so always go for the personal, he has taunted his opposite number on TV about having a speech impediment. His latest attempt to get people onside was to use the tragic deaths of the Philpott children by trying to say that the welfare state was responsible for what their father did, and so did David Cameron.

Iain Duncan-Smith who attacks those on welfare daily, who tries to give the impression that all those on welfare are idlers and shirkers. He wants poor people to pay for what the Tory doning bankers did to this economy, he wants to charge them bedroom tax and council tax and dock their working tax credits, yet he lives with his wife rent free in a £2 million mansion and his wife a millionairess once claimed Disability Living Allowance, the same allowance he is now stopping for thousands of people. They all accuse people of being benefit cheats yet Smith's wife was once paid £15,000 per year supposedly to work for him and never even went to the office.
David cameron infers people are cheats, yet he is forcing the taxpayer to pay for his second mortgage while he rents his million pound property out.
The same with George Osborne and he had the nerve to charge the taxpayer to pay for his paddock attached to his country house.

I could go on pointing out the hypocrisies of these men, but how have they got the brass neck to accuse others of idling on welfare while they are doing this? It is that narcissistic arrogance again, the same arrogance that Philpott showed "don't do as I do, do as I tell you"! With Philpott it was alright for him to have affairs, but it wasn't alright for his "bitches", unless it was one with him in the room in total control over them. They may want power and control in different ways, but at the end of the day it is power and total control they all want!

Over the past week with onset of the government's welfare reforms we have clearly seen this government ratchet up their rhetoric against those on welfare by attempting to tar all those on welfare with the same brush as Mick Philpott. We can all now plainly see we are dealing with destructive aggressive manipulative bullies, that are tripping out on total power over us in a blatant attempt to divide society, by attacking the weakest and most vulnerable and their agenda is to win the next election.  This is exactly the same strategy they used to personally bully and viciously attack former prime minister Gordon Brown, that started 2 years out from the next general election too.

Cameron, Osborne and Duncan-Smith, do not see people as people, they see us as tools, subordinates and objects that are instrumental to them achieving their ambition to get into and remain in power and control over us. Exactly the same trait as Mick Philpott demonstrated.

To narcissists like Philpott, Cameron, Osborne and IDS, lying is simply a way a life and a mean to an end to get exactly what they want, they are in that respect of telling the truth, no different to each other. They are all born liars.

Philpott, Cameron, Osborne and IDS are so self absorbed and narcissistic that they continually make excuses for the abuse and the distress and hardships they are heaping on others. All of them are totally incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions, it is always the fault of someone else. For example: With Philpott, he didn't set that fire, it was someone who had a grudge against him. It wasn't his fault he couldn't get a job, it was the media's fault for publishing his life story, even though he willing gave them details.
With Cameron, Osborne and IDS, it is always "Labour's fault", it is the mess "Labour left", this is why they are attacking the poor, disabled and vulnerable, they conveniently forget to say that when they took the economy over it was in growth and recovery and since they had the economy they have made things much worse, yet they continue to blame Labour for their own actions. Somehow they manage to turn every unpopular policy of theirs 180 degrees in the opposite direction and claim they are the victims, while they rob from the poor they give to their rich Tory donors, they are now clinging to power and control and are complete oblivious to catastrophic harm they are causing real people. This is classic narcissistic behaviour and just as Mick Philpott was blinded to the dangers he was placing his children in, so this government are blinded to the dangers and suffering they are inflicting upon the most poor and needy and vulnerable in our society. They don't care and they don't care because they have no feelings, no empathy, no nothing, all of the are devoid of human emotion, any human emotion you see from these men is false, it is an act, just like it was an act with Philpott's crocodile tears in that news conference, it is all for show!

As with all narcissists they have an agenda, they think they can hide it, but they can't, sooner or later it is revealed in all its sordid stinking "glory"! It was with Philpott, his arrest and subsequent conviction for killing six of his children and so it will be with this insensitive, incompetent power crazed government, narcissism isn't some thing you can hide for long!

Cameron, Osborne and IDS may try to hide their evil motives with lies, but just like the lies of Philpott, they will be outed and shown for exactly what they are. They may revel in appearing good to some, but the mask will slip, it always does, they will not be able to conceal their deception and their Jekyll and Hyde nature forever. However, we should always be aware of these people's capacity to deceive and be ready to point it out wherever we see it.

The may like Philpott try to use charm as a weapon and appear (like he did) plausible and convincing, but they are nothing but glib, shallow and superficial people concealing a hatred and a lust for power and total control but if we are ready for it and aware of it, we will no longer be fooled by it. Their lack of substance is now showing.

By attempting to slur all those on welfare and tar them with the Michael Philpott brush this Tory government has now sunk to its lowest level and has abandoned moral decency - something else they have in common with Mick Philpott!

But don't forget Cameron, Osborne and IDS have not yet finished punishing the poor, the sick, the disabled or the vulnerable. Their pretence of protecting our most vulnerable has gone, it is now all out war on the poor.

Narcissists one and all!

Brilliant Labour Poster Says it All!

So Work Pays Does It Duncan-Smith?

The £2 million Buckinghamshire mansion where Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith
lives rent free with wife Betsy

On Sky News this morning Iain Duncan-Smith the Work and pensions secretary parroted the government's favourite line of "making work pay", after cowardly ducking out of doing any live interviews where he may have to answer awkward questions from members of the public. During a pre recorded interview he conveniently stood in front of a ramshackle fence rather than in front of his Buckinghamshire mansion with spare rooms, a swimming pool and tennis courts. He lives rent free in the mansion with his wife Betsy who Duncan-Smith once paid a salary to out of taxpayer funded parliamentary expenses for doing absolutely no work in his constituency office. Mrs Duncan-Smith, despite being a multi millionairess was also once in receipt of Disability Living Allowance - the same DLA that Duncan-Smith is now taking away from other disabled people!

The Tories try to brush away criticisms about their attack on the poor, the disabled, the unemployed and low waged by pointing out that they are going to raise the tax threshold to £10,000. However;

• This will not come into effect until next year, so people who are struggling now will get absolutely no help for another year and this is only if they are even entitled to it!
• Claimants have to be earning enough money to pay tax to gain anything from this.
• Most people are only working part-time because this is the only job they can get, so will not gain anything by this tax allowance.
• By contrast this government of millionaires have given themselves and other top earners a tax cut and will receive a check for up to £110,000 - nice if you can get it!

Which brings me to another little known policy change that the Tories are inflicting upon the *working low waged*. 

It seems to have escaped the press's notice and more alarmingly, the notice of those very people this is going to affect, that from today the government will be cutting benefits from those already *in* work, and unless they can get extra work or persuade their employers to increase their hours, their *working* benefit will be cut. This policy change will affect over 1,500,000 people, who are currently working part-time simply because they cannot find full-time work. Increasing hours or finding more part-time work to fit in with existing part-time work and family commitments will be hard enough in the south, but almost impossible in the north of England where unemployment is at its highest and most stubborn, and just to further complicate things unemployment is again on the rise (if it ever really fell).

The people that David Cameron refers to as "strivers" are the very people this government is going to penalise for actually working and because of the gross incompetence of this government and their shocking inability to think things through to a logical end, the government have created a lose - lose situation.

If workers cannot persuade their employers to increase their hours, or they fail to find another job to supplement their current job then they will lose part of their working benefit, and if they do manage to find work to increase their hours then, this government will cut their benefits anyway. So it doesn't matter what they do they cannot meet the requirements being put  down by the government so they lose.

It comes at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet with the ever rising cost of fuel and food and gas, electricity and water.

How does Iain Duncan-Smith still maintain that work pays?