I'm Crying As I Write This...

I'm crying as I write this because, for the first time in this election campaign, I feel so angry, so helpless, and so forgotten that I'm not even sure I can survive until June 9th to see what little hope there is potentially dashed. Why? Because today (30th May) I spoke to someone who claimed to be Labour but was voting Conservative because Jeremy Corbyn is reluctant to drop bombs.

Yes, you read that correctly. The gentleman doesn't believe Jeremy Corbyn will make the decisions necessary if told a terrorist target is at a known location and we can launch a drone strike but only within a limited time frame. He thinks he'll want too much information. He also thinks Mr  Corbyn will refuse to enter necessary battles while he attempts to talk to those who do not want to listen.

There's a problem with that logic, though. The gentleman in question completely ignored that Corbyn wants is a correctly funded military, with enough resources, who can do what needs to be done more efficiently, without causing the vacuum we created in the Middle East, and without wasting unnecessary lives. Corbyn's stance isn't that we never have to fight, but that fighting should only take place after all peaceful avenues have been exhausted. That is a good thing. Being averse to causing death while protecting life is a good thing.

Those who vote Conservative because Corbyn is reluctant to drop bomb are just like the evil caricatures of Middle Eastern demons they so fear. They are choosing to sign death warrants of innocent people because they refuse to listen to reality. The sick and disabled are pleading for a peace treaty, but Conservative voters do not what to hear what is being said. Instead they follow the rhetoric of those who are as callous as any bomber. The Manchester bomber killed 22 innocent people. Nearly 600 suicides may be attributed to the governments fit for work assessments between 2010 and 2013 alone.

600 deaths. Because of a Tory led government.

And that was before they completed their plans for the NHS.

Yesterday (29th May), Jeremy Corbyn said that a good leader uses their ears more than their lips. He said he wants to get to know people, even those he disagrees with. He's right, a good leader must get to know people, even people they disagree with, in order to make sense of the world and navigate through it. I wish more people would do the same, but instead they cast scorn and blame and refuse to hear what is being said. But I need to be heard, because my voice is small. Smaller again are the voices of my children, who I can't give a better life to. So I'm asking you to close your mouth a moment. Don't judge, just read. Just take a moment to see who I am, and who so many others are.

Who I am today is a very different person to who I was seven years ago. Seven years ago I was a professional with a job I loved and a first class honours degree. My recorded work goals were to achieve a senior position within two years, still in my twenties, and I had lead roles on school building and hospital projects. Even after the crash, and after my husband was made redundant, I was Ok. Thankfully my husband got a new job within a few months and more good news came when we discovered I was pregnant for the first time, despite being sub-fertile and having spent two years seeing a stream of doctors, nursess, ultrasound technicians, and other health professionals, as well as other medical professionals, about my problems. Life was good. Hopeful.

Back then I still believed that my children would have better childhoods than I had. Not that my childhood was awful, it wasn't. I loved trips to the beach and the caravan holidays mam and dad struggled to save for every couple of years. However, my dad had been a striking miner in 1984 before I was born in 1985. Living in a Thatcher era pit village, we didn't have a lot.

There wasn't much money. The cars were always bangers which, by the time dad had wrung every mile out of them, were only fit for scrap. Our trainers were bought cheap from market stalls, which caused some teasing at school, but we knew branded clothing wasted precious pennies. We were grateful if we received 50p pocket money, and ecstatic when the tooth fairy left 20p. Somehow it didn't matter that other kids got a pound, and I can only rarely remember feeling jealous of others having things I could only dream of. We still received presents at Christmas and birthdays, we still went on day trips, and we still made happy memories.

But that's the thing. I can't offer my children the same small joys.

I know that buying my daughter a birthday present, even something from the "Poundland", will send me further into debt. We don't have sky. We wear our shoes into holes and then wear them six months longer, even if it means wet feet. We rely on our parents to clothe our children, something both me and my husband are ashamed of, but it's that or let them go without clothes.

Why are we struggling?

Lot's of reasons, but it didn't help that in 2010 the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition. That coalition made David Cameron Prime Minister, Theresa May Home Secretary, George Osborne Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health and Michael Gove Secretary of State for Education, and that was when problems really started.

On Christmas Eve, my husband was made redundant for a second time. The first time had been from a social housing provider, the second from a small development and renewable energy company. Alongside that, Gove and Hunt saw to cutting funding to new build school and hospital projects, and so work for my employers dried up too. By the time I went on maternity leave, we knew redundancies we coming. I suspected I'd among those 'let go' as, since becoming pregnant, I'd been horrifically sick (I lost over a stone in the course of my pregnancy) and my work goals had been down-graded by my line manager from 'achieve a senior position' to 'return from maternity leave.'

Work didn't give me the chance to return.

In fact, they posted my redundancy notice the day I gave birth to my daughter.

That was hard. Not only did work wrongly stop my maternity pay, but because they only restarted it after terminating my contract my pay was placed on an emergency tax code and I was severely over taxed. While Revenue and Customs assured me the money would be refunded at the end of the tax year, that didn't help me pay the bills. Also, work had 'advised' me to take all of my annual leave before my maternity leave, to avoid it being carried into the next year. I did so, but it meant - when they made me redundant - I'd taken a full year's holiday in half a year. They deducted half a year's holiday pay from my redundancy money, which further exacerbated our financial difficulties. Our mortgage went into arrears and the job market was non-existent. It was only through setting up my own business that we managed to save our house. Not because I turned a profit that first year, but because it entitled us to tax credits.

That first year was hard. I worked 60 hours weeks for no pay, often with a baby on my knee, to set up that business while my husband knocked doors peddling cavity wall insulation to scrap by. He worked dawn til dusk five or six days a week for about £75 a week. It was hard.

I'd had mental health issues from childhood, but they got much worse then. The combination of post-natal depression and financial stress caused the low level mental illness I'd had since childhood to worsen, and I ended up seeing a therapist although I refused medication. Shortly after my therapy started I discovered I was pregnant again anyway, so medication was a no-go. Unfortunately only 6-12 sessions of therapy are given per referral; as if you can put a time limit on sorting through multiple deeply ingrained issues. The sessions came to an end and I wasn't better, but I was still alive and so I carried on, trying to ignore the hopelessness.

I worked. My husband went back to college. We fought a lot because times were tough, but we kept plodding on. That year, 2012, my new business won a customer service award and I began to think that maybe, just maybe, things would get better through time. We made a loss that first year, but that's normal. We were surviving all the same and had even managed to take our daughter on holiday. OK, it was five nights on a £4 a night campsite, but it was a holiday.
Then, in December, our son was born.

That time around I had no maternity rights at all. No pay, no allowance, no leave. I gave myself a week off because Christmas was within days of my son's birth, but I was back at it by New Year 2013. I didn't get to spend time with my son the way I had with my daughter and I worked and worked, desperate to grow the business.

I was a finalist in two or three customer service awards that year, despite being hospitalised several times because I developed gall stones, probably during pregnancy, and they caused excruciating attacks. The pain was worse than labour and on several occasions I ended up on morphine. I would rather spend 12 hours in labour pushing something the size of a small melon out that have another gall bladder attack, that's how mad they were. Between attacks, I answered client emails and worked on orders from my hospital bed.

Yup. I worked from my hospital bed, because I had no sickness rights.

My gall bladder was eventually removed, and following the operation, I once again returned to work far sooner than I should've done. Me and hubby continued to fight, money was still tight, and my mental health continued deteriorating. I didn't have space to work at home, especially with two kids, and our situation was frustrating. All the same, business was picking up, and as I had some regular clients I decided to rent a studio.

Having a studio ensured I stuck to sensible working hours while allowing me to separate work from home. But while having a studio and consultation space helped me grow the business, it ate into the funds of my first profitable year. Money remained very tight for a family of four with a mortgage, and my depression grew ever more controlling. I also suffered a great deal of back pain, left over from pregnancy, and even walking the length of our street had me crying in agony. I gained weight because pain limited my capacity for exercise. Kayaking hurt less, but thanks to our low income it wasn't something we could afford to do the was we had before the crash. Even getting to a nice spot costs petrol money.

By the end of 2014 I knew I'd make a slight profit but when a job became available, I jumped at the interview. It wasn't in the role I'd trained for, but it was back in construction and had an regular wage. I got the job, and started employment again in January 2015. The depression lingered, although being financially secure provided some respite as well as opportunity to gain some independence. I didn't enjoy the job as much as my previous one, but I loved the people I worked with so I was fairly content. Unfortunately my back pain didn't ease and my wrists began to suffer too, leaving me in near constant discomfort.
That year, my dad was diagnosed with cancer.

NHS waiting times were so long he went private for a diagnosis but couldn't afford private treatment, so he started chemotherapy on the NHS. He was given four years to live, but he died eleven months diagnosis. That was one month after I relented and started taking anti-depressants, and one month before I attempted suicide.

At that point I'd been signed off work and I'd stopped leaving the house. People triggered anxiety attacks and depression told me to give up. I wanted to see my children grow up while at the same time feeling they'd be better off without me. I'd failed them. I wanted the constant gnawing worry and self-hatred to end.

Following my suicide attempt, I was told I'd been referred to the community mental health team, but four months on I'd still heard nothing. My GP had to refer me again before I was finally assessed and put on another waiting list for a community psychiatric nurse. I still don't have one of those assigned to me.

In September 2016, I applied for PIP. In October 2016, at 2am the day of my PIP assessment, the anxiety and stress of the process sent me into crisis. As a suicide risk and self-harmer, I was taken onto the crisis team case load. I was diagnosed with several different conditions and needed to put measures in place to keep me safe. It was a stressful day on its own, but then my PIP assessor didn't bother tuning up to my appointment. That increased my anxiety levels again as we were desperately short of money.

The attitude of the assessor, a supposed health care professional, on the phone was so dismissive and antagonistic that its left a last impression. That impression prevents me from applying for ESA because I'm so scared that another assessor will push me towards the same ledge the PIP assessor did, a ledge which could kill me.

The result of feeling unable to apply for ESA?

This month I had £13 to cover the bills and mortgage, and look after the kids. Not feasible, but I can't change it. The nature of my illness makes interacting with strangers difficult, often impossible. Interacting with ones I know are out to deny me vital funds becomes totally impossible and totally unfeasible. It's not logical, but it is part of mental illness and part of how the Conservatives are killing off sections of the disabled public. People tell me 'just do it, just set you mind to it', but that's the problem. My mind won't let me do it. My mind is the main problem.

Thankfully PIP was granted, although at the lowest level. The backdated payments got us through November and December, but also in November, I lost my job. I lost it because I couldn't given my employers timescales for my return. I was still on waiting lists, thanks to Conservative cuts causing a decrease in mental health staff and services, with no clue when I'd be seen, never mind when I'd be better. I'd been employed for 19 month when I was 'let go', just short of the two year mark which requires notice, etc. In December I was also discharged from the Crisis Team caseload to the Step Up Team's caseload.

In January 2017, I finally got an appointment with the community mental health teams psychiatrist. He added another medication to the mix to help with depression and insomnia, but his concern over my self ham, suicidal thoughts, and mood meant he left me under step up care while also referring me to more intensive therapy and asking to see me again in three months.

Within a matter of weeks, Step Up decided to stop seeing me because I couldn't do the graded exposure asked of me. I was still on the waiting list for the therapy I needed and rather than supporting me, the staff developed a one track mind. It would've been sensible to have the therapy and then do graded exposure, but underfunding meant therapy could take months to get and the Step Up team gave up, lying to do so, which resulted in my sending a six page letter to the psychiatrist i saw. To this date, my letter hasn't been acknowledged. It hasn't been answered and I need to resend it because my psychiatrist has since left the trust, without giving me my three month review.

Now the community nurses phone every four weeks to ask if I still want to be on the waiting list, but I think it's more than four weeks since I last heard from them. I haven't had a review, even though it's been asked for again.  I don't know when I'll be seen or when I'll get treatment. My self harm and insomnia are getting worse again. I'm constantly on the edge of Crisis and it's more luck than anything that I haven't taken another overdose. I don't know if I'm going to survive because the funding just isn't there for mental health services to meet growing need, and so those cared for in the community are much more likely to die by suicide than those in hospital. On top of that, several of my conditions increase the likelihood of further suicide attempts.

I'm also in severe pain. My back still causes misery, and my wrists show signs of onset osteoarthritis, which feels like it's affecting my fingers and legs too. I also have a diagnosis of suspected fibromyalgia. The paid doesn't help my mood either, as it makes it harder for me to complete tasks I used to enjoy. It's hell. I don't leave the house. I don't see friends. I'm in mental and physical pain and the money has run out, so despite not having Sky TV or luxuries, I'm still heading into debt.

[I paused here for the night. I nearly deleted this post, but then another two people told me they weren't voting or intended to spoil their votes, and I realised this needs to be said.]

People get upset when I get angry at them for not voting/spoiling ballots/voting Conservative, but what they fail to realise is that this election isn't about a bit of hardship for me, it's about life and death. If the Conservatives get back in, I will die. My children will lose their mother, my husband will lose his wife, my children will by at risk of their own mental illnesses. That is the simple truth. I know this, because the Conservatives will continue to punish the sick and the poor by cutting back on Welfare and destroying the NHS.

I know this as a fact. I know the ill will suffer because Theresa May stated clearly that she is basing her transformation of the NHS on the Naylor Report, a document detailing how to sell off the NHS, including through 2 for 1 offers. Under the Conservatives, the NHS WILL be privatised. When children are injured, hospital treatment WILL bankrupt their parents. Like in America, hospital treatment WILL bankrupt thousands every year and ordinary people will lose their homes without ever reaching dementia tax age.

Even on the minute chance we manage to stop the selling off of our health service, nursing staff are still being cut, trainee numbers are in decline, we still won't have the medical staff to treat people. I have been on waiting lists for over a year now, waiting for treatment for a condition which could kill me. I have no idea when or even if I'll be seen, which exacerbates my condition which in turn makes a return to employment unlikely, adding to the financial pressure more and more each month.

I have a friend with EDS, a rare but severe condition. She needs many operations to improve her quality of life and she's often in so much pain she can't function. She has to miss her kid's school plays and family days out and requires a carer on the days her husband works. She needs welfare and she needs the NHS. She needs surgeons to carry out procedures. She needs and NHS to treat her so her boys don't lose their mum. She needs the NHS because her boys inherited her condition and they will need medical help one day.

Disabled people in Britain are going without treatment due to waiting lists. They're going without money to pay for food, clothes, and shelter. ESA claimants continue to face benefit cuts under the Conservatives while the private companies they've hired to carry out flawed assessments earn millions in taxpayer money, a cost which could be eliminated by listening to patients GPs rather than paying £44,000 per health care professional to hire and train them as assessors, then to go through all the appeals from those wrongly denied financial support. Our disabled people are being assessed twice for PIP and ESA to evaluate condition their own doctors have spent months evaluating. We are spending vast sums on appeals. The system itself costs more to run than it saves in benefits. It would be cheaper for the treasury to create a universal basic income than it is for them to assess, means test, and have appeals processes for all the various benefits and tax credit. More importantly, though, hundreds of innocent people will continue to kill themselves rather than face abject poverty. That is reality.

Over a million people in Britain already use food banks. That number went up more between 2015-16 and 2016-2017 than it did at the height of the economic crash. In 2009 a little over 40k families accessed food banks, that is figure is now now over 1.18 million! And food banks don't just hand out free food. You have to prove it's an emergency to get three days supply.

Yearly food bank use.

Child poverty is rising dramatically. Homelessness is rising dramatically. Our current youngsters will be poorer and have a lower life expectancy than their parents and grandparents. Millennials and younger, as well as the disabled and sick, are being left to rot and die. On top of that, teachers are being forced to give food parcels to hungry children. So yes, I get angry when people say they won't vote or intend to vote Conservative.  I get angry because it's not weathering the storm for me. It's not getting through tough times to create a better better. It's life or death. If the Conservatives get back in, then I have no future.

My children are 6 (almost) and 4. I might not see them grow up because there aren't enough NHS staff to treat me, the system works against me financially, and no one seems to give a damn. My children may go without birthday presents because we have so little coming in. And, do you know what? There are people worse off than us.

In a way I'm lucky. My dad left his house in trust to my children, and I can now live rent and mortgage free there (although there's still council tax, water rates, insurance, electricity - which i imagine will get cut off in the near future), so we're in the process of moving. Dad' house is only a two bedroom house though, and with a boy and a girl we need to convert the loft to make it three bed. My dad left me some money, a few thousand, which barely covered the floor and staircase costs. We can't afford skylights or insulation or the plasterboard to make the loft into a bedroom, and because the job's partially done, the second bedroom is a building site, meaning my whole family are living out of one bedroom with no money to finish make either of the other two rooms habitable.

Imagine that for a second. We're living like families in the 50s with the whole family in one bedroom. Put it this way, there's absolutely no chance if me having any more children!

And at present, we're still paying the mortgage on our original house. It's lost value, so we can't sell it because we don't have the money to pay off the mortgage (which we got back when we both had jobs) so our only option is to live in dad's house and rent out ours. The problem is, the rent will only just cover the mortgage and landlord insurance. It's not adding anything to our income and because of the area we can't charge more. What the Conservatives have created is an area of deprivation and we're trapped in it. We can't win. So we survive with four of us in one bedroom, with me in pain and struggling, not sure that it will ever get better, and we survive of JSA and PIP because my hubby can't find a job and needs to care for me and the kids, and i can't face going through another assessment for ESA when the previous assessment nearly killed me.

I have a first class degree, I'm not stupid or lazy.

I worked 60hrs a week for 20p an hour to save my house. I'm not work shy.

I want to get better and I want to work.

I want treatment for my mental illnesses.

I want relief from the pain of my back, wrists, and fingers which stop me doing the things I love.

I adore my children and I want to see them grow up.

But people are saying they won't vote for Labour because Corbyn is reluctant to drop bombs. They are saying they won't vote at all because Corbyn didn't do enough to stop Brexit. People are saying they are happy to watch their lose everything and die, killed off by Tory pledges, because of conflicts that happened 30 years ago. They say it out of apathy, or out of a lack of empathy, but it kills people all the same.

I didn't ask for this. I didn't cause the cuts that cost my career and my husbands. I didn't ask for the trauma and then poverty that influenced my mental health. I didn't as to be in pain every day. I did well at school, college, and university and worked hard because I wanted to give my children the best lives possible.  But they have it worse than I did under Thatcher. They haven't realised how poor we are yet, but it's coming.

How do I tell my kids that they can't have things others take for granted?

How do I make myself keep going when all I can see is pain, bills, debt, and eventually losing everything but the four walls dad put into trust? That we have those for walls gives us something many others don't have, but we still have food to buy and bills to pay. What happens when my overdraft runs out and I can't pay the electricity and water rates? Just thinking about it pushes me closes to the edge and the worry is constant. Every day. Every breath. Even in my dreams. It never stops. And I want the fear to end. I want the mental torture and the physical pain to end. I want it ALL to end.

Voting the right person in, even if you don't agree with everything the say, can save lives. I don't agree with everything Corbyn says. I like the monarchy and I think he should resist Brexit, but I also know we need him because only through him can we begin closing the gap between rich and poor again. Only through him can we save the NHS which any of us may need, at any time, and for any reason; from disability, to car accidents, to cancer, and to terrorist attacks. The NHS and our people matter. So vote to help them. Vote to save lives. An apathy and inaction, or even acts of rebellion, can cost lives. Between 2010-2013 such practises cost more than 600 lives through disabled people dying at their own hands, without including those bombed in Libya and Syria, or those who die waiting for hospital beds, surgery, or even to get to the top of a waiting list for routine treatment. Don't condemn thousands more.

Please. Don't condemn me. Don't condemn my friend with EDS, or her sons. Don't make my diabetic mam go without treatment or my best friend who has had cancer previously and so is high risk. Don't condemn my other friend who suffers severe mental illness, or my kids, should they ever get sick. Don't make buying food impossible for another million families.

In this election we can save people, but to do that, you have to vote for Labour, and if you don't have a Labour candidate, for someone other than the Conservatives.

If you don't vote, or if you vote Conservative, you may be complicit in the deaths of hundreds of people.

So I sit here crying, and I don't think I'll see my children grow up. This is my reality.

Carmine Raven

OSTEOARTHRITIS, FIBROMYALGIA, ASTHMA, PCOS, DEPRESSION, ANXIETY, SOCIAL PHOBIA, AGORAPHOBIA, AVOIDANT TRAITS, BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, POSSIBLE C-PTSD.

Don't be a strawberry. Vote Labour. 

Battle for Number 10: Jeremy Corbyn vs Theresa May

Yesterday night the 'Battle for Number 10' aired on Sky News and Channel 4, hosted by Fiasal Islam and Jeremy Paxman. Jeremy Paxman has a reputation for being... well, a bit of a bastard, to be quite frank. He goes down through his guests, often choosing to rant over them while brow beating them into submission. He's a challenging opponent, so how did Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May do against him and Fiasal Islam?

Despite what this mornings newspapers claim, Murdoch's puppet was predictably atrocious, crumbling despite gentler treatment, while Corbyn held up well despite Paxman interrupting the opposition leader twice as many times as he interrupted May, and insisted on shouting over his answers rather than listening to them. By contrast, the past-his-best Tory bully gave his Prime Minster ample chance to lie and waffle as she evaded his question. Paxman's clear bias was only redeemed slightly when he called May a 'Blowhard who crumbles at the first sign of gunfire'. We expect Chancellor Mayfly will be sending her fingerment to black bag him any day now.

Fiasal, on the other hand, came across as a bit of a wet lettuce. He too showed bias, questioning Corbyn's answers far more determinedly than he questioned May's patronising  evasion. However, he barely seemed present and didn't make a huge impact on the debate, except to point out that real time funding to education has been cut under the Conservatives, despite May's claims of 'record levels' of school spending.

Jeremy Corbyn at the Libertines gigs, speaking to crowds cheering his name.

Fiasal and the Audience vs Jeremy Corbyn

When asked about foreign policy in the wake of terrorism, Corbyn assured viewers that we would not be softening foreign policy and that we do condemn terrorism, but that we must not leave countries ungoverned as such a vacuum allows terrorist groups to gain control. He also reiterated the importance of cutting off arms supplies and funds to I.S. as well as cutting off publicity, while also beginning a dialogue with neighbouring countries to bring about a peace process. This stance is nothing new. Corbyn seeks to properly fund our military to ensure they are correctly resourced when needed, he also intends to formulate a robust plan to deal with the aftermath any future military intervention to prevent vacuums being left in the wake of war.

As expected, the usual and over-used IRA line of questioning came up, and Corbyn was once again forced to reiterate that he met with Sinn Fein (not the IRA) in order to begin a peace process. He also pointed out that at the memorial for IRA bombers which he attended, he went to commemorate all of those who died in the troubles. He attended as a spokesman for peace, who had a great many Irish constituents, and who went to advocate the beginning of a dialogue which would see the troubles come to an end. As he recently stated on Sky News, he condemns all bombings, both loyalist and IRA. He sees the loss of life as avoidable. That doesn't mean he supports terrorism, it means he supports preventative strategies which preserve peace, freedom, and democracy. He also reminded the audience that the Good Friday Agreement is now used as a example in other peace-making processes and confirmed he voted FOR the Good Friday Agreement.

When asked about the Labour manifesto and his suitability as leader, he correctly stated that the manifesto was the product of party consensus. It is the Labour party's manifesto and he is leading as a leader should, by listening to his party rather than forcing his will upon them. He has also listened to the publics' concerns about public services, education, policing and defence and will work on investing in our public services rather than enforcing cuts which damage education and health care, and increase levels homelessness and poverty. He also reiterated that 95% of people would not face higher taxation.

One of the highlights was possibly Corbyn describing how he wants to get to know people, even those he disagrees with, and believes in using his ears more than his lips. This is the polar opposite of 'bloody difficult woman' May, who is obnoxious, patronising, confrontational, and wholly unsuitable for negotiating. Corbyn helped to negotiate peace in Northern Ireland, he has been awarded the Gandhi International Peace Award, and his manifesto is one for the party rather than himself. He is the antithesis of May in every possible positive way.

When questioned on immigration, Corbyn correctly reminded the audience that trade deals and citizen rights are the priorities of Brexit negotiation, while also correctly reminding the audience that the Conservatives have repeatedly missed there own immigration targets. He suspects that immigration will probably reduce, that it certainly shouldn't increase, but that we suffer a skills shortage in this country which means critical services rely on immigrant workers. Labour intend to introduce a long term education strategy to combat that shortfall, but in the meantime intend to prevent companies bringing in low paid migrants with the purpose of under-cutting low paid British workers which can result in the unemployment of British nationals. Mr Corbyn also indicated that previous funding, which the Tories cut, will be put back in place to help provide vital services for communities who have had an influx of migrants.

While Mr Corbyn accepts the result of the referendum, he intends to preserve the rights of European citizens in Britain. He also intend to protect the working time directive, paternity rights, maternity rights, environmental agreements, and trade. Corbyn also insisted he would not attempt to threaten Europe by turning Britain into a budget tax haven.

Another highlight of the night came when a clearly well-off businessman demanded to know why Labour would increase corporate tax, abolish zero hours contracts, raise minimum wage, and charge VAT on his children's private school fees. To say the gentleman in question came across as a selfish sod would be an understatement, but Corbyn handled his questions with his usual patient diplomacy, pointing out that there is a great divide between the rich and the poor in this country and asking if the gentleman was happy with over sized classes, waiting times for health care, etc, while also pointing out that Labour's house building plans and the scrapping of university fees would benefit our children.

Additionally, rises in corporation tax would hit multinationals, not small businesses, who Labour would help by working to end the practise of larger businesses defaulting on payments. Labour's increased minimum wage would also give people more money to spend in local economy. In other words, children, small business owners, the sick, working families, students, and 95% of the population would benefit from Labour's plans which would only require the top earners to pay a little more. To emphasise this point, Corbyn's Labour do not intend to raise corporate tax back to the level of the previous labour government, but nor do they intend on following the Tory example of giving tax cuts to the rich, paid for by taking money from the poor and increasing national debt.

Corbyn was once again forced to reiterate that he wants a world without a nuclear threat. He understands that we need to defend our nation and confirmed he would write the appropriate letters of last resort to our naval commanders if the need was there but he emphasised that he would require all the information to resort to such action and he prefers dialogue over violence.

Jeremy Corbyn Q&A and Interview

Jeremy Paxman vs Jeremy Corbyn

Paxman chose the wrong line of attack from the word go, choosing to ask Corbyn if he was annoyed so many of his core beliefs didn't make it into the Labour Party manifesto. The suggestion is ridiculous as a great many of Corbyn's core socialist principles made it into the manifesto, but it is also ridiculous in the face of Corbyn's leadership style. As the man himself said, he is not a dictator and the manifesto represents the party. It contains party values, respecting democracy and the fact our government is not a one politician show. This is a stark contract to May, whose campaign has been run on the phrases 'I, I, I' and 'me, me, me'.

It showed desperation on Paxma's part to force the opposition leader to reiterate time and time again that the manifesto was a product of the Labour Party conference and not solely his decision,as is right, because he respects democracy. For Paxman to attack Corbyn's morality while Corbyn was reiterating that he respected democracy and intended to work towards a nuclear free world reveals how hopelessly under prepared the Tory-mouthpiece was. Paxman clutched at straws and missed them completely. Mr Corbyn was quite right to point out that Paxman seemed to be struggling with the idea of a democratic process creating a manifesto.

Corbyn confirmed that benefits will not be frozen, but would increase year on year, but also said the higher minimum wage will mean the amount of benefits paid to working families should decrease as all workers will earn a real, living wage.

Paxman attacked Labour's manifesto policy of providing more police officers while the Shadow Defence Secretary wanted to disarm the police. That proved to be yet another farcical line of questioning. This is Britain. Few people want to see armed police on our streets. We want more police, yes, and more resources to go into preventing crime rather than retaliating when crime is or has happened. That does not mean we want guns on our streets or an American style gun-happy force! Paxman seemed incapable of understand that distinction, which reveals more about his own immorality than any failing in Labour's manifesto. Forcing Mr Corbyn to repeat Labour's pledge to properly fund services rather than giving tax cuts to corporations is another example of how the mainstream media ignore what the opposition leader is saying in order to push their own agenda, forcing him to repeat the same explanations over and over rather than exploring further policies.

But Paxman didn't stop there, his next line of questioning was even more ludicrous.

"There is nothing in this manifesto about getting rid of the monarchy, which is another thing you believe in, isn't it?"

Corbyn, true to form, replied with laughter, good humour, and the dismissal such a question deserved, stating:

"Look, there's nothing in there because we're not going to do it."

His answer drew cheers from the crowd and further laughter when he stated that he'd had a nice chat with the queen. He went on to point out he was fighting the election for social justice, for education, for the health service, for the future of all of us. He is not distracting the electorate with unimportant headline grabbing pledges (fox hunting, anyone?).

Not happy with that answer, Paxman went on to say that Europe would see Mr Corbyn couldn't even get his own beliefs in the manifesto, ignoring the real truth that the manifesto embodies Corbyn's socialist beliefs and his respect for democracy. What Europe will see is a man who is willing to put his mouth in park and his brain in gear, to listen and devise the best plan possible. Corbyn will negotiate rather than being content to run away with no deal, which is the worst possible deal for everyone but especially for Britain.

It's not even worth going into Paxman's next line of questioning regarding the Falklands. Those who oppose Corbyn struggle to argue against his current policies and the Labour Party manifesto, and so they use conflicts which took place before many of the electorate where born or old enough to vote in an attempt to undermine his character. They do it with IRA claims, and Paxman did it with the Falklands. Such tactics only prove that the Conservatives have nothing on Corbyn.

When Paxman questioned the opposition leader on Bin Laden and Hamas, he implied Mr Corbyn supports such people and organisations, but this is simply not true. What Corbyn supports is democracy and due process where criminals are put on trial for their crimes. He also supports dialogue with the goal of beginning a peace process. He aspires to make the world better, and does so through listening and talking, even to those he disagrees with, without supporting their cause or their behaviour.

Now, onto Mrs May...

Captain SKA - Liar Liar. This has reached number 2 in the charts but radio stations are refusing to play it.

Faisal and the Audience vs Theresa May

May started as she meant to go on, patronisingly telling the audience what their own jobs were and what they should already be aware of, even when the audience were correctly disputing the affects of the Prime Minister's policy claims. She failed to answer the question on policing, waffling on what she was 'currently' doing in the wake of the Manchester bombing and in response to cyber crime (such as the NHS ransom ware attack?) rather than admitting police and armed police numbers have fallen under the Conservative government. She insisted that her approach focused protecting police ability, not police numbers, while completely ignoring that being understaffed decreases the ability to effectively carry out responsibilities.

When asked about dementia tax, May again confirmed that only £100,000 of equity would be protected, that's less than half the average house price. She also refused to state what the cap on care charges would be and insisted the government would consult. However, we have to respect that in other consultation processes and when warned of risks by informed parties the Conservative government have regularly chosen to ignore advice rather than heed it.

The Conservatives  have also privatised elements of the NHS, selling it to companies which they or their families have interests in, as well as voting against policies which protect living standards (which could reduce the profits they receive as landlords). The Tory ethos is to make money from the less fortunate. To vote them into power on a blank cheque notion gives them free reign to set the cap at whatever they like. They might still choose to take everything a person has worked for, except for that initially protected £100,000. They haven't changed anything about that policy. They haven't made it fairer. Also, if they can set the cap for care costs, what happens in the cases of those who have no homes? Does the NHS/Government have to cover the same extortionate costs? Do taxpayers have to pay care companies owned by Tory millionaires?

May was quite right to point out that Scotland has a devolved government and are they are within their rights to have different policies on fuel allowance to here in England. However, that was where truth failed her. Many pensioners die every year due of hypothermia, to take away winter fuel allowance from any seems likely to increase such horrific figures. Also, means testing is an expensive process. It requires admin and staff, and so to say it would save money that could go into health and social care shows how easily Mrs May lies a flawed logic. The money saved by denying some pensioners winter fuel allowance won't go into health any more than the £350 million from the E.U. will. It'll go into paying some of the means testing admin cost, which will probably be out sourced, and which could end up costing more than paying winter fuel allowance in the first place.

Fiasal finally showed some spunk when May was asked about school funding. When May claimed to be putting record levels of funding into schools, he reminded her that in real terms, funding is decreasing. When May promoted the idea of giving children the best possible start in life, I had to wonder how she intends to do that by taking away infants' dinners and creating a secondary school class system which allows the upper classes classes to excel and the poorer classes to suffer. May even had the gall to say that no one could predict real time  education spending (refusing to dismiss further cuts) and followed that by saying Labour's figures don't add up. She then looked surprised when the audience laughed at her in the wake of her entirely uncosted manifesto. One member of the audience correctly said 'you've clearly failed'.

When confronted with the £350 million Brexit lie, May evaded the question on why the Conservative Party had misled the voting public. Instead she made claims regarding what we need to focus on now, rather than on the fraudulent claims of the past. As with the electoral fraud scandal, the message from the Conservatives is clear; lie, act illegally, as long as you can get away with it, do it, and don't worry about morality or ethics.

May insists that the government are increasing funding to the NHS while neglecting to admit that in real terms, NHS staff are suffering pay cuts, hospitals are closing, and A&E departments are collapsing under the strain. She also failed to mention that in privatising parts of the NHS, the Conservatives are allowing private companies to increase charges which the government have to pay while lowering standards. This means that the NHS costs more for less, and less money, not more, goes to the front line. Tory investors are too busy lining their pockets to care.

The midwife questioning May was spot on when she said she sees hospitals closing and services failing, and when May defended her lies plans, the midwife was also quite right to say she would believe it when she saw it. May is not deserving of any trust and, as with all Conservatives, protecting the wealthy will always come before providing front line services or for the poor.

To the gentleman who was caught on camera saying "Bollocks. That's bollocks" to Mrs May's claims, I salute you. You spoke for the nation with those three words. May's NHS promise are, indeed, complete bollocks.

Our Prime Minister claimed that being "a difficult bloody woman" was a positive attribute meaning she stood by what she believes, but as we all know, Theresa May only stands by what she believes for a brief second, as she walks past it in yet another u-turn. Her ability to plan for the long term stretches no further than the four days it takes her to change her mind. A walk in the country, plotting the savage demise of woodland creatures, is enough to spur May into calling an election despite her previous denials.

Theresa May seems horrifically weak and wobbly, alienated amongst the G7 and European leaders, pandering to Trump who doesn't give a damn about her or us, and with neither a spine nor the capacity to negotiate. Everyone knows she lies. Everyone knows she crumbles at the slightest pressure. To say she stands by what she believes is laughable at best, especially as, when questioned, she begins to stutter and fall over her own waffle.

Theresa May Q&A and Interview

Jeremy Paxman vs Theresa May

Paxman immediately went in gentler with May than he had with Corbyn. He allowed May to waffle rather than shouting over her, revealing his own bias. However, it didn't help May who often couldn't give a straight answer and who seemed immediately flustered by the subject of Brexit. Her best argument was that the people had voted and she had to stand by their decision, but we need to remember that Corbyn too wants to stand by democracy, only he wants to do it as a negotiator who listens. May wants to do it with the stance of a difficult and antagonistic child, one who is willing to stomp off to her bedroom with no deal at all if she gets upset.

When asked about social care, Mrs May chose to explain why a two year old proposal wasn't put forward, rather than explaining what made her policies acceptable. She once again emphasised that she won't give a figure on the dementia tax cap. Her waffle failed to impress either the mocking audience or Paxman, even though he didn't badger her the way he did Corbyn.

Paxman finally made a brutal but correct observation with regard to Mrs May's political style, making the number one highlight of the night.

"She's a blowhard who collapses at the first sign of gunfire!"

Cue round of applause. Cue Mrs May's night going from bad to dire. I'm sure people back at Conservative HQ were screaming at TV sets and banging their heads off walls. Fury showed in May's expression in a way it never did in Corbyn's, despite Paxman's bias. That comment became a signal to the audience, whose derision and mocking became increasingly frequent throughout the remainder of the interview.

Perhaps another low for May came when she stated she'd called the election to improve her mandate and prevent other parties frustrating the will of the people. Yes, that's right, she wanted to prevent elected MPs, chosen by the people to represent then, from interfering with her antagonistic approach to Brexit. While Corbyn listens and refuses to be a dictator, it is clear May wants to silence opposition and have her own way come hell or high water. The British people were divided on Brexit last June. The referendum has happened and both May and Corbyn have chosen to respect that, but such a decision does not mean all of the people support a hard Brexit or 'no deal will do' policy and so our elected officials, as we elected just two years ago, should have been allowed to represent us. We must hope that in seeking to override democracy, democracy will thwart Mrs May and allow the only party leader to fully respect democracy, equality, and peace-keeping to become our next Prime Minister.

When questioned on immigration May quoted Corbyn on the countries skills shortage. It will take time to solve that gap through education, and so migrant workers must be welcomed. It seems that when May's own policies fail and she can't come up further arguments, she resorts to reciting mindless spin or quotes Corbyn's thoughts as if they were her own, showing a deplorable lack of political integrity.

May religiously recites that no deal will be better than a bad deal, ignoring the reality that no deal is a terrible deal, as it positions us for economic crash. Her stance is antagonistic, nothing more, and antagonism will inhibit negotiation rather than encourage a better deal. Like 'strong and stable', the 'no deal' line is a poorly conceived catchphrase spouted by a woman who has few solid arguments and who has become a caricature of the weak and wobbly Britain we'll become in the absence of a deal.

As an addendum, we can see a clear contrast in core beliefs between Corbyn, who went on stage at a concert to promote social justice, sport, and music and had the crowd shouting his name, and Mrs May, who has inspired the release of song calling her a liar. Her media mates have banned the song from radio station playlists even though it's made it to number two in the chart, and I would encourage anyone to buy the tune in the hope we get it to number one. Corbyn wants to give our children the chance to play, to create, to live in a rich culture. Under May's watch and the scrutiny of her media puppet masters, censorship is already taking place.

Carmine Raven

Sick and on the Font Line

Today I decided to do political phone banking for the first time using Labour's dialogue app. There are a number of reasons for this, starting in the post-crash world of 2009 and coming right up to the present day. To understand why I want a change in government, it's important to understand me, right down to the personal. So here goes...

2008

• The economic crash happened.

2009

• I left university with a first class BSc honours degree and a professional job.
• My boss warned us all that if the Conservatives took power, we'd lose work and they'd be redundancies.

2010

• The Condem coalition took office.
• My work goals were to be promoted to a senior position within 2 years.
• I fell pregnant with my first child.
• My husband was made redundant twice, first from a social housing provider trying to save money, then from a small builder and renewable energy company.
• The Condems cut funding to building schools and hospitals which I was working on.

2011

• Our mortgage went into arrears. A man from the Halifax turned up on the door when I was 36 weeks pregnant and we had to sort out an arrangement.
• The day I gave birth, I was made redundant.

2012

• I became self employed because there were few jobs available. I made a loss but tax credits at least meant the mortgage was paid ever month.
• I saw a therapist for post-natal and general depression. The sessions ran out before the problem was resolved as a maximum of 12 sessions are offered at any time. Often only 6 are offered.
• My business won a customer service award.
• I gave birth to our second child. I took a week off afterwards solely because it was Christmas. I was back working on my business the following week with no option for maternity leave, pay, or allowance.

2013

•  I had continuing untreated mental health issues.
• I suffered gall stones which caused gall bladder attacks which required hospitalisation due to the severity of the pain which was worse than giving birth. I needed morphine.
• In between attacks, when I wasn't on morphine, I did business work from my smart phone from my hospital bed because I couldn't afford to stop working without sick pay.
• My business got to the finals of several customer service awards.

2014

• I finally started turning a profit, although only just, and rented a business premises.
• I had ongoing mental health problems, not helped by low income.
• My business got to the finals of a customer service award.

2015

• I finally got a new job and closed my business.
• My father was diagnosed with cancer. NHS waiting times for diagnosis were so long he went to go private to get a diagnosis, although he couldn't afford private treatment.

2016

• My dad went into hospital but expected to come home again. He didn't. Instead he ended up on a palliative care ward, desperate to come home but unable to do so as there wasn't the resources available.
• I finally went on antidepressants and started seeing a counsellor.
• 4 years earlier than expected, my dad entered the last days of his life, still on a palliative care ward with no drip to keep him hydrated, unable to swallow, and with family required to moisten his lips with a sponge to give him some relief when he begged for water.
• Dad died alone in a private room, early in the morning, during the brief period a nurse went to get him some pain relief as he after he groaned in pain.
• A month later, I attempted suicide.
• I was referred to the Community Mental Health Team and put on a waiting list.
• My counsellor decided he couldn't help me and I needed more intensive help.
• I applied for PIP and the stress of the process and mistakes made by ATOS staff led to crisis and worsening suicidal intention.
• I ended up on the Crisis Teams caseload.
• I was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, social phobia, agoraphobia, avoidant personality traits, and borderline personality disorder, with problems stemming from both past trauma and poverty.
• I lost my job due to long term ill health because I couldn't tell my employer when I'd return or even when I'd be treated due to NHS waiting lists.
• I was transferred to the Step Up Team.

2017

• I saw a psychiatrist who referred me to psychotherapy and added extra medication, he also wanted to see me in 3 months.
• The Step Up Team stopped seeing me because I wasn't improving. I was left to wait on therapy.
• My 3 month psychiatrist review never happened as the doctor left the trust. Now a nurse phones every four weeks to see if I want to remain on the waiting list. I can't remember when they last phoned.
• I am still waiting for therapy.
• I can count the number of times I've left my house in the last year on my fingers.
• I'm in debt because I can't afford the bills. I'm too afraid of repeating my PIP experience to apply for ESA. Without free school meals, we won't be able to give our kids more than breakfast and one other meal.
• I'm still suicidal but I have no idea when I'll get treatment .
• The thought 'hang on long enough to vote' keeps playing in my mind, as if I will have a decision to make in June; find hope under Corbyn or die under a Conservative government.
• That is my reality and the reality on many sick, disabled, and out of work people.

That's why I'm voting Labour and it's also why I decided to use Dialogue to help the Labour Party, despite often having panic attacks when answering the phone. Labour rely on the support and help of the public, so I decided to phone bank because this election is so important for both myself and the future of my children. I forced myself to do it. 

Unfortunately, I only managed an hour, making around thirty calls and logging around fourteen replies. During that time, most people didn't answer. Some hung up as soon as they heard what I was calling about, but several were polite and friendly. More we friendly than openly hostile. One was misinformed but wouldn't let me finish a sentence. One only heard the words 'Labour Party' when I introduced myself before going into a tirade about Labour. She shouted and cursed as if I were the reason for all her woes then hung up without letting me get a word in. That triggered an anxiety spiral which led me to end today's session.

Cursing at strangers is not OK, alright people?

Now the suicidal ideation is whispering again. I'm at home alone right now. I genuinely afraid that the Conservatives will get back in and there'll be no hope for another five years. I want to see my kids grow up, but my untreated mental illness whispers that I'm a terrible person and everyone would be better off with out me, meanwhile everything I said while phone banking spins around and around in my head. My mind insists I made things worse, turning away voters, rather than helping. Logically I know that isn't true. I used the script. I was polite and friendly. But still the anxiety whispers. 

That anxiety and self loathing has almost proved fatal before now and I should probably phone crisis, but they'll only come out hours from now, once I've calmed down, that's if I'm lucky. They'll decide I'm not an immediate risk and nothing will change. I won't move up the waiting list. I won't receive treatment. It'll remain the same until the voice which whispers that there's only one way to change things overpowers me again. Next time it might mean a trip to the morgue rather than a ride in an ambulance.

It'll never get better. Not under this government.

So tomorrow I'll try to phone bank again because this election is so very important, even if the process makes my illness worse. Why? Because unless Corbyn's Labour win, I won't get better. I might not even get the therapy I so need.  But Labour need as much support as they can get, strong support from people who are more capable than me.

If I can fight past my illness to help Labour, even just an hour a day, so can others. For the sake of the sick and disabled, for children and the elderly, and for those in poverty, please help in any way you can. 

Carmine Raven

Living Like It's 1939

Theresa's struggle

The phrase 'strong and stable' was also used in Hitler's Mein Kampf in a chapter on propaganda. Hitler spoke of creating a 'strong and stable power' through appropriate use of propaganda to garner supporters and members. In another chapter, he wrote

November 9, 1923, in the fourth year of its existence, the National Socialist German Workers’ party was dissolved and forbidden throughout the entire territory of the Reich.

Today, in November, 1926, it stands again before us, free through the whole Reich, stronger and internally more stable than ever before.

I would hope that there is nothing more to be taken from this than an unfortunate coincidence. Having a leader looking to Mein Kampf for inspiration should worry anyone. At worst, I would expect the Conservatives to have been inspired by Hitler's ability to earn power by creating an image of a strong and stable leader in the wake of war, depression, and desperation. Such propaganda gave the suffering German populace hope, before Hitler began to introduce terror through his constant military presence, fear-mongering propaganda, death camps, and secret police. His reign of terror should certainly not be something our politicians aspire to.

'Final solution' propaganda

Of course, it's not just our politicians who can accidentally or intentionally replicate the tactics of the Nazi propaganda machine. The press and 'personalities' also need to take some responsibility for what is said and encouraged. Yesterday, I discussed Katie Hopkins's horrific behaviour in the wake of the Manchester Arena bombing and why inciting hatred is the last thing we should do. Hatred will only ever incite more hatred, and further violence along with it. Already people have attacked Muslims and attempted to set fire to mosques. It is reminiscent to the treatment of the Jews in the early days of Hitler's demonising of them as 'undesirables'.

Make them the enemy, then make them the target; it's vile but often repeated tactic.

Hopkins seemed to encourage our own Holocaust, one targeted at Muslims. She called for a 'final solution', the exact words used by Hitler when planning the eradication of the Jews. It's a prospect any decent person would find abhorrent. It's dangerous talk. It's dangerous to normalise such statements and dehumanise a group of people into something 'alien' and 'enemy'. Such behaviour tells far right extremists and fascists that their dogma is acceptable, and that created an environment where violence can breed violence. Encouraging such behaviour is not only reckless and ignorant, but it sets a precedent which could bring a wealth of suffering.

Call in the troops

On top of having a Prime Minister using a slogan from Mein Kampf and a press who seem to think they can copy Hitler's fear-mongering tactics to attack a religion, we now have troops on our streets! They have been deployed in the wake of the Manchester bombing in order to assist with security as further attacks are deemed likely. We 'need' these troops because our police forces have suffered under Tory austerity and do not have the resources to adequately protect us. Unfortunately, our military is also under funded. That is only one aspect of what is do terrifying about the deployment of armed soldiers on our streets, though.

Take into account that an armed soldier is unlikely to stop a suicide bomber if he doesn't already know the bomber's intention. That begs the question 'why is our Prime Minister deploying troops?' The obvious answer is that we've suffered an attack and she wants to make a show of protecting us, rather than shouldering the blame for cutting funding to the police which will have negatively affected counter-terrorism.  This will be especially important in the run up to an election, during a campaign which has seen her popularity fall. However, we have to question what having a military presence on our streets says for our democracy.

Soldiers on the streets intimidate the civilian population, even when that's not the intention.

When it is the intention, they can be used to sway election results.

By placing soldiers on our streets, we are showing that we fear the terrorists and undermining our own mantra of 'keep calm and carry on'. Our unbroken spirit becomes somewhat tarnished when we place soldiers in parliament, around Downing Street, and around Buckingham Palace.

We need to show our life and democracy will go on, not encourage further attack by revealing to the terrorists that they are getting to us.

Isn't it time for change?

These attacks need dealt with by police, not the military, and for that we need a government who will invest in public services. The sooner the better. We also need a government led by someone who wants peace. In 2013, Jeremy Corbyn was awarded the Gandhi International Award for Peace. Isn't it time we chose to put our faith it a peacekeeper, as opposed to Mrs May who has resorted to calling in the troops, sells weapons to countries with dubious policies on war, terror, and human rights, and has a member of the IRA as one of her councillors?

Carmine Raven

Strong and Stable Or Weak and Wobbly? You Decide

Jeremy Corbyn walks out on stage at a stadium to speak to 20,000 people and does so with confidence and animation. The crowds chant his name and video footage streams to thousands more. 

Meanwhile, Theresa May enters community centres through the back door to avoid angry service users at the front, and she speaks to whichever Conservative activists she can fit on her bus because when she is questioned by members of the public, the public reveal her policies are failing and are worth less than the uncosted manifesto they're written on. I do hope she's bothered to properly declare the cost of her battle bus and is ensuing her serving  MPs and candidates are doing the same, we'd hate to repeat that farce...

We can see who's strong and stable, and it isn't May; the farce is strong with that one.

Help us, J.C; you are our only hope.

Corbyn; If you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. 

Corbyn has withstood character assassination and smear campaign, he has stood firmly despite the weight of misinformation and prejudiced propaganda levelled against him. He came back stronger from his leadership challenge and he looks stronger now, speaking to the people, than our current Prime Minister could conceive. May isn't even brave enough to enter a TV debate with the leader of the opposition, which is usually standard practise...

But then we know why she won't debate with him. She'd lose. Even in the commons, during debates, May has to resort to personal slight against Corbyn because he holds her accountable. That works in the commons because the press can then selectively choose what to show in the 6 o'clock news and put there own spin on it.

So many times even the supposedly impartial BBC show May making personal slights rather than dealing with the matter at hand and call that behaviour 'strong' then take one line of Corbyn's reply out of context to misreport it and ignore everything else he's said to expose Mrs May's failings. This attitude to 'news' encourages a bullying approach, spits on fair and honest debate, and is specifically designed to fuel the propaganda machine rather than provide quality journalism. It's not on, and it's time we stood up to it. Who pays licence fees? Who buys papers? We should expect more.

We only need to visit YouTube to see how low the BBC go when discussing May vs Corbyn. In fact, much as the Tories U-turned on the policy mentioned in the below video, some sources are already reporting that they have dropped the 10,000 promised mental health nurses from their manifesto just a week after they were promised! (This fact needs verified, but to see how the Conservatives manage mental health services, simply Google how many nurses we've lost over the last seven years - it's a lot.)

This behaviour in the media sets the tone for Conservative MPs, spin doctors, activists, and even Tory voters in general. During the course of the last week I've spoken to numerous Conservative voters through social media and I've discovered something. When faced with facts and figures they either go silent (like May when asked onto debate shows, or to nursing conferences) or they spout outright lies with no evidence to back them up (like the Tory propaganda machine), or they resort to personal attacks (much like May and the mainstream media). They'll trot out the 'loony lefty' line, or they'll say you're lying without having any evidence to dispute the wealth of evidence you've provided. They'll tell you that the Tories 'always have to clean up Labour's mess', despite the evidence stating that it is Labour who clean up the Conservatives mess. I have yet to receive any real debate in face of my Debt, Deficit, and Deceit post. I've been called a liar. I've been told pigs might fly. I've had outright disbelief. No one can dispute it though, because the figures reveal the truth.

The best anyone has managed to come up with, is 'but look at the 1970, Labour had highest rate income tax up at 98% and they still got us into debt by reckless spending'. At first glance, it would seem that tax rate was far to high for no benefit as that chased the wealthy away from Britain. But no one is suggesting we go back to 98%. Labour aren't even suggesting we go back to the 60% tax which Thatcher was reluctant to drop below. No one is intending to return to the 1970s and to claim that's where labour will lead us is nothing but scaremongering. Yes, a 98% tax would be damaging. A 50% tax? No, because as discussed in Debt, Deficit, and Deceit, if the rich were to pull investment on that, it'd be cutting their noses off to spite there faces. We need to stop spreading this lie that the wealthy will only receive 2% of their higher bracket earnings (those earning above what most of us can dream of, remember, they still have  personal allowances and basic rate earning, higher rate tax is only applied to income over the threshold). Labour still want the wealthy to keep 50% of higher rate earnings. That's 10% more than Thatcher and only 10% less than now. To keep mentioning the 70's is baseless scaremongering when what they should be worried about is the Conservative dementia  tax.

Let's have a look at that, then. The plan is to have the elderly who need care to sign up to an insurance policy which allows them and their partner to live in their home until they die, but upon death the money to cover care cost's is taken from the sale of the property, from equity over £100k. The average house in the UK is worth well over £100k, and it seems there is to be no real limit on the amount which can be taken from equity over that first £100k. These insurance policies will also be able to force the sale of a property at less than market value, reducing the amount any children will inherit with no recourse. People will see their inheritance slashed by such a move, and while inheritance is a luxury many don't enjoy, it does mean that even the average working family who have their own homes could see them taken from their families.

Such a tax would affect working and middle class families, and only serves the top earners who have enough to pay for care anyway. Why are families being asked to pay National Insurance to fund care and public services, only to be told their children will also lose their inheritance in order to pay for care for a second time?

This policy also flies in the face of parity of esteem between mental and invisible illnesses, and physical illnesses. 

Cancer patients will continue to be treated for free (as they should be. My father died last year on a palliative care ward of this terrible disease), but dementia patients will be forced to give up most of what they worked to have to pass on to their children. Perhaps it is a mercy that winter fuel allowance is being cut, some of us might freeze to death before we have to take such drastic measures. Also, on the note of winter furl allowance; the plan is to make it means-tested. This is a terrible decision.

Many people will fall through the net with such a system, either being daunted with the application process (as is the way with Universal Credit, PIP, ESA, etc) or they won't want the shame of being means tested. People will die for no reason other than the fact a simple systems suddenly becomes overly complicated and denies self-respect. Means testing is an accusatory process. You apply and then government bodies assess you to see if you're trying to steal the paltry amounts on offer. I know, having recently been scrutinised for PIP, after having worked for 15 years, right from 16, and having professional experience and a first class degree. I have aspirations, drive, a willingness to work, but saying I need temporary help is a shaming process. No one should be ashamed because they are sick, old, were raped, or because their parents decided to give birth to them...

Means tested benefits are also hugely inefficient. This is because they involve an application process which means paying staff to sort applications, award payments, and handle appeals. The current benefits system is hugely inefficient for this reason. It would actually be cheaper to award everyone a basic, living income, and then recoup the costs as taxes or National Insurance from those who earn enough not to need it. That's not to say the wealthy will pay extra or pay twice, they will simply pay back a benefit they don't need. They'll get no benefit and suffer no loss. However, government finances as a whole would benefit because they'd reduce the cost of labour and IT systems needed to deal with means tested applications, there would be lower levels of poverty, so more people would be spending money, which would strengthen the economy, people who suffer ill health or homelessness due to poverty would be taken out of poverty and become less of a burden on public services, whilst also regaining autonomy and therefore some dignity, which will improve productivity.

The productivity bit stumps a few people, people who claim that hand outs encourage people to live off the state, and that we should stop hand outs. If anyone was suggesting we hand out the average wage, I would agree, but no one is suggesting that. What is being suggested is that people are given enough for food, because poorly nourished people are unhealthy and unproductive, money for clothes, because looking smart helps get and hold onto work and respect, and money for basic essentials like heating and a roof, because people die of hypothermia and worrying about homelessness causes a cycle of depression and low productivity. A little stress is good for people, it's a driving force, but when this becomes prolonged it starts to lessen productivity. Constant worry about money lowers productivity, it makes people less capable of getting or retaining work, it makes people more prone to mental and physical illness, it costs government finances more by creating problems than it solves. Making sure people have a basic income lowers that stress and worry, and allows them to look above the parapet, to see that the can do more and start working towards aspirations. It encourages people, rather than discourages them. If you tell a man he's worthless for long enough, he will believe himself worthless. If you allow a man his self respect, most will seek to remain respectable.

Now, back to Tory voters and their claims I'm lying. One told me yesterday that Labour policies have always been 'high tax, high borrowing, and high spending'. This is a fundamentally flawed argument based on the '70's 98% higher rate tax and the lie that Labour borrows and spends more than the Conservatives. Yes, Thatcher cut higher rate tax to 60%, but she also introduced huge amounts of stealth tax, which mean the effective tax rate peaked under her leadership. People paid more in tax under Thatcher than they did under the preceding Labour government. The last Labour government lowered this rate.

Yes, that's right, under Labour we paid lower taxes. 

Source: The National Archives (with annotation)

When I pointed this out to the 'gentleman' I was debating with, announced that if the Conservatives taxed more, it was because they always have to tidy up after Labour's spending. At this point, I reminded him that Thatcher also spent more than the preceding labour government. He then reverted to the line 'lies, damned lies, and statistics'. I pointed out he had indeed told lies, damned lies, but had skipped the statistics entirely and ended the debate. He was too stubborn and to wilfully misinformed to keep spending time on, but I hoped someone else may read the information I'd posted and draw their own conclusions.

Source: Economics Help

Now posting that graph is a risk, and I expect a backlash of Tory voters claiming 'but look, under Blair's government spending went up! That just proves how reckless Labour are!' At which point I'd refer again to my previous post on the subject, Debt, Deficit, and Deceit. Labour's increased spending was due to better economic productivity and investment in infrastructure, not due to increased debt or taxation. As previously stated in this post, the effective tax rate was lowered, and as discussed in the aforementioned article, borrowing as a percentage of GDP was also lowered.

Under Labour we had less debt, and we paid less tax, despite increases in public spending, because we had such a strong economy.

Under the Conservatives, we have skyrocketing debt, slow growth in the economy, historically they require higher taxation through stealth taxes, which is a trend Theresa May's manifesto of misery seems intent on continuing. 

Under Labour, child poverty fell dramatically and the gap between the wealthy and the poor reduced. The NHS ran at a surplus, and numbers of nurses and teachers training remained stable.

Under the Conservatives, child poverty is rising and while it hasn't yet reached Thatcher's levels, it is heading that way and may well surpass them. The gap between the top 5% and the rest of us is increasing. Our public services are in huge deficit, and the numbers of unfilled nursing posts are increasing, nurses in training are decreasing, and larger classes are being taught be fewer qualified teachers.

• Our children are malnourished.
• Our elderly are dying of hypothermia.
• Our workforce is impoverished.
• Our homeless and starving are increasing. 
• Our public services are failing.
• Our economy is teetering on the brink of free fall.
• Our wealthiest politicians and business owners  grow wealthier through our suffering.
• Our populace is, by majority, worse off now than they were ten years ago.

What more do you need to know in order to #VoteLabour?

If you do one thing on June 8th, then go and vote for your Labour candidate. If you don't have a Labour candidate, then vote Co-op (if you have a co-op working in conjunction with Labour), or vote Green, or vote for your independent representative (not to be confused with UKIP, votes for whom may ensure Conservative victory). Do it for your children, your grandparents, the disabled, the sick... Do it for yourselves by supporting economic growth rather than debt and economic stagnation. Do it because it's the only decent thing to do.

Carmine Raven