Keir Starmer signs up to Board of Deputies’ hate campaign against Roger Waters [STRONG LANGUAGE]

Leave a reply

Keir Starmer: as a barrister, did it never occur to him to examine the evidence?

If you’re a long-term reader of Vox Political, you’ll already know what’s going on here, and that it has been going on for a very long time.

If you’re not, and you’ve believed all the claptrap that has been thrown at people who (in this instance) object – we don’t have to put it any stronger than that – to the hatred practised every day by the government of Israel and its propagandists across the world, then prepare to be amazed.

Either way, please take the time to watch the following video clip in which Roger Waters, the latest high-profile victim of a fake anti-Semitism narrative, explains why it is nonsense and how he feels about being targeted in this way.

Be warned – he doesn’t mince his words:

It has just been revealed that the Board of Deputies of British Jews – one of the propaganda organisations mentioned above – wrote to leading politicians in the Conservative and Labour parties, seeking support for false accusations against Mr Waters.

Among those who were happy to lend their name to this hate campaign was Labour leader Keir Starmer:

Look at what he wrote to BoD President Marie Van Der Zyl [boldings mine]:

I found the examples listed in your letter, of instances in which Roger Waters has clearly espoused antisemitic views to his audiences, highly disturbing.

Which instances were these? Can Starmer quote what these instances were? Can he point us to audio-visual evidence of these instances that took place at well-attended concerts full of mobile phone-wielding fans?

Were they similar to the segments of the show that Mr Waters himself mentioned in the interview above – that clearly did not espouse anti-Semitism in any way?

Starmer wrote:

Those that hide behind the excuse that artists in the entertainment industry should not be held to the same standards as others are utterly wrong. There should be no artistic licence for discrimination or racism.

When did Roger Waters ever hide behind any such excuse? Can Starmer point us to audio-visual evidence of him doing so? Or is it more accurate that he has never done anything of the sort?

Roger Waters… is now synonymous with spreading deeply troubling antisemitism.

Can Starmer demonstrate to us even one moment in which Roger Waters has done any such thing? I’m willing to bet real money that he can’t.

Views like this should not be given a platform.

That depends on what views Starmer was told had been espoused by Roger Waters. It is entirely possible that such views should not be given a platform. But it is extremely unlikely that Roger Waters ever did so.

Put it all together and it seems that Keir Starmer – a barrister who was once Director of Public Prosecutions – couldn’t be bothered to gather any evidence and weigh it up.

Perhaps he was busy expelling more Jews from the Labour Party and simply didn’t have the time.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The Tories are lying about Universal Basic Income

Leave a reply

Oliver Dowden: he doesn’t want people to have a guaranteed minimum income; he wants us to live in fear of poverty.

As England prepares to run two pilot studies on Universal Basic Income, the Tories have been talking it down just as much as they can.

But is it that bad? A recent study in Finland would suggest that it’s actually very good for people, no matter what Politics Live panellist Lee Rowley might say.

What do you think? Would you like a guaranteed minimum income? Would you feel more secure with it? Would it encourage you to try things you otherwise would not?

Send in a comment!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Rachel Reeves’s ‘Securonomics’ is a myth – and here’s why

Leave a reply

Rachel Reeves: her right-wing blinkers are stopping her from seeing what she needs to do.

It seems Labour’s Rachel Reeves has been peddling a myth with her ‘Securonomics’ speech in the United States.

It seems she has been trying to promise security to businesses through a means that simply won’t allow it – de-globalisation.

She said “Globalisation, as we once knew it, is dead.” That creates problems for a politician who wants to create a high-wage, high-growth economy, for these reasons:

  • Stronger world trade means greater competition. That encourages firms to increase efficiency or to innovate more, both of which raise productivity.
  • Managers visit customers and suppliers overseas and so can more easily learn tricks of the trade from best practice overseas.
  • Globalization also cuts prices, thereby making people’s wages go further. The deglobalization caused by Brexit, for example, has greatly added (pdf) to UK food bills.

I dare say there are others.

The downside – that some industries decline and disappear – is seen by many as a benefit because it means low-productivity jobs disappear, to be replaced by high-productivity jobs (or at least, that’s what should happen. We know that, for example, under Thatcherism, that replacement didn’t happen. She simply destroyed the UK’s industrial base).

I would also dispute claims that, under Thatcherism, substantial growth came because inefficient firms closed, more efficient ones opened, and because big companies shifted output from their less efficient sites to more efficient ones. What is meant by “efficiency” here? Does it mean cutting wages by ending jobs in one firm and starting them at a lower level in another?

Back with Reeves, she claims Labour will create high productivity growth but doesn’t explain how that will happen. She isn’t offering any government help for a transition from low-productivity firms to high-productivity firms and she isn’t suggesting that new firms must offer high wages. She doesn’t even offer a more generous benefit system to support people whose jobs are destroyed and help them into newly-created positions.

And the creation of high-wage jobs means people won’t do low-wage jobs like care work, cleaning or shelf-stacking. To attract workers, these jobs need to be better-paid now, let alone in a high-productivity, high-wage economy that Reeves wants.

Government subsidy doesn’t work; it should not be applied to shelf-stackers or cleaners because their employers should be paying them, not relying on the public to do it for them. Supermarkets are currently making massive profits and can therefore easily afford to pay a living wage to all their workers.

Reeves makes the point that governments tend to focus policy on building the growth of economic success stories that are often few in number – and this neglects

the basics for a good life, strong communities and economic security – like childcare, social care, retail, hospitality and supermarkets

But she doesn’t say how she can make the maximum return on public money by investing in these traditionally low-paying jobs.

Market concentration also reduces competition, of course, meaning the “engine of productivity” has been left idling. I’ll come back to this.

Care is the one area in which the government may have a role, but this would require an enormous change in the way politicians think about it – both health-related care and child care. We don’t see that coming from Reeves.

If public money is spent on this, then taxes would rise to offset inflation – and taxes are already at their highest in 70 years (where’s the money going, Rishi Sunak?) so that’s not practical.

And which jobs will go? There’s an argument that some should be targeted:

the bullshit jobs described by David Graeber; the producers of environmental, intellectual and risk pollution; DWP and Border Force staff who harrass benefit claimants and migrants; or those in the bloated financial sector. Job destruction, as I’ve argued, is not a task which can be left to the market.

But it is left to the market. That’s how neoliberalism works and why that economic model has allowed so much corruption into society.

Reeves is silent on the possibility of weeding out the “bullshit” jobs to encourage the useful ones.

But she does argue that the State shapes markets; so Labour wants large-scale public investment in green energy (we’ll ignore the argument about nuclear power for now), and this, according to Simon Wren-Lewis at Mainly Macro,

can be thought of as a mission to get cheaper and sustainable energy, which involves public investment or government incentives in a wide range of industries

Mr Wren-Lewis also discusses failure to fund projects that would lead to lower public spending in some areas – so a 24 per cent cut in money for preventative health schemes by local government (stopping people from getting ill) means NHS costs skyrocket. He fails to take account of the current political reason for that, which is that healthcare is being turned into a profit-making industry and if the private firms that have been brought into the NHS are to make their money, more people need to be ill.

How does a government roll back market concentration and restore competition? One way is to start new businesses, and Reeves commits to that.

Brexit is also a limiting factor as it has shrunk the size of markets available to UK businesses. Reeves says she wants to reduce trading friction with the EU while staying outside the Customs Union and Single Market – but we can expect this to change. Brexit is a failure and Labour is only refusing to admit that for as long as it is politically expedient to do so. Expect agitation to get back into the EU, almost as soon as a Labour government is elected – from all sides of the House of Commons.

Put it all together and Reeves’s aim of a high-wage, high-productivity economy that does not take advantage of the global marketplace simply won’t work.

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, she would be better-advised to retain what is succeeding and use its profits to invest in slower-yield but high-value projects. But I fear the right-wing blinkers she wears won’t allow her to see that.

Source: mainly macro: Rachel Reeves economic strategy

Labour’s mistreatment of Jamie Driscoll has backfired massively

Leave a reply

Dumped: Jamie Driscoll.

It’s the thinnest excuse possible and everybody knows it: Keir Starmer wants self-confessed “last Corbynite in power”, Jamie Driscoll, out of his job as a metropolitan mayor, and he’s using a joint appearance with film director Ken Loach as the reason.

Mr Loach has already been expelled from the Labour Party, although nobody seems to know the reason, and Starmer’s mob is saying that Mr Driscoll having appeared at an event that the great British director also attended is enough reason to exclude him from candidate shortlists.

Mr Driscoll – rightly – reckons that’s a crock. He doesn’t even mention it in his article commenting on his achievements and the way his party is letting the people of northeast England down:

He states:

Labour struggles to convince the electorate it can handle the economy.  You’d think I was exactly the success story the Labour Party would want to shout about.  So when they barred me from standing as North East Mayor, it shocked people from across the political spectrum.  I’ve had literally thousands of messages of support.

I identify as a socialist.  Sometimes that puts me on a collision course with the Party leadership in London.

My first duty is to the people who elected me as their mayor.  The Labour members here, in our region, chose me to represent them last time.  They should have that choice again.  It’s called democracy.  Union leaders, MPs, and other Mayors are making my case, and asking for the decision to be reversed.

There’s a lack of trust in politics.  Second homes.  Second jobs.  Cash for questions.  Not me.  £0 expenses claims.  I pay for my own phone.  I gave up my car and use my bike or public transport so I see what everyone else has to deal with.

Politics needs to change.  We need a new direction.  Power must reside in the North East, and in every region of Britain.  Not in Westminster and Party HQs.  I have a vision of a Britain that’s run in the interests of the people who do the work.  And I believe we can get there.

Say what you like about Unite General Secretary Sharon Graham; she’s on the right side of this argument:

“Nodding heads” are exactly the kind of people Keir Starmer wants in all positions representing the Labour Party. It seems clear that the only people he wants to have any power at all are those who are completely subservient to him.

What of Ken Loach?

Well, we’ve established that he was expelled from the Labour Party for reasons that have never been disclosed. Anti-Semitism has been alleged but no accusation has ever stuck.

Still, right-wing lickspittles like Luke Akehurst are using association with Mr Loach as their reason for wanting rid of Mr Driscoll, as you can see below.

By that token, though, Keir Starmer should also be out of a job at the next election:

Right?

But when Mr Driscoll appeared on the BBC’s Newsnight, Labour sent a party drone from Sussex to undermine him with insults about David Brent (the Office idiot) and falsehoods about party rules.

And what happened? Mr Driscoll ran rings around Paul Richards, who made a fool of himself:

The clip has been sent around Twitter by a few commenters, and their observations speak for themselves. Here‘s Alistair Greaves: “Honestly, @MayorJD gives these ghouls far much more politeness than they deserve. Not sure why the #biasedbbc let Paul Richards have the last word though, and while they can argue “no-one is bigger or better than the party or the rules” JAMIE DRISCOLL HASN’T BROKEN ANY RULES.”

How about MsAlfieB here? “Was the BoD demand that Labour suspend anyone sharing a platform with an expelled member written into the rules? If so that’s really shocking Surely a mayor works for all in his city, not for the Labour party. Labour Party rules can’t be imposed on public servants doing their job.”

(The “BoD” would be the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is not a Labour-affiliated organisation. But Starmer seems to have allied with it in his purge of left-wing party members.)

Also during that Newsnight appearance, Richards tried to justify the blocking of Mr Driscoll as a candidate by claiming he does not meet the criteria (again: because Mr Driscoll had appeared at an event where Ken Loach – who has not done anything quantifiably wrong – also appeared).

Here’s what happened when interviewer Victoria Derbyshire countered with a list of Mr Discoll’s actual achievements as North Tyne Mayor:

Incidentally…

Now, those are just the opinions of people who inhabit Twitter; the social media equivalent of the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus.

Perhaps you’d prefer the view of a mass media columnist?

The commentary is damning:

Keir Starmer said in January he wanted to “take back control” for local communities. The Labour leader wants them to have more say over jobs, transport, energy, climate change, housing, culture, childcare and finance. He wants to liberate what is now recognised as the most centralised state in Europe. So why, now, has the Labour leader decided that the people of the North of Tyne area will not be permitted to reselect their current mayor, Jamie Driscoll, to stand for Labour at the next election? Why did he agree in March that his predecessor as leader, Jeremy Corbyn, should not be reselected as MP for Islington North?

Whatever the perceived misdeeds of these two politicians, surely these are matters for their respective communities to decide on. Come to that, I notice in the past few weeks that, despite his devolution speech, Starmer wants no devolution of power over council tax rises, local housing decisions or the siting of wind turbines, among other things. Nor will he tolerate any nonsense from Scottish people about “taking back control” of Scotland.

Even before he finds himself in Downing Street, Starmer cannot bring himself to respect the local diversity that has long been Labour’s strength. He cannot allow his party to let the people of the north-east choose who it is they want to lead them. It is a very bad start.

The condemnation seems universal; everyone who doesn’t have an interest in opposing Mr Driscoll seems to be supporting him.

That means two things:

Firstly, the old lies about anti-Semitism aren’t going to work any more.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter who else is on Labour’s shortlist for the new North East Mayor job; if Jamie Driscoll isn’t on it, Labour won’t have a hope of winning the election.

Will Keir Starmer learn his lesson from this?

Probably not, sadly.

In fact, he’ll probably take revenge by setting his sights on two other metropolitan mayors who have supported Mr Driscoll – Steve Rotherham and Andy Burnham.

And that would be an even worse mistake.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

What will be mentioned in the Covid inquiry… and what won’t?

Leave a reply

Baroness Heather Hallett: she has made good decisions so far – but can anybody understand her apparent bias against bereaved families?

We all know that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have been making a fuss over whether they will have to give evidence to the Covid inquiry and what it will be.

But what do you make of this?

The article states:

Not a single witness offered up by the UK’s largest group for families bereaved by Covid has been called to speak at the official inquiry, openDemocracy can reveal.

Those representing the voices of the bereaved say they are being “marginalised by the process” just days before the inquiry is set to begin. It follows a scandal sparked by openDemocracy’s revelation that Tory-linked PR firms had been hired to manage the voices of the bereaved.

The inquiry rejected all 20 witnesses volunteered by Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, but has asked the group’s co-founder Matt Fowler to speak. He will now be attempting to represent thousands of members who won’t be able to give evidence to the inquiry’s first module, which focuses on the UK’s preparedness for a pandemic.

What’s the story there? Does inquiry chair Baroness Hallett think they’ll all say the same thing? Does she think there won’t be time to hear all their different stories? Or is she simply not interested in what happened to the little people like you and me?

Here’s something else that might not be mentioned:

And what about this?

So private schools that were formerly attended by government ministers received millions of pounds of Covid support loans, while state schools were left to face bankruptcy. And the ministers were responsible for supporting the state schools, not their alma maters.

Will that get a mention? It should.

Meanwhile, the government’s decision to take court action against its own inquiry is still kicking up a huge smokescreen around the whole affair.

Is that a side-issue? Or was it the point?

Whichever, what do you think of this MP’s point?

Sir Robert Buckland, who served as justice secretary and Lord Chancellor from 2019 to 2021, said that the move by the government was “unnecessary”, telling Sky News: “it would have been far better to negotiate and deal with this in a way that would have respected the discretion of the chair”.

Well,

Sir Robert suggested he has been told that the High Court could hear the government’s challenge to the Covid inquiry “as early as next week”.

so at least if it is a waste of time, it will be out of the way very soon.

But what will the decision be? Will it be better than that of the inquiry on representatives of bereaved families?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Home Secretary lies about migrant backlog and refuses to correct herself

Leave a reply

Suella Braverman: we don’t have an image showing her expression when she was challenged to correct the record but you can bet it was close to this.

This is yet another shocking display of contempt for Parliament by Suella Braverman.

The Home Secretary gave a statement to MPs yesterday (June 5, 2023) on the number of people awaiting an initial decision on whether they would be granted asylum in the UK – and it was inaccurate, according to the official figures.

Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper pointed this out in a point of order but the Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, did not demand a correction, as you can see below:

The figures show that the total number of cases has indeed increased, as Cooper said:

This Writer can’t actually see the numbers that either politician mentioned in the figures provided; the total number of people waiting for a decision seems to have been more or less static for months.

But that’s not a fall, so Braverman should have corrected the record either way.

Not only has she not done so, but she has actively refused.

That’s contempt of Parliament, as far as I can tell. It is a serious breach of the Ministerial Code and she should be brought to book for it.

But will that happen?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The news in Tweets – Tuesday, June 6, 2023

Leave a reply

The number of stories linked below seems to be proliferating. Is it because UK society is increasingly breaking down while corruption is increasing?

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

An Israeli soldier has shot and killed a toddler. Let’s discuss ‘outdated’ notions

Leave a reply

Muhammad Tamimi: his two-year-old life was ended after a member of the Israel Defence Forces raided his village and shot this defenceless toddler in the head.

Remember last week, when This Site commented on Jewish Chronicle reviewer Jonathan Sacerdoti’s critique of Maureen Lipman’s performance in the play Rose, in which he stated that it invests “dramatic capital in the outdated notion that Jews kill children”.

Outdated?

This happened last week:

I think it’s time we discussed some of these “notions” that certain people are constantly telling us are “outdated”.

Certainly the claim that armed Israelis shoot children is neither a notion, nor outdated. It is a terrifying fact.

Some have tried to justify the killing of a child by saying his parents put him in the line of fire. This is clearly false; the shooting happened during a raid on a Palestinian village by members of the Israel Defence Forces.

They claimed that they were responding to Palestinian aggression and I am not going to debate that. It might be true but that is irrelevant to what has happened, which is this:

Armed military aggressors attacked unarmed civilians in their homes and shot a toddler in the head, causing injuries from which he later died.

There is no explanation that can justify such an act.

It is unacceptable on any level at all – as all civilised observers must agree. Nobody can ever say they shot an unarmed toddler in the head as an act of self-defence.

And the very least the rest of us should expect is a little contrition from people like Mr Sacerdoti.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Stop the what, Rishi? We’ve just seen your footwear: STOP THE BOOTS!

Leave a reply

A big mistake by Rishi Sunak has led to his greatest – possibly only – contribution to UK culture…

And it’s sartorial.

You see, it turns out that he has shockingly bad taste in footwear.

The boots he’s been wearing are … a feast for the eyes, and when he was filmed wearing them on a channel patrol before giving a speech about his “Stop the Boats” policy, well… the public response was predictable:

For those who wonder why there are always attempts to limit the reach of social media posts: it’s because of things like this.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

The news in tweets: June 5, 2023

Leave a reply

Is the Tory government scared of sanctioning Alexander Lebedev because his son Evgeny is a Tory peer?

Here’s what you should be reading but I haven’t got time to write about:

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook