Monthly Archives: December 2017

The Tory ‘Bedroom Tax’ trap – follow government advice and your council will sue you


Thanks are due to Joe Halewood for bringing this to light:

Bedroom tax tenants will be fined £30,000 and placed on the rogue landlord database if they do what the Tories advise them to do and take in lodgers to mitigate the bedroom tax!

Take in a lodger to mitigate the bedroom tax in your spare room as official advice but if you do then your local council will fine you £30,000 for following government advice because the room you let out to the lodger and for which you are being charged bedroom tax is not a bedroom as it is not of the minimum size to be a bedroom!

[According to government advice, minimum bedroom sizes are] 6.51 square metres … 70 square feet… 10.22 square metres … 110 square feet [for two adults] and 4.64 square metres … 50 square feet [for children aged 10 and younger].

The government (and social landlords and bedroom tax decision makers in local councils) and the courts will say these minimum sizes ONLY apply to:

(a) private landlords and

(b) ONLY in HMOs and

(c) ONLY when there are 5 people or more living in the same property.

One option that the government say is available for those nasty social tenants who are under occupying … is for the tenant to let out their allegedly spare room to a lodger. YET that would make the tenant a private landlord who is creating a HMO in a property with 5 persons and meets all of the criteria for being a rogue landlord and be subject to a £30,000 fine and to go on to the rogue landlord list for letting out a bedroom that is less than 70 square feet.

Source: Bedroom taxed tenants fined £30k for following Tory advice! | Speye Joe


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

If Labour makes only one New Year’s resolution, it must be to clarify its policy on Brexit

Jeremy Corbyn has been urged ‘to move from ambiguity in 2017 over Brexit to clarity in 2018’ [Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA].

Consider this:

Labour is coming under pressure from leading pro-remain campaigners to clarify its stance on Brexit, after polling showed that a quarter of its current voters could switch party by the next election and more than half would oppose Labour backing Brexit.

The poll of people planning to vote Labour – conducted by YouGov for the Best of Britain campaign group – found 24% said they may change their minds before the next election, and two-thirds of those who voted remain would be disappointed or angry if Labour says it will proceed with Brexit.

The poll also found many Labour voters have opposing perceptions about the party’s current stance on Brexit. It found 32% of Labour remain voters believe Labour is “completely against Brexit” and a further 31% of Labour leave voters believe Labour is “completely in favour of Brexit”.

Mark Malloch Brown, a crossbench peer and chair of Best for Britain, said: “This data shows, clearly, that many more remainers are likely to abandon Labour over its Brexit line than leavers. Labour did so well in the election off the back of pro-European voters tactically voting for them. All that could be at risk if this policy, a calculated policy of ambiguity, continues.”

Seventy Labour councillors from south London have called on Jeremy Corbyn to be open to giving voters another say on Brexit.

(Source: Labour voters could abandon party over Brexit stance, poll finds | Politics | The Guardian)

All well and good, eh?

Now, consider this:

Whilst Labour’s vote share in the general election this year went up, we should remember that some Labour MPs lost their seats. Two of those were near-neighbours of mine: Natascha Engel in North East Derbyshire and Alan Meale in Mansfield. Both of these seats voted firmly to leave the European Union, and saw former UKIP supporters and Labour Leave voters coming together to back the Conservative candidate. Across the UK too, the other seats Labour lost were all heartlands for the Leave campaign, as were many of those where our majority was reduced.

In recent years, I have carried out surveys online, emailing directly to constituents and posting on my Facebook page. As a result, there is always a considerable bias towards those who are younger and more politically engaged. Therefore my surveys have always shown more pro-Remain results than the constituency voted in the referendum in June 2016.

In my survey in November 2017… 53 per say they would back Leave versus 40 per cent for Remain.

It is clear to me that Leave would still win, and by a larger majority. There is little evidence of a swing back to Remain or of large numbers of my constituents having “buyer’s remorse” with Brexit. Instead, it seems that opinion has hardened, particularly among Leave voters. Reading the responses, it is clear that many Labour Leave voters would regard any attempt to frustrate the result as insulting and a betrayal.

Second, large numbers of Labour voters in the north and midlands would back Leave in any second referendum. If Labour is serious about keeping their support, we must be conscious that that they do not regret their decision in the slightest. This tallies with my survey in 2016, when the majority of voters told me they needed no further information on how to vote. Opinions are therefore entrenched among Labour Leavers.

Third, support for a second referendum is low overall and very low among Leavers. Calls for a second vote are being driven by Remainers (predominantly in Westminster), and any referendum would be viewed very negatively by Leavers.

Finally, Brexit seems to be dividing Labour voters into two camps. Metropolitan, socially-liberal, younger voters are flirting with second referendums and have no time for those who have concerns over immigration. Meanwhile, northern, working class, older voters feel that only delivering on the Leave vote will address their concerns.

(Source: John Mann: Winning The Next Election Demands A Direct Appeal To Leave Voters In The Midlands And North)

What are we to conclude?

Firstly, we shouldn’t pay too much attention to Mr Mann’s survey. Bassetlaw has an electorate of more than 78,000, more than 27,000 of whom voted for Mr Mann in June – but only 2,797 people responded to his poll. Mr Mann himself is a dyed-in-the-wool Brexiter.

And – as we have noted in the case of Suella Fernandez, Brexiters have a tricky relationship with the facts; they tend to twist information to suit themselves.

This Writer can’t say whether Mr Mann is playing fast and loose with the information available to him – but he certainly has an agenda.

That said, he makes points that are worth considering.

The statistics quoted in the first extract (above) suggest that Labour can afford to lose Remain voters much less than Leave voters – and we know that the decision to quit the EU has already damaged the UK economically, even in advance of our departure. So, for This Writer’s money, Labour should reconsider its policy of supporting Brexit and devise a new approach.

A party of government must follow policies that are right for the United Kingdom – that benefit the nation and the majority of its people, not just a rich and manipulative few.

So, if Labour is in danger of losing Leave voters in the North, Labour should consider explaining the situation and persuading those voters that this is the wrong time to quit our most important economic alliance.

It is an argument that should not be made on the EU issue alone.

If people are threatening to vote against a Labour that changes its position to support remaining in the EU, then Labour must remind those people of the worthwhile policies they will be opposing – and the useless Tory policies they will be supporting – by switching their vote to other parties in protest.

Brexit itself is a useless policy. It will result in economic harm – particularly to northern and deprived parts of the UK – and the Conservatives will take advantage of the fact that EU law will no longer cover us, to remove workers’ rights – and probably human rights – from poor or working-class people. They are already calling for workers’ rights to be stripped away.

It is in this context that Labour should consider renouncing its support for Brexit.

It should also be remembered that the political party that pushes Brexit through, in spite of the clear and demonstrable harm it does to the UK, its economy and its people, will suffer electoral blight for years, if not decades, to come.

The party that takes up position against Brexit, heeding the evidence that we have now, will be well-placed to take advantage of that situation, when – not if – it arises.

Sooner or later, Labour must make this choice. The longer party leaders hesitate, the less effective will be the decision.


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Liverpool is leading the way in tackling homelessness – by ignoring homicidal Tories

A homeless man sleeps rough while shoppers walk past [Image: Alphotographic via Getty Images].

Bravo to Joe Anderson, Labour’s elected Mayor of Liverpool, for telling the Tories to stuff their “unacceptably complacent” policy on homelessness.

And thanks are due to him for the statistic that the average rough sleeper dies before reaching the age of 50.

It tends to confirm This Writer’s belief that the Tory plan to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and eliminate it by 2027 depends on homeless people dying out, rather than being any strategy to help them.

The government’s response to dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping across England has been woeful.

‘Unacceptably complacent’ was the term used. That’s one way of saying that leaving 9,100 human beings to sleep on our streets is a shaming, infuriating disgrace.

Since 2010, the number of households in temporary accommodation has risen by 60 per cent, while the numbers of rough sleepers has soared by 134 per cent since 2011. Most shockingly, the average rough sleeper dies before they reach the age of 50.

Councils are struggling to cope with unprecedented demand for services – with less and less money to pay for them.

We are also expected to ignore part of the problem.

Some of our rough sleepers are asylum seekers and eastern European migrants who have fallen on hard times. In Whitehall-speak they have ‘no recourse to public funds.’ We are supposed to leave them alone.

As the elected Mayor of my city, I won’t be told who I can and cannot help.

I am proud that we spend £11million every year tackling homelessness – intervening early to help families and individuals avoid falling between the cracks – even though our central government funding has been slashed by two-thirds (£470million) since 2010. While our Citizen Support Scheme includes help for people facing benefit sanctions – ensuring they don’t get evicted.

Source: Ministers Can Go And Whistle. All Rough Sleepers Will Get Help In Liverpool


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Tory economic policies at work: Britain falls another place in world rankings

Theresa May visiting India last year. Who knows? She may have been buying shares in Indian companies; people like her know how to land on their feet [Image: Getty].

This is the result of Conservative economics; they simply don’t know how to run a country.

All that tommyrot about the nation’s economy being like a household budget was an indication of the way the wind was blowing.

But those of us who knew it was nonsense didn’t expect the Tories themselves to believe it.

Well, it seems they do.

And Brexit will make matters worse – the unforeseen and unwanted result of an internal squabble within the Conservative Party.

It will weaken the economy to an extent we do not yet know. The prediction in the Mirror article, quoted below, is that it won’t be as bad as many expect and the UK will bounce back above France (while remaining below India), to be the world’s number six economy again.

But you’d be a fool to expect that under a Conservative government.

India has leapfrogged Britain and France to become the world’s fifth biggest economy.

The Asian giant seized the spot as the UK prepares for Brexit, according to the 2018 World Economic League Table.

Source: Britain falls another place in world economic rankings to seventh as India soars – Mirror Online


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Tory policies are intentionally worsening the strain on the health service – and our health in general

A new report says inequality is costing the NHS millions of pounds a year [Image: Daniel Atkin/Alamy Stock Photo/Alamy Stock Photo].

The evidence is conclusive, wouldn’t you say?

We know that Conservative policies have caused a regression in the nation’s health, generally.

People have less cash, which means they are less able to feed themselves properly, leading to malnutrition.

This, in turn, has led to the return of the so-called ‘Victorian’ diseases – gout, TB, measles, scurvy, rickets and whooping cough. The Conservatives are undoubtedly delighted by this, as they have long desired a return to Victorian-era values.

Employment policies mean people are finding it extremely hard to earn more cash, meaning not only are they unable to feed themselves properly, but they also increased levels of stress due to the odds being stacked against them.

And the increasingly unreasonable demands of employers – emboldened by the government – mean people are running themselves ragged simply trying to keep their jobs.

I have elaborated on the ways this is harmful to the economy in several articles over the past few years.

Those of us who are unemployed, in low-paying or in part-time employment are placed under increasing pressure to get work or increase our working hours and pay, by the benefit system. This also attacks our mental and physical health.

And those of us who are physically unable to get a job because of long-term illness, or who need particular aids to keep a job, because of disability, are also placed under huge pressures that adversely affect our health.

These are all consequences of Conservative government policy that affect the poor, rather than the rich – and all impact on our health in a hugely harmful way.

Yet the Conservative government insists it wants to improve our health. Clearly, that is a lie.

If it wasn’t, the Conservatives would not have opened up our National Health Service to private, profit-making corporations who take public money and put it straight into their bank accounts as profit, without it being used to improve the health of a single person.

They would not have deprived the health service of the funding it really needs, making it vulnerable to crisis after crisis that actually harms its ability to help people. We’re currently enduring the latest winter crisis, with a huge strain being placed on hospital accident and emergency departments.

There is a better way.

It’s simple: Encourage employers to provide secure, well-paid jobs that allow people to buy healthy, nutritious food. Happy employees produce better products and more profits, making it possible to hire more employees at superior rates.

The increase in high-quality jobs would mean an increase in tax revenue, easing the pressure on the benefit system, meaning there would be no reason for the extra pressures under which the current system places them and halting the relentless grind that is so harmful to their health.

The end result is less pressure on the health service, meaning it would no longer be over-stretched and may be more able to cope – not only with normal running issues but even with the crises that arise from time to time.

Everybody wins – even the profiteers, because they’ll be making more money.

Of course, every plan is fine until it is put into action and runs into the unexpected, but that’s why the government has so many clever employees in the civil service, along with so many clever advisors in think tanks and Universities.

So you see: The problems here are entirely manufactured by and on behalf of the Conservative Government of the United Kingdom – deliberately.

The Tories want you to be ill-fed, stressed, sick, mentally ill, and unable to access adequate healthcare.

It is a deliberate policy of theirs, although probably not one that you’ll ever see headlined in their manifesto.

But we must judge people on their actions, and the results of those actions, rather than on their words.

Children from poor families are far more likely to end up in hospital A&E departments or need emergency treatment for conditions such as asthma and diabetes, according to shocking figures revealing the consequences of poverty in Britain.

In findings that senior doctors said showed the “devastating impact” of deprivation on child health, the nation’s poorest teenagers were found to be almost 70 per cent more likely to appear in A&E than their less deprived counterparts.

A comprehensive study that examined hundreds of thousands of patient records found inequalities between children from the poorest and richest families were costing the NHS hundreds of millions a year and contributing to pressures on the health system.

Across the 10 most common conditions leading to unplanned hospital visits, the rates of admission were consistently highest among children and young people from the most deprived areas. The study, by the Nuffield Trust, found inequalities in some areas of child health had increased over the last decade in England, despite advances in care.

Source: Huge health gap revealed between UK’s rich and poor | Inequality | The Guardian


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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 only way the Tory government has ‘lost’ controversial archive papers is DELIBERATELY

Shadow cabinet office minister Jon Trickett says the ‘loss’ of documents about controversial periods in history is unacceptable [Image: AFP].

This Writer would not believe for a single moment that the Conservative government has ‘lost’ important archive papers on some of the most controversial episodes of recent history – and nor should you.

The politics of the past seven years has shown very clearly that the Conservatives cannot be trusted – and Theresa May’s government least of all. They are trying to whitewash history, in my opinion.

The fact that the documents were borrowed from the National Archives by civil servants means nothing. Civil servants act on the orders of government ministers.

Some of these documents may be easily replaced, such as the Zinoviev letter, which was an attempt by MI6 officers to bring about the downfall of the first Labour government. There are plenty of copies of that item in circulation! So an attempt to whitewash this attempt at political meddling is unlikely to succeed – but you can understand why some might want to try. I wonder, do we know the names of those who ordered that attempt?

Consider this, from The Guardian:

“An entire file on the Zinoviev letter scandal is said to have been lost after Home Office civil servants took it away. The Home Office declined to say why it was taken or when or how it was lost. Nor would its say whether any copies had been made.”

That is unacceptable. Those documents are public property and the entire workforce of the Home Office are public servants. They answer to us – and that means they must provide answers to us when we demand them.

The material involved with the Troubles in Northern Ireland has already gathered attention because of the potential to hide human rights abuses by the UK government (or governments). Already, organisations have made their concerns clear:

“Theresa May must order a government-wide search for these ‘lost’ files and their restoration to their rightful place in the archives at Kew,” said Patrick Corrigan, Amnesty International’s Northern Ireland programme director.

“Victims of human rights abuses in Northern Ireland have a right to full disclosure of what happened to them and their loved ones at the hands of the state.

“Accountability and justice demand that these files are among the evidence available to families, judges and historians in determining the truth of what happened here during three decades of violence,” said Corrigan.

“Revelations that government departments are requisitioning and then misplacing crucial files strengthen our view that decisions on the disclosure of findings by the proposed Historical Investigations Unit in Northern Ireland cannot be left to UK government ministers, as currently demanded by the Northern Ireland Office.”

Reprieve – the human rights advocacy organisation – also condemned the government, fearing that future possible abuses may be hidden from the public eye.

“This is deeply troubling and unfortunately follows a pattern we have seen before,” said Maya Foa, director. “Ministers have previously blamed ‘water damage’ for destroying crucial files showing complicity in rendition and torture, and right now they are forcing legal cases seeking to expose the truth about UK involvement in George Bush’s ‘war on terror’ into secret courts where the public and press are denied access.”

Similar files held in the National Archives have previously been instrumental in exposing human rights violations committed by the UK in Northern Ireland.

A 1977 letter from the home secretary, Merlyn Rees, to the prime minister, Jim Callaghan, documented how ministers gave permission for the use of torture against internees in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, evidence that was reportedly withheld from the European court of human rights.

In total, more than 1,000 documents – all of which have been declassified and should be available for the public to access – have been removed from the National Archive and no copies are available.

So, serious questions need to be answered:

  • Why are there no backup copies of these documents? We live in a computer age, and digital copies would provide at least a modicum of assurance that the documents are available, especially if the originals are loaned out on the orders of government ministers.
  • And who took them? Any ordinary lending library provides material only to people who are valid members of that library and, when they do take items, the library has a record showing who took them and when. This makes it easy to track those items and – if they are kept for longer than the specified time, or lost – fine the person responsible. Why does the National Archive not follow the same security procedures?

Labour’s Jon Trickett has already demanded action:

“The loss of documents about controversial periods in history is unacceptable.

“The British people deserve to know what the Government has done in their name and their loss will only fuel accusations of a cover-up.

“These important historical documents may be a great loss to history – and their disappearance must urgently be investigated.”

He’s right. Until all the documents are returned to the National Archive, until the names of those who withdrew them are known, and until the ministers who told them to take the documents and hide – or, worse, destroy – them are identified, we can only conclude that the current Conservative government has removed them in order to hide historical facts that are embarrassing to the Conservative Party or its members.

If the current government cannot – or will not – return the documents it has stolen, then it has betrayed the public trust and should resign.

And if you’re laughing at the thought, This Writer wouldn’t be at all surprised.

This is a story of corruption – and the corrupt will do anything to pretend they aren’t crooked.


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Merry Christmas to Vox Political readers everywhere!

The headline says it all.

This Writer has been struck down by the Dreaded Lurgi so I’ve been uncharacteristically quiet.

Don’t expect too much from me until I recover a little.

In the meantime, I hope you all have a peaceful and enjoyable Christmas in the company of the people you love.

Politics can wait a little while, I’m sure.


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Six Tory ministers are members of a secret group supporting Brexit for their own reasons

Suella Fernandez: She chairs a secret group of Brexit-supporting MPs [Image: Rex].

People who still argue fervently for the UK’s departure from the European Union still haven’t got to grips with this simple fact:

The leaders of the biggest ‘Leave’ campaigns didn’t want to free the UK from EU interference; they simply want all the power for themselves.

All their talk about freeing us from an undemocratic power bloc is nonsense.

They want to reduce our access to democracy still further, ensuring that they make all the decisions and the rest of us have no choice but to do as we are told – without recourse to the international checks and balances offered by the EU.

Hence the proposal by Michael Gove – a member of the group – to strip UK workers of the protections offered by the European Working Time Directive.

It should be no surprise that Suella Fernandez, who wrote a ridiculous propaganda piece on Brexit in The Independent which This Writer rubbished last week, chairs this secretive organisation.

They want to distract us with inconsequentialities like the colour of our passports.

Go on believing that this nonsense matters, if you want.

Alternatively, wake up and recognise your oppressors.

Six leading members of Theresa May’s cabinet are paid-up subscribers of the secretive European Research Group, the hard-line anti-EU caucus of Conservative MPs who have serially refused to publish their membership list.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, Penny Mordaunt, the newly-promoted defence secretary, David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, Sajid Javid, the communities and local government secretary, Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, and Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, have all used official expenses claims to pay for “ERG subscriptions” over the last 12 months.

Stewart Jackson, who lost his Peterborough seat in June’s general election, and is now chief of staff to David Davis at the Department for Exiting the European Union, also used his official expenses to pay for ERG services during the last years.

Five other subscriptions from former Tory cabinet ministers and whips, plus the current chair of the ERG, means this group alone have claimed more than £32,000 from the public purse.

Source: Six of Theresa May’s cabinet are paid up “members” of secret group demanding a total break from the European Union | openDemocracy


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Theresa May sent a clown to do her diplomacy – an international incident was inevitable


The United Kingdom’s influence in the world has been diminishing for decades – but Boris Johnson may just be the man to end it altogether.

The debacle in Moscow is just the latest incident in which he has humiliated both the government and the people.

But while Myanmar, Libya and Iran caused significant embarrassment, Russia is a world superpower and the repercussions of Mr Johnson’s foolishness may cause crippling harm to our nation’s status on the international stage.

He just doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut, or what to say when required to speak – and those are the main requirements of a diplomat.

So, before travelling to Russia, Mr Johnson deemed it a good idea to criticise that country publicly over the war in the Ukraine, its alleged cyber attacks on the West, Syria and the annexation of the Crimea.

He made a great show of declaring that the UK is “prepared and able” to launch retaliatory cyber attacks, if hackers continued to target Western power stations and communication networks, subvert elections and spread fake news. Let us hope he had all the evidence he needed to prove his claims if necessary!

The fact that he tried to embarrass Russia publicly is a sign of weakness, not of strength.

Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov was right to admonish Mr Johnson, saying the differences between our countries should be aired privately, rather than at press conferences.

Intelligent diplomacy would have involved exactly that. Ideally, the UK would be in a position to offer Russia a reason not to cause mischief – preferably an incentive, showing that it would be to Russia’s advantage. The next best thing would be to demonstrate that Russia would be put at a disadvantage if it continued.

The worst possible choice is to make a public display of claims that the UK personally would cause intentional harm to the Russian state, if provoked into doing so.

That implies that we aren’t all friends, when – for appearances’ sake, if nothing else – we should at least pretend to be one big, happy, international family.

It also offers third parties an opportunity to cause mischief of their own, by stirring up aggravation between the UK and Russia.

Boris Johnson should have known that.

After the incompetence of the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe catastrophe, senior Foreign Office officials – not to mention Theresa May, if she was fit to be prime minister – should have sat Mr Johnson down and explained that he has a duty to hold his mouth in check, and that there are penalties for failing to do so.

Up until now, those penalties may have been borne by UK citizens, rather than the state or representatives like Mr Johnson, but that may change, now that Mr Johnson has annoyed Russia.

I would say the UK will need to be prepared for an escalation of hostilities – at least on a covert level.

But Mr Johnson’s public outburst makes it seem abundantly clear that, when it comes to our defence, his government has nothing.

We had better hope that I am mistaken.

As for Mr Johnson himself: He has critically compromised the UK’s relationship with a major foreign power.

When he arrives back in the UK, Mrs May should give him the same treatment she offered Priti Patel – another Cabinet minister who thought she could do whatever she pleased without consequence.

But we all know Theresa May is far, far too weak for that. It’s why she needs to offer her resignation as well.


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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

Fact-checkers get involved in Ralf Little – Jeremy Hunt debate, and it goes badly for Hunt

Jeremy Hunt and Ralf Little [Composite: BBC].

https://twitter.com/RalfLittle/status/943896376349310977

No, Jeremy Hunt doesn’t:

The Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt still said on TV: “What has actually happened on my watch is the biggest expansion of mental health provision in Europe” when challenged on everything from lack of nurses to lack of beds by Andrew Marr.

Mr Hunt can’t have known whether that was true or not. Neither the Department of Health nor NHS England publish records of how much has been spent on mental health in the past. We still don’t actually know how much is being spent in total on mental health in the NHS right now.

If you take the number of staff who specialise in mental health, the number of nurses is down by 5,000, and the number of fully-trained doctors in psychiatry and psychotherapy is down by 105.

If you include junior doctors who are still training for their specialism the number has gone up slightly since 2010, having fallen in between. So maybe we are starting to see more doctors entering this field.

If you take the number of staff working in a set of mental health trusts, as Mr Hunt did, it’s up by over 4,000. But some of those aren’t new people. Some are people who were already there when the trust they worked for got reclassified as a mental health trust. If you break the figure down, there are fewer nurses and slightly fewer doctors.  A big increase in ‘scientific, therapeutic and technical staff’ is what makes the overall figure go up.

Mr Hunt’s claims on spending talked about spending planned in future years as if it had already happened, overstated the value of the spending that has happened by ignoring inflation, and used partial figures. There are no complete figures published.

“We’ve put a billion pounds extra of resources into mental health”. Not yet: the government’s mental health plan says that mental health services will benefit from additional investment of £1bn per year by 2020/21. If he had said “We’ve committed to putting a billion pounds extra into mental health”, that would have been correct.

Mr Hunt also said “Over half a billion pounds more” was being spent now compared to last year. That ends up being closer to a third of a billion once you take inflation into account.

We don’t know what’s happened to the total amount spent on mental health by the NHS. The figures we do have which Mr Hunt quoted relate only to spending done by the groups who commission hospital and other care in local areas. They don’t include spending done directly by NHS England which pays for GPs themselves and some specialist mental health services.

The last point is a matter of judgement. If a government increases spending on something, but still isn’t spending enough not everyone would accept that the government is expanding that thing.

There is no complete data on what has happened to mental health spending in recent years so we can’t say what the picture of spending on mental looks like under this government or as Mr Hunt put it, on his watch.

But we do know that the backdrop of the new plan is concern about lack of spending on mental health during that time. Even the government’s own Mental Health Taskforce talked of “chronic underinvestment in mental health care across the NHS in recent years”.

The government wants to treat a million more people a year by 2021. It says it’s on its way with 1,400 more people a day using mental health services than in 2010/11. NHS Digital, the body responsible for collecting the figures, told us in January that the figures can’t be compared to find an exact trend in this way, and that although they think more people are using mental health services, they’re not sure and they don’t know how many.

Mr Hunt pointed to some specific areas where he says things are clearly getting better, on talking therapies and A&E provision for mental health.

The data we have suggests there are thousands more talking therapists than there used to be, although in keeping with the mess of mental health statistics we’ve got used to, there’s no one or comprehensive figure for people providing talking therapies.

A&E crisis services are also being strengthened with more hospitals offering higher standard services. There’s still a way to go to meet the government’s goals for 2020/21 but Mr Hunt’s claim of “significant improvements” is backed up by the data.

That said, on A&E Mr Hunt is quoting unpublished statistics, so Mr Little had no chance of checking that himself, and nor did anyone else. Ministers should not be asking the public to take their word for it on something so important.

Mr Hunt is counting his chickens before they’ve hatched. “We’ve put a billion pounds extra of resources into the NHS” isn’t something that has happened yet, and nor have many of the improvements it’s meant to pay for. But it is something that the government has publicly committed to making happen. That plan is public, and it has support from mental health experts and charities.

The reality right now is hard to know but probably at best much more mixed.

The mental health data we have is poor and limited. Despite years of politicians of different parties emphasising the importance of mental health, it turns out that no one really knows what they are talking about. The government’s own plan talked about a ‘black hole’ of data, which is only beginning to be tackled.

Mr Hunt was asking the impossible of Mr Little when he invited him to prove him wrong. The invitation was in effect an empty one: our factchecking proves how inadequate mental health data is and how much easier it is to make claims than to painstakingly back them up.

Source: Mental Health in England: Jeremy Hunt vs Ralf Little – Full Fact


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

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left 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

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