The answer’s simple, but will our pensioners work it out?
With both Labour and the Tories refusing to guarantee the continuation of the triple-lock, there is no reason for the worst-paid pensioners in Europe – ours, here in the UK – to give either party their vote.
Jeremy Hunt refuses to guarantee the pensions triple lock will be in next Tory manifesto.
The same as Labour.
UK present/future retirees condemned to one of the lowest state pensions in Europe.
Find another party to support! Your life depends on it.
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:
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.
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!
Smells like Tory in spirit: Keir Starmer’s decision not to put an end to zero-hours contracts puts him in line with the Conservatives on employment policy.
This is just to serve as a reminder that Labour under Keir Starmer cannot be trusted at all.
Here’s a summary of the new policy:
🚨 BREAKING: Labour has effectively DUMPED its pledge to ban zero-hours contracts.
Instead of an outright ban, Labour now says that zero-hours contracts will be ALLOWED "if workers welcome flexibility themselves".
It came just four days after the party’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, told the TUC conference that the party would impose a blanket ban on all zero-hours contracts:
Today it was revealed that Labour have dropped their pledge to ban Zero Hours Contracts.
Just 4 days ago, Labour Deputy leader Angela Rayner told the TUC conference that Labour would ban Zero Hours Contracts.
It’s all very well to say zero-hours contracts will only be permissible if workers are happy to take them – but that just encourages employers to coerce workers into those contracts, saying they won’t get the job if they don’t say they’re happy to take it on those terms.
Keir Starmer knows this as well as I do. He knows that by imposing this new policy, the so-called “Labour” Party is betraying the workers it claims to represent.
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:
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.
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!
Diane Abbott: she has suffered more racist abuse than anybody you can name.
“As a Black woman, and someone on the left of the Labour Party… I will not get a fair hearing from this Labour leadership.”
That is the verdict from Diane Abbott on an apparent non-investigation into racism that she – the MP who has received more race-hate messages than every other MP combined – is alleged by party leader Keir Starmer to have committed.
The allegations arise from a letter she wrote, that was published in The Observer in April. I wrote at the time:
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.
It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships. Diane Abbott
House of Commons, London SW1
Anybody can see what she was trying to do: she was pointing out that people of colour suffer racism far more often in their daily lives than those who might be defined as “white/European”, because the difference is visually obvious.
(It is also misleading. I have a friend who is white and Welsh, but whose face might seem to have a Middle-Eastern look about it to those who live by stereotypes. He tans very easily, and tells me that, when he has been on holiday abroad (lucky fellow!) he is habitually picked out for a “random” bomb check on the way back into the UK, by security officials who think he looks like an Islamic terrorist.)
Nobody who knows her history could deny that she has a very strong point; if I recall correctly, Ms Abbott receives more racist hate mail than all other MPs put together.
She tried to make a distinction by saying people of colour suffer racism while Irish people, Jews and Travellers (the GRT community), suffer prejudice instead – and that’s where she went wrong.
It’s all racism. Jewish people (for example) were originally Semitic (hence the word for hate against them: anti-Semitism), and the fact that their culture, like Christianity, has been successful in absorbing people from other races does not stop hatred being directed at them because they are different.
I was going to suggest that she could have used the word “xenophobia” to describe the hatred of people of colour in this context – the so-called “dislike of the unlike”. But that does not only refer to race/skin colour but also to culture, so it might be a better umbrella title for the prejudice faced by all the groups she mentions.
The problem here is simply finding the right word for the distinction she intended, which is that the other groups can avoid abuse on occasions because their skin colour means they can blend in with what, for want of a better word, I’ll describe as the majority.
But it was enough for the usual suspects to spring to the attack – presumably secure in the knowledge that nobody is about to ask them to compare the amount of abuse those of them who present as white/European receive against Ms Abbott’s.
(Indeed, judging from the abuse that Ms Abbott has received over this letter, it seems some of them may even have perpetrated some of it.)
At the end of the day, it was a valid point made in a very clumsy way.
Ms Abbott has apologised for it, claiming that the letter published in The Observer was a draft that should not have gone out. That’s still her mistake, though – and one she should not have made. Here’s what she said:
I am writing regarding my letter that was recently published in the Observer.
I wish to wholly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks and disassociate myself from them.
The errors arose in an initial draft being sent. But there is no excuse, and I wish to apologise for any anguish caused.
Racism takes many forms, and it is completely undeniable that Jewish people have suffered its monstrous effects, as have Irish people, Travellers and many others.
So she accepts that she was at fault and has apologised.
If she was a member of Keir Starmer’s gang, that would be the end of it. But she isn’t, so she has lost the whip and there will undoubtedly be attempts to push her out of the party (or at least out of ever again being able to stand for election to the Hackney Parliamentary seat).
Never mind his gang; Keir Starmer’s response was unequivocal. According to the BBC:
Asked about Ms Abbott’s comments the following day, Sir Keir condemned them and said they were antisemitic.
The BBC also stated:
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “The Labour Party rightly expects the highest standards of behaviour from its elected representatives, and has introduced an independent complaints process to investigate cases.
“We do not give a running commentary on ongoing investigations.”
Fortunately for the British sense of fair play, Ms Abbott has provided a commentary on it – she has condemned it as “fraudulent”.
In a statement published on ‘X’, she said:
“I was told by the Chief Whip to ‘actively engage’ with an investigation.But the Labour Whips are no longer involved – it is now run entirely out of the Labour Party HQ, which reports to Keir Starmer – and there is no investigation.
“This is the same Keir Starmer who almost immediately pronounced my guilt publicly. This completely undermines any idea that there is fairness or any natural justice. It is procedurally improper.”
It certainly is. Remember the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and its report on Labour anti-Semitism that stated that the party leader’s office must not take part in or influence any investigations. At the time, Starmer undertook to adopt this demand fully. It seems he has chosen to forget this agreement.
Of course, no Labour complaints process can be said to be independent if it is being run from the party leader’s office, so the statement by the party spokesperson must also be considered – at the very least – questionable.
Notice also that Ms Abbott says Labour has not charged her with anti-Semitism, despite this being the basis of Starmer’s accusation against her. What is the charge, then?
Ms Abbott’s statement goes on to identify inconsistencies in the way Starmer’s party handles proven cases in which party members have been found guilty of wrongdoing. So:
“Others have committed far more grave offences, and belated or grudging apologies have been wrung from them, Yet they have been immediately excused as [they are] supporters of this leadership.”
Among those who have apparently been excused are those right-wing party members who were identified in the Forde Report which Starmer commissioned and then disowned when he realised it did not say what he wanted. Ms Abbott wrote:
“A large proportion of the racism that the Forde Report uncovered [within the Labour Party] was personally directed against me… I have never received an apology from the Leader, the General Secretary or any of the perpetrators [of] that racism. I am not even aware of any of the culprits facing disciplinary measures, as I am obliged to do.”
The implication is clear: not only is Labour still a hotbed of the most vile racism imaginable, but those responsible are actively protected by the party’s leaders – meaning Keir Starmer himself. This alleged racism goes right to the very top – and unlike that which was claimed against Jeremy Corbyn, there seems to be an evidential basis for it.
Where is the investigation into Keir Starmer’s apparent racism?
Perhaps even more shocking is Ms Abbott’s description of the way questions about child safeguarding, posed after a former Labour councillor who had been election agent for Hackney South MP Meg Hillier and shared a house with Hackney’s Mayor, Philip Glanville (who continued to associate with him, even after being informed of his arrest), were used to suppress members in the relevant Constituency Labour Party.
Is Starmer’s party now protecting paedophiles or excusing paedophilia? Where is the investigation into this?
The evidence Ms Abbott provides paints a picture of a political party that, under its current leader, has been corrupted to its core, with outrageous privileges apparently granted to racists and paedophiles because they are on Starmer’s side of the party. Or am I mistaken?
Ms Abbott concludes – rather mildly in This Writer’s opinion: “Taken together, the procedural impropriety, Starmer’s pronouncement of my guilt, the four-month delay in the investigation, the repeated refusal to reach any accommodation, all point in the direction that the verdict has already been reached.”
It reminds me very much of the situation when I was put through Labour’s disciplinary procedure. The public allegation was anti-Semitism then, as well – it took a subsequent court case to reveal the fact that the real reason for the action was that my accurate articles about the anti-Semitism claims against party members were upsetting those who wanted to use the false claims against then-leader Jeremy Corbyn.
My case was subject to more than a year’s delay and, while the court ultimately found no rules had been broken, the regulations informing those rules had not been properly observed.
My disciplinary hearing, before a kangaroo court of the party’s National Constitutional Committee, was a farce. The evidence was not examined properly because the party did not produce anybody who was familiar with it. Despite the fact that this meant the party could not contest my case, the finding still went against me. I tend to the opinion that the verdict had already been reached before that investigation happened, as well.
And what about the way false claims about me were leaked to The Sunday Times, which was subsequently forced to retract its libellous claim that I was a Holocaust denier, that was based on lies in the Labour Party’s information about me?
It seems clear that, despite promises to follow the EHRC’s recommendations, Labour has changed nothing since the bad old days of the biased right-wing disciplinary machine under former General Secretary Iain McNichol.
In This Writer’s opinion – based on personal experience – Ms Abbott is right to conclude that she’ll get no justice there.
Worse still is the astonishing, blinkered attitude of other – elected – representatives of the Labour Party. Here’s one “Cllr Matt Dent”, who I had to put straight shortly before writing this article:
Perhaps you didn't read her letter in the Observer. She said people who are not obviously non-white European "are not all their lives subject to racism". She did NOT say they don't experience it at all, and certainly did not rule out prejudice. I'm happy to set you straight.
Now Ms Abbott expects to be deselected after the elected leadership of her Constituency Labour Party was undemocratically removed by Keir Starmer and his cronies.
What should she do?
I tend to agree with the sentiment of Jackie Walker – herself mistreated brutally at the hands of the Labour disciplinarians:
“Diane Abbott, it’s time to leave Labour and stand as an independent. Rally the black, left, radical voters and campaigners.”
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:
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.
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!
16-year-olds have been voting in polls in Scotland and Wales for a few years now, with no apparent societal degeneration.
This Writer tends to believe the Tories are worried that younger people, given the vote, will use it to keep Labour in power. But that’s based on an out-of-date understanding of Labour’s position on the political map.
When Labour was left-wing, and had policies that would have given people starting out in life a better chance for success, then 16- and 17-year-olds might have voted for that party. They would certainly have come out very strongly in support of Jeremy Corbyn’s version of that party.
But Keir Starmer has systematically ditched all of Mr Corbyn’s left-wing policies, turning a once-democratic Socialist party into a mirror-image of the Conservatives.
Teenagers – at least, those with any political nous at all – are therefore far more likely to cast around for other political organisations to support.
If the Tories have anything genuine to fear, it is that impressionable teens – those who don’t have any political savvy – will be fooled by a slogan into voting unexpectedly.
But wouldn’t that be poetic justice for the Tories, who have spent decades trying to train us to support three-word slogans rather than thinking for ourselves?
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:
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.
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!
Yes, I’ve made a video out of the article from last week. There are good reasons for this.
Firstly, it contains excellent advice on how to vote properly. It seems people are confused about the fact that they are expected to vote for whoever has policies they think will be of benefit to the UK as a whole – not for the party they consider to be tribally theirs, even though that organisation hasn’t actually helped them in decades, and not for the party they think is best-placed to keep out another party they don’t like.
Secondly, it contains excellent reasoning on why not to vote for Keir Starmer.
Thirdly, it provides an opportunity for you all to visit the original article, which has not received anything like enough attention. It’s at https://wp.me/p4Sru1-hyZ
Watch and enjoy:
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:
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.
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!
The basis in which the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment of Jewish people has been undermined after a court challenge was settled.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, when it finally appeared in late October 2020, stated that it could find only two instances in which Labour members had broken the law – involving Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley.
Mr Livingstone and Ms Bromley launched a judicial review of this finding in January 2021 – and that has now been settled out of court in a humiliating climbdown, not only for the EHRC but for the Labour Party and so-called charity the Campaign Against Antisemitism.
You see, it was the EHRC that made the offer for a settlement.
Here’s the Morning Star:
The two politicians accepted a deal offered by the EHRC, in which each side withdraws from the case and bears its own costs.
Mr Livingstone and Ms Bromley said in response to the settlement offer: “We believe that, deep down, the EHRC understands that its investigation was flawed and that it acted unlawfully.
“That’s probably why they were willing to settle the case without recovering a penny of their exorbitant costs.”
[They said:] “We were worried that the purpose and effect of the EHRC report would be to shut down criticism of Israel by giving credence to false accusations of anti-semitism.
“Rather than fighting this case for potentially another year or more, we believe we need to refocus our resources on tackling the Israel lobby’s current efforts to stifle pro-Palestine speech in schools, universities and other sectors.”
It is understood the EHRC legal costs were over £215,000, while the Labour Party and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) also spent tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees.
Mr Livingstone’s and Ms Bromley’s costs amounted to £35,000 and were funded from a fighting fund established at the end of 2019 by former Labour MP Chris Williamson from the costs he won from the Labour Party.
The EHRC has said that it stands by its report.
But it is a claim that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If the EHRC was so sure its investigation and the report that followed it was correct, then why make an offer to settle the matter before any of the evidence has been heard?
Why deny the Labour Party – and the Campaign Against Antisemitism, that got involved for reasons that escape This Writer – the opportunity even to have their say?
If you’re sure of your facts, then wouldn’t the only reason you’d withdraw from a court case be if you could extract a statement from the other side that they were wrong?
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:
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.
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!
Keir Starmer: he’s not left-wing but he’s definitely sinister.
Take a look at this prediction on the date and outcome of the next general election:
Suspect Sunak will call the General Election for autumn 2024, by which time he’ll have suffered devastating defeats in the May local elections. My guess is that Labour will win an outright majority and that it will be more comfortable than many believe. What do you think?
Personally, I think autumn might be leaving it late and we might get a spring GE, at the same time as the locals. This would save Rishi Sunak from a “lame duck” summer that could harm Tory chances at the Westminster elections even more than his premiership already has.
The prediction that Labour will go on to form a government, if accurate, heralds disaster for the UK and everyone in it, though. We would just be swapping one gang of hard-right headbangers, hell-bent on robbing the poor to fatten the rich, for another.
Voters who want to support Keir Starmer seem to be doing it on the basis of a daydream, as laid out by ‘Barney’, below:
That would require breaking manifesto commitments (a step up from breaking leadership pledges), and defying the media. Plus voters would have mandated him not to. So the chance of him moving back to the left would be between zero and zilch.
John Holman’s response tells us exactly why any hope that Labour will move back to the left in government is forlorn: Starmer will simply say that he must honour his (right-wing) manifesto promises because that’s what voters have endorsed.
He won’t mention the fact that nobody in the Labour leadership will have given any of us, including rank-and-file part members, a chance to choose which policies should be in the manifesto in the first place.
Nor will he admit that all of Labour’s policies for the next government will have been chosen on the basis that they will win support – and donations – for Starmer and his cronies from the very rich and powerful elites of the UK, or will line their pockets in other ways. That would show that he has made his party just like the Tories.
He will keep quiet about those facts – which This Writer is sure will become self-evident to those of us with enquiring minds – because it suits him to permit the majority of voters to carry on as ‘BanAllHunting’, below, suggests:
I hear it a lot, although not so much recently. I think people hate the Tories so much they have persuaded themselves Starmer is some kind of saviour. I honestly fear for my country if either of the main parties get in next year with a working majority
That’s about the size of it. Without any evidence at all, people have persuaded themselves that, because he leads an organisation that still calls itself “Labour” and operates under a red banner, Starmer is their left-wing Messiah.
The actual evidence suggests otherwise. Look at the way he responds to Susanna Reid’s probing about the two-child benefit cap, here:
"The 2child benefit cap. You have said you will stick to that. It has earned you a very unpleasant name, #SirKidStarver. If we overturned the.. cap we could lift 250,000 children out of poverty. Why won't you change your mind on that one?"
Confronted with what she describes as “a very unpleasant nickname” – Sir Kid Starver – he doesn’t acknowledge or respond to it – and certainly doesn’t deny it.
All he says is that his party will have an “anti-poverty strategy”, just like Tony Blair’s New Labour government did.
But it will be without any funding, apparently.
So you can see that, under even the slightest scrutiny, any claim that Starmer will create any real and lasting improvement simply falls apart.
The absolute tragedy of all this is that, deprived of this fantasy, Labour tribalists will fall back on the old falsehood that anybody who doesn’t support Labour is a “Tory enabler”. That might be effective if Starmer’s Labour had any policies to distinguish it from the Tories, but it doesn’t.
In real terms, you’re a Tory enabler if you vote either Labour or Conservative.
The only way to break this deadlock is to find someone else to support, and there is a really easy way to do this.
You simply look up the other political parties operating in your constituency, plus an independents who may be around, and find out what their policies are.
Then you choose a candidate or party to support. This will be whoever has the most policies that correspond with what you want.
And then you vote for them.
Unless you are a hard-right headbanger, hell-bent on robbing the poor to fatten the rich, that is the only sane course of action in the UK, at this time.
Why on Earth would you vote in a party with policies you don’t want, that will do things that won’t help? That’s self-harm. Anybody doing it would legitimately need treatment for mental illness.
Keir Starmer: he likes to give speeches in industrial settings, claiming to be on the side of workers. But is he actually betraying them by giving employers a way of keep wages low?
The Tories have found a new angle from which to attack Keir Starmer today, claiming he will allow around 100,000 migrants into the UK in return for restoration of a “returns” scheme that would send back those arriving in the UK by non-approved routes.
Here’s Greg Hands:
Labour’s shocking open door policy on immigration.
Labour won’t take the long term decisions to stop the boats and tackle illegal immigration.
Instead deciding to open the doors to 100,000 extra illegal migrants, second-hand from the EU, every year. pic.twitter.com/ffCKRkOwBv
Not content with voting against every one of our measures to stop the boats, Keir Starmer is now opening the door to taking over 100,000 illegal migrants from the safety of the EU.
His ‘plan’ is a recipe for even more illegal migration.
Presumably they’re all at it but I’ve only seen these.
The claim that Starmer is somehow betraying the UK by seeking to negotiate a solution to the channel boat question is undoubtedly good for the Tories. But it is completely daft.
The UK used to have a “returns” policy along the lines suggested by the stories in the Torygraph and Hate Mail but the Tories under Boris Johnson ditched it as part of their childish Brexit. It had worked very well in keeping down the number of people seeking asylum in the UK from abroad.
Not only that, but it has to be remembered that there would not be as many people coming here if the UK had not engaged in numerous adventures in foreign countries that displaced these people in the first place. Whether because of that or domestic issues, they come because they no longer feel safe in their home countries. The solution to that is negotiation with the governments of those countries to restore them to stability.
And it would put a stop to the “criminal gangs” who exploit the people trying to cross the channel into the UK, more effectively than anything the Tories are doing.
So Starmer’s ideas are not beyond reason, as these Tories are painting them.
They are unacceptable to UK employees, though – and here’s the reason.
The country’s labour market is currently stretched to its limit; there simply aren’t enough jobseekers to fill the vacancies available to them. This is partly due to Brexit and the departure of many foreign-born workers back to the European Union.
In such a situation, employees have a stronger hand when negotiating pay deals. If evidence that average pay has increased by 8.5 per cent in the year to summer 2023 is accurate, then someone has been taking advantage of this.
Employers don’t like it. It cuts into their profits (which have been enormous in some cases but they still want it all for themselves).
The Tories have suggested that they would push sick and disabled people to seek jobs, by making the Work Capability Assessment they must take to receive benefits more difficult. The aim is to force a million people onto the jobs market, even though they are actually too infirm to work.
Starmer’s suggested deal with the EU would bring in at least 100,000 people – initially. And they all have to make a living for themselves.
It seems to This Writer that Starmer wants to undercut UK workers’ wage demands by ensuring employers have access to cheap labour from abroad. This is how he is betraying the UK today.
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:
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.
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!
This is fine: Rishi Sunak is destroying the UK and Keir Starmer won’t change anything. People like him often say ‘there is no alternative’ to their policies that have proved disastrous. Now, there really is no alternative other than to FIND an alternative – to them.
If you watch the weekly debacle that is Prime Minister’s Questions in despair every week, then you may enjoy and agree with the rant I just posted on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) after listening to Rishi Sunak deflecting and fudging answers to every question:
If you take politics seriously, and understand the direct effect Westminster decisions have on your life, then you need to look for candidates other than #Labour or #Conservative drones.
If you want action on those issues and others, you won't get it from the 'status quo' parties – #Labour and the #Conservatives. You HAVE to look elsewhere. Otherwise we'll be watching re-runs of the same circus we're seeing, for decades to come, while the nation crumbles 4/4
I think calling Labour and the Tories ‘status quo’ parties is a highly appropriate label.
The Tories are happy to turn the entire UK into an open cesspit while funnelling all our money into offshore tax havens and the foreign governments that own our privatised utilities – and Labour refuses to change that system.
If you want to live in a land free of disease, with cheap food, housing, energy, and water, then you have no choice but to avoid the ‘status quo’ parties as though they were plague carriers – because they might as well be.
Many people reading this may recoil at the thought of actually going out and discovering who is offering policies that might actually be worth your vote; it’s too much like hard work for lots of people and they would rather leave it to someone else.
There isn’t anybody else, folks; it’s your responsibility.
There is still plenty of time. And you can start with a simple web search on your computer or mobile phone. What are you waiting for?
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:
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.
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!
Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer: like-minded hypocrites – or liars?
Watch this short message from a former Labour supporter (if you can stand the extremely spicy language), explaining why he doesn’t support Labour any more – and why claims that people like him are enabling the Tories to win again are offensive.
The guilt tripping needs to stop don’t call us Tony Enablers because we stand by our principles and don’t sell our souls to the highest bidder. pic.twitter.com/m8L1Gb2lJ6
He’s right, of course. Nobody is enabling the Tories to win by voting for policies they would prefer to see enacted, rather than Tory or Labour policies.
If Keir Starmer’s Labour wasn’t so desperate to ape Tory politics rather than finding a new way forward, that party would be enjoying significantly higher support; if Blairites had not sabotaged the Corbyn project, we would have had a Labour government for the last six years; it is Starmer’s politics that is the problem, not the voting habits of the electorate.
Case in point:
This is real Labour. Tax the rich. The politics of envy. And rich doesn’t mean millionaire. It means head teachers, police inspectors, and huge numbers of business owners. If it worked it might have some merit but of course it doesn’t. https://t.co/WSrfZYCFV8
Firstly, the clip shows Reeves has abandoned the policy she had formerly endorsed in favour of a different way. Was the original stance a lie?
The new plan – to improve the fortunes of the population by improving the economy – would rely on employers passing the profits of improved business on in the form of higher wages.
Labour was going to increase taxes on the wealthy – and now it isn’t, having turned in favour of “piss-take” trickle-down economics. Hypocrisy? Or was the original stance a lie?
Moving on, let’s consider Labour’s current stance on Brexit – which is to support it.
This is backtracking on a previous party policy – championed by Keir Starmer during the 2019 general election campaign – to go back to the electorate and check whether a majority of the population still wants to go through with Brexit, after encountering the problems it had triggered already.
Stephen Fry has something to say about that:
"The Labour Party is afraid to mention Brexit – it was a catastrophe and everybody knows it deep in their bones"
Finally, we have Starmer’s own response to a simple question: Westminster or Davos?
I rarely use language like this to describe a politician, but Keir Starmer is a traitor. Not only to the labour movement, but to the U.K. Anyone who prefers the WEF & Davos to Westminster is telling you their concerns are with corporations, not with the people of this country! https://t.co/LUM5ZpkM30
In fact, Starmer made his meaning clear – that he would prefer to be around real people, who know what they stand for, than mouthpieces who change position constantly.
But that just reveals the biggest fault in his behaviour: he constantly changes his own position in an effort to create advantages for himself.
So is it not hypocritical of him to say he prefers the company of people who are not like himself?
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:
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.
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
