Tag Archives: exclude

Starmer broke Parliamentary Labour Party rules to remove the whip from Corbyn. Quelle surprise

Keir Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn: one of these men has torn up the Labour Party rule book and made a mockery of the organisation. If you think it was Corbyn, you have been badly misled by the mainstream media.

It’s sad that Keir Starmer is forcing this controversy into the spotlight all the time, isn’t it?

I could have been writing about Boris Johnson’s latest attempt to steal a Labour policy with his “green industrial revolution”.

I could have been discussing the way David Cameron’s deregulation apparently allowed the company responsible for the cladding on Grenfell Tower to lie about whether it was flameproof in order to sell its product – proving that Tory self-regulation is harmful.

Instead I have to point you to Skwawkbox‘s research because it shows that Starmer was wrong to do what he has done.

I have to do this because otherwise, Starmer’s narrative might gain traction it does not deserve; we don’t give credibility to liars.

So here’s Skwawkbox:

The code of conduct applicable to all Labour MPs lays out the rules that must be observed and the conditions that must be met before the whip is withdrawn from one of them.

It appears that Keir Starmer broke every one of them when he withdrew the whip from Jeremy Corbyn.

The article lists the rules on withdrawal of the whip and states whether they were followed by Starmer:

  • decided at a meeting of the PLP – nope, Starmer took the decision ‘on the fly’ and apparently in panic
  • motion of withdrawal – nope, just a high-handed decision made behind closed doors
  • prior notice of the motion – nope, there was no motion
  • motion to include the term of the proposed withdrawal – nope, there was no motion
  • motion to include the length of time – nope, there was no motion and Starmer has simply said he will keep it ‘under review’
  • communicated to the CLP of the MP – nope, the media appears to have had it first again
  • three days’ notice – nope, decision on the fly
  • right to be heard before the decision – nope, not even remotely
  • put to a vote – nope, there was no motion to vote on

Starmer is trying to claim that Jeremy Corbyn is the rule-breaker, the bad influence, the bad element who must be removed from the Labour Party.

At least Corbyn followed the rules.

To be honest, as Starmer’s decision is not in accordance with Labour’s rule book, Corbyn should ignore the party leader and sit with his colleagues.

And party members across the country need to get their motions in support of Corbyn – and in condemnation of Starmer – passed by their local CLPs at their earliest opportunity.

There is only one way to stop the rot and end the corruption at the heart of the Labour Party – and that is to remove Keir Starmer.

Source: Starmer’s suspension of Corbyn broke parliamentary party rules. All of them – SKWAWKBOX

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/mike-sivier-libel-fight/


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

UK’s legal shame: Did court break law by trying to keep disabled people out of hearing?

According to the Equality Act 2010, a person discriminates against a person with a disability if they treat such a person unfavourably because of something arising as a consequence of that person’s disability.

So the Court of Appeal breached the Act by trying to keep disabled people out of a hearing over whether Oxfordshire County Council broke the law relating to another disabled person. Right?

What a fiasco.

There were chaotic scenes on Thursday 17 August as Oxfordshire County Council, the borough in which David Cameron’s former constituency sits, appeared in a central London court. It was there to defend itself in a case which is a legal first. And the case the Tory-run authority had to answer? That its austerity-driven cuts to vital services may have broken the law.

The Court of Appeal was hearing the case of Luke Davey. In November, a judge granted the 40-year-old from Oxfordshire a judicial review against the council, following a 42% cut to the amount he received to pay for his care and support. This is because Davey has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, is registered blind, and requires assistance with all of his intimate personal care needs.

But Davey’s case is a legal first, because his lawyers are using the Care Act 2014 to argue that the council has broken the law. Specifically, that Oxfordshire County Council has breached its obligations under the “wellbeing” principle of the act.

Disabled people’s organisation Inclusion London and campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) are supporting Davey’s case. The groups had organised representatives to support Davey before and during the hearing. And in another legal first, Inclusion London was granted an intervention in the case by the judge: the first time an organisation led by disabled people has been given this privilege.

But there were angry scenes when disabled campaigners, their solicitors and the media tried to enter the court building. Security at first told them they could not go in, as there were “not enough staff on duty” to cope, and they were not willing to open the disabled entrance.

After the intervention of a reporter and several wheelchair users, the court’s security opened up the supposedly ‘accessible’ entrance to the court. But the entrance was barely accessible, and one disabled campaigner was nearly knocked to the ground by a passing cyclist.

Source: Chaos in court as David Cameron’s former Tory council is accused of breaking the law [VIDEO] | The Canary


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!

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

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

London’s New Year fireworks display is ticketed – to keep out the riff-raff

Most of the people watching the fireworks in this picture won't have tickets for this year's event and will be excluded from the best vantage points "to prevent overcrowding". But is the real reason to keep them away from the rich?

Most of the people watching the fireworks in this picture won’t have tickets for this year’s event and will be excluded from the best vantage points “to prevent overcrowding”. But is the real reason to keep them away from the rich?

Londoners: You elected a Tory Mayor – what did you think would happen?

It seems he has ordered that this year’s New Year fireworks will be a ticket-only event and you will be excluded from public streets – streets your tax money maintains – so that the rich don’t have to be jostled by you.

The display this year is the first-ever such event for which tickets have been sold, and it seems clear that you can thank Boris Johnson for that.

He’s the man who wants to keep you out of the best vantage points along the Thames; those are reserved for the rich.

“It is hoped the move will prevent overcrowding on the night, an issue that has plagued the event in recent years,” the Daily Mirror has reported in surprisingly mild fashion. This clearly means Mr Johnson hopes ticket prices will keep the hoi-polloi away.

Superintendent Robyn Williams told the paper: “Our advice is not to travel into London if you don’t have a ticket. If people are still considering coming to see the fireworks it will be extremely difficult to get around.

“Areas will be cordoned off for those with tickets and Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square will not this year be featuring large viewing screens.”

It’s a form of apartheid; the less affluent are being shunted out of their own city.

This writer’s only question is: Will Londoners meekly accept this treatment?

Or will we see fireworks in more ways than one?

Why does Gove want to sell school places to foreigners when there aren’t enough for British children?

The stupid boy sitting at the back: Michael Gove has just one aim for the education system - to make it profitable. If he succeeds, YOUR children will pay the price.

The stupid boy sitting at the back: Michael Gove has just one aim for the education system – to make it profitable. If he succeeds, YOUR children will pay the price.

The revelation that Michael Gove has a plan to sell places in academy schools to students who currently live overseas came less than a week after the BBC reported that a shortage of school places was likely to harm the quality of education here.

England needs to find 250,000 primary places – within two months – and this means that schools that perform poorly may expand to accommodate the need, even though the education they provide is substandard.

It is into this environment that Michael Gove apparently wants to introduce a paying market.

Academies are not allowed to make profits at the moment, but it seems likely that a Conservative government would change this requirement in order to allow paying pupils in – effectively accelerating towards the privatisation of the education system.

In an environment with too few school places for the British, parents need to realise that their children will be passed over in favour of paying foreign students. In essence, this is a plan to exclude poor people from education.

The evidence suggests that this has been the plan all along. A Guardian article yesterday noted that “Other milestones are already in place: performance-related pay for teachers is on its way. Around half the country’s secondaries are now academies, reluctant primaries are being forced down the same route and the 2011 Education Act decreed that if a new school is needed, it can only be a free school or an academy.

“Once schools are out of the maintained sector, only governed by a commercial contract with the secretary of state (the basis on which “independent” state schools are set up), it is only a short step to a new procurement process, which allows multinational for-profit chains to enter this market.

“And the point about schools run for profit is that they do what they say on the tin – seek to make a profit. So the first stop may be wealthy foreign pupils seeking access to selective, oversubscribed academies, but where would that stop? Co-payments? Fees for domestic families?”

The article continues: “Profit-making schools have a very mixed record in nearly every country where they have already been tried, notably Sweden, the US and Chile. Quality is often poor.

“If they fail they are swiftly closed down or reopened under new management – hardly a culture conducive to fostering sustained improvement.”

From here on, the article suggests, we should rename the British education system the “domestic market for education businesses”.

And your child’s education can go to hell. After all, the Tories educate their children privately, don’t they?

It is not only notable but sinister that Downing Street has declined to comment on the leaked letter that revealed the proposal.

Silence is not denial. In fact, with the current government, it might as well be an admission of guilt.

David Cameron has started to privatise the National Health Service; he has started to privatise the police. Now it seems he is ready to privatise education as well.

How long do the so-called ‘Working-Class Tories’ have to be exposed to this before they realise that their government is screwing them over?