Tag Archives: faking

Jared O’Mara: RIGHT-wing Labour’s candidate who went off the rails?

Jared O’Mara (centre): he was allegedly selected by right-wing Labour factionalists who didn’t check his credentials properly.

The former MP who replaced Nick Clegg as MP for Sheffield Hallam has been in the news again after being jailed for faking invoices to Parliament to fund a cocaine habit.

But did you know that Jared O’Mara may have only become a candidate because a right-wing Labour general secretary didn’t bother to check up on him before he was selected to run for the seat?

The details are going to be on Sunday’s Not The Andrew Marr Show, which you can register to watch here: https://buytickets.at/labourgrassroots/853159

The show’s presenter, Crispin Flintoff provided a preview of the situation on Facebook:

“Labour’s General Secretary in 2017, Iain McNicol, was responsible for the selection of Jared O’Mara. He decided that candidates shouldn’t be scrutinised in ‘unwinnable’ seats and Jared was selected because the Blairite-dominated panel thought O’Mara wasn’t a Jeremy Corbyn supporter.

“Such was their factionalism that when Jared declared himself a Jeremy Corbyn supporter, they withdrew funds for his campaign. But he still won.

“I’ve got the inside story of this on Sunday morning’s ‘Not the Andrew Marr Show’. It includes insights from Martin Mayer (formerly on the NEC), Tina Werkmann and Lee Rock (both of Sheffield Hallam Labour Party at the time) and Tosh McDonald (former Aslef official who showed Jared support).

“I hope that people can watch this and see that Streeting is ridiculously factional and economical with the truth (just as he is with the NHS).”

It seems this is another situation in which right-wing Labour sabotaged its own party – first by assuming Sheffield Hallam couldn’t be won and allow an inappropriate candidate to stand there, and then by disowning him and stressing his association with Jeremy Corbyn to bring the then-Labour leader into disrepute.

And these people are now in charge of Labour once again.

But I don’t have all the information – I have to wait until Sunday, just the same as you.

Let’s see how the facts stack up.

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:


Is this spoof benefit form the basis for Coalition unemployment policy?

Thatcha 2

Take a good hard look at the picture above and then try to tell yourself it isn’t the basis for RTU’s (see the earlier article on Iain Duncan Smith) entire benefits policy.

It is taken from the Spitting Image spin-off book Thatcha! The Real Maggie Memoirs, published in 1993 – just one year after Smith was returned to unit – sorry, Parliament – as MP for Chingford.

He first came to prominence as Shadow Social Security Secretary under William Hague in 1997. It cannot be beyond credibility that he had bought the Spitting Image book and had been taking notes… can it?

Look at the image. The form is described as “Form SCRO/UNG(e)/R” – and now benefit claimants are derided by the Conservative-led Coalition government as “scroungers”.

Note 2, referring to a claimant’s address, states: “Ha! Now we know where you live, we can keep an eye on you. You might have to keep up that fake limp for a long time.” This is typical of the current attitude, that disabled people are faking it in order to get a state handout.

Note 5, for those with relatives, delivers a classic Tory line, “Well why can’t they look after you? Must you always come running to us? Claim disallowed.”

Note 7 is for those who are registered disabled: “Claim disallowed – and don’t bother coming in to complain, we’ve got steps up to the office heh heh.” Is this a million miles away from current DWP policy, to make it as hard as possible for the sick and disabled to claim?

The form disallows claims made by people with partners, with savings, without savings; it asks claimants if they are lying and, if the ‘no’ box is ticked, bluntly responds, “Oh yes you are. Claim disallowed.”

The question “You don’t know the meaning of the words ‘hard work’ do you?” is an exact reflection of the attitude put around by the right-wing press, encouraged by ministers in the Coalition government, as is the fact that there is no ‘yes’ box to tick.

An affirmative response to “Would you be prepared to take any work offered to you, no matter how poorly paid, degrading & menial?” elicits the response: “God, you’ve really got no self-respect left, have you, you scrounging little bastard. I pity you.” Isn’t this exactly the sort of emotional state that Coalition benefit policy is intended to create?

Note 19, for those who ticked a box saying that they wished to claim the money – and claim free NHS spectacles (this last included in tiny print) – states: “Aha! Got you! You obviously don’t need them if you can read that tiny print. Claim disallowed” in a move reminiscent of the ‘voodoo polling’ that appeared on the Conservative Party’s website earlier this year, asking people if they thought benefit increases should be greater than wage rises for working people. When people ticked the box saying they disagreed with this, the Tories were able to claim this meant support for their policy for a below-inflation rise in benefits, when in fact it was based on a false premise, as benefit rises were never greater than wage rises in real terms.

“We promise to process this claim within 28 days. Though exactly which 28 days is up to us,” the form states. This will ring true, particularly for anyone who has received notice that they have a limited period in which to appeal against a decision – and that period ran out the day before they received the letter.

Most damningly true of all is the warning: “Remember, to give false information is a very serious offence – unless of course you are Minister of Employment, in which case it’s essential.” This is certainly a sentence that Iain Duncan Smith seems to have taken to heart.

By now, you may be thinking that this is all taking a silly joke form from a book of satirical humour – published 20 years ago! – just a little too seriously.

But, when you consider the sheer number of similarities between what was wild humour in the 1990s and what is bitter reality now, there can be no conclusion other than that the joke is on us.