The Bank of England: it raised interest rates, supposedly to combat inflation – and now the banks have made a fortune in profits and inflation hasn’t fallen significantly.
After the energy firms, the banks.
Interesting how it goes, isn’t it?
The energy firms put up their prices for no very good reason (remember: the actual cost of gas and electricity is much, much lower than the amount you’re paying for it. The corporations say they keep the price up to smooth out any sudden shocks as the price comes down but they never refund the extra amount that you pay after the final costs are known).
This causes inflation.
The Bank of England then acts to reduce inflation – by increasing interest rates.
This creates a huge profit for the banks.
This profit is also never refunded.
Inflation has remained high.
Cue outrage:
Another day of massive profits for the banks.
HSBC profits DOUBLED as interest rates soared.
Banks – just like the energy firms – are lining their pockets at your expense.
Let's hit them with a Windfall Tax and use the money to bail out the people – as we once did the banks!
SSE, Shell – they’re energy companies; Barclays is a bank…
That’ll be a “no”, then.
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!
Cleaning up London’s air: the ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emissions Zone) will affect fewer than one in 10 cars but may deliver a remarkable improvement in air quality.
The High Court has delivered a timely message of support for measures to defeat global warming – by supporting London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s bid to extend the ULEZ (Ultra-Low Emissions Zone) to all of the capital’s boroughs.
Five Conservative-led borough councils had launched a legal battle to stop the extension but in what’s being described as a “landmark” ruling, Lord Justice Swift said he was “satisified” that the proposals were in the London Mayor’s “powers”.
The measure currently covers only areas within the North and South Circular Roads, but the ruling opens it up for extension to all of London’s boroughs from August 29.
It isn’t spectacularly extreme; to avoid the charge, diesel cars must generally have been first registered after September 2015, while most petrol cars registered after 2005 are also exempt.
Drivers of vehicles passing through the ULEZ area that do not comply with emissions standards are charged a daily rate of £12.50.
The decision is a blow against Rishi Sunak’s Tories, after their winning candidate in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election last week, Steve Tuckwell, said the vote had been called a “referendum on ULEZ”.
Opposition party leader Keir Starmer also clashed with Mr Khan over the policy.
Here’s what Mr Khan had to say about the ruling on TV:
Today’s High Court decision means we can proceed with cleaning up outer London’s toxic air.
I’ve been listening to Londoners and I’m expanding the ULEZ scrappage scheme to nearly a million families who receive child benefit & all small businesses.pic.twitter.com/AU9SafG4LP
That’s the important take-away from this storm-under-a-petrol-cap: fewer than one-tenth of vehicle owners will be affected by the ULEZ expansion.
That means both Labour and the Tories have been flinging blame about nothing.
It also means that Keir Starmer needs to find another excuse for his loss in London, if he still wants to deflect attention away from his own failings as an Opposition party leader.
Ruling-class privilege: there’s no ‘class ceiling’ for grotesqueries like Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer – they are laughing at you when they say they can’t do anything to help you. Remember: it is political choice that has dumped the UK in its current crisis.
Backlash against Starmer’s Substitute Tory Party grows as he insists he’ll do nothing for ordinary people
can you imagine having raging toothache using pliers to pull your teeth out, ending up with sepsis because of the infection in their mouth… Corbyn promised people Dentists, STARMER promises to stop NHS dentistry, hospitals etc., free school meals, you mad supporting HIM?
— Isobel_Waby we NEED a COALITION (@Isobel_waby) July 17, 2023
It’s a good question. Jeremy Corbyn promised to provide dentistry on the National Health Service but Keir Stürmer is promising to deny it to more people (although he hasn’t said it in as many words).
He’s also planning to inject much more privatisation into the NHS, probably to complete the transformation of the service into nothing more than a banner under which public money may be passed to private companies that perpetuate illness and refuse to provide cover where it is not profitable, making healthcare a postcode lottery:
Tony Blair says the NHS needs more private sector involvement.
Nonsense.
Privatisation, started by his Labour govt and escalated by successive Tory govts, helped create this NHS crisis.
The only way we can save our NHS is by renationalising and properly funding it 💙
— Breakthrough Party 🟠🌤️ (@BThroughParty) July 17, 2023
More privatisation?
Read this:
URGENT: Big pharma is desperately trying to overhaul a key NHS pricing deal. If they’re successful it will cost us an extra £2.5 BILLION A YEAR – money that could be used to properly fund the NHS.
Sign the petition now and demand the UK Government stops this robbery
— Global Justice Now (@GlobalJusticeUK) May 30, 2023
There’s the problem with more privatisation in a nutshell. Once these private health bloodsuckers get a monopoly on the provision of care, they’ll push prices through the roof – knowing that you and I will have to pay for it, no matter what.
By supporting increased private involvement in healthcare, Starmer supports this plan to drain the public purse of its funds and effectively put you into debt to grotesquely rich corporate fatcats – forever.
He’s being nicknamed #SirKidStarver because he won’t end the two-child limit on child benefit and is therefore continuing to impose poverty on millions of children, nor will he provide free school meals for everybody who needs them.
Stürmer’s ‘Right-hand Liar’, Yvette Cooper, was pressed to justify the policy that will deliberately keep a quarter of a million children in poverty and 850,000 more in increased poverty, on the morning media round. Judge her failure by this clip:
Yvette Cooper her lies, Starmers right hand liar, she failed to mention they are TAKING away FREE SCHOOL MEALS for children, they will Privatise Hospitals, people will die of Sepsis because Dentists are NOT available they MOCKED CORBYN.. my god he was a socialist not a TORY. https://t.co/hkD9DH52Q9
— Isobel_Waby we NEED a COALITION (@Isobel_waby) July 17, 2023
Labour’s answer to criticism is apparently to say we should vote for the Substitute Tory Party because its members have ancestors who were working class:
"I'm horrified that you're going to force children to languish in poverty, but I'll vote for you because your dad was a toolmaker, your mum was a nurse and your grandparents made shoes", said no voter ***EVER!!!***
The consensus opinion is increasingly that Stürmer is lying:
Lots of people I know believe Starmer is being timid in order to win and THEN he will be more radical
TRUTH is Starmer has no hidden wish to be more radical. What you see NOW is what you get. He is a Blair-Cameron Neoliberal who is in lockstep with Murdoch and Uncle Sam
Thankfully not everyone, even in the Parliamentary Labour Party, supports the wholesale betrayal of Labour Party values that Stürmer is preparing:
It’s pretty clear that we now need an honest & fundamental discussion in the Labour Party about child poverty, it’s causes & the impact of the policies introduced by the Tories, including the 2 child limit, because it’s obvious some in the party don’t fully appreciate its impact.
— John McDonnell MP (@johnmcdonnellMP) July 16, 2023
And outside the party, some of us are already agitating for direct action:
The article states that Stürmer is actively planning to fail the nation on many levels:
– Climate change
– Renewables
– Transport reform
– The economy
– Public sector pay
– The NHS
– Social care
– Education
– Law and order
– Housing
– Trade unions
– Reversing Tory policy
– Support for local government
– Electoral reform
– Europe
– Interest rates
– Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
– Defence
– Inequality
– Taxing the rich
It calls for us to make Stürmer as uncomfortable as possible, for as long as possible, on all those issues until the pressure on him to reform becomes unsurmountable and he is forced to change.
How to do this?
– Inform yourself
– Join groups
– Talk to people
– Write to MPs, councillors and anyone else
– Phone in to the radio (you are likely to get on)
– Consider peaceful protest
– Join a union if it is appropriate for you
– Write a blog
– Comment here
– Tweet, Thread, use Mastodon, create a YouTube, TikTok or Instagram post.
But just don’t suffer in silence. Starmer has to know he is failing, already. Only then might he change, or be forced to. Things are far too serious to accept the dire policy options as those Starmer is now proposing. We all have to demand better.
And in the short term there is only one option: anyone who understands how bad the situation is at the moment must vote for anybody but Labour or the Conservatives. Who the other party to support may be will only be apparent locally.
The best places to start are at Somerton and Frome, Selby and Ainsty, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip on Thursday (July 20, 2023).
Where is the evidence that the Tories are ‘transforming’ the economy?
I'm thinking -do Tory politicians actual believe we've bought into the notion the Govt is currently leading the UK in transition to a high skilled high paid economy ? Ha ! The gig economy, temp contracts, removal of workers rights is-in my view- a form of modern feudalism.
It seems that the only evidence of any such action by the Conservatives is a plan to close down what Rishi Sunak calls “rip-off” degrees that don’t guarantee a job to graduates.
What a vile advert. The education secretary couldn’t name a single degree or course that qualified. This is just a cap on aspiration. https://t.co/6SerJtANdY
It seems a strange demand – that degree courses guarantee a job to the people taking them. By that standard, shouldn’t they all be shut down and a multi-billion pound education industry destroyed overnight?
You see, the point of most degrees isn’t to fit people into a job; it is to teach people how to think. That way, they can work out how to get, for themselves, the job that best suits them. This policy reveals Tory ideology: they don’t want people who can think – they just want livestock who can be slotted into jobs that will make money for their friends and funders:
Sunak's 'everyone should take business studies degrees' narrative is crass anti-intellectualism at its worst. The whole point of subjects like history, philosophy and Eng lit is that they teach people to think.
But it’s hard to tell, because it seems the Tories are doing their utmost to hide what they are doing – probably because the only people they are helping are themselves.
How about the way government departments under the Tories have been blacklisting media organisations that publish information that is critical of them? Here’s Defence Secretary Ben Wallace apologising for such treatment of Declassified UK:
Outgoing UK defence secretary Ben Wallace had to apologise to @DeclassifiedUK in Parliament after his dept blacklisted us for doing critical journalism.
His dept's 'D-Notice committee' then asked us to censor one of our stories. We said hell no.👇pic.twitter.com/3MgTvc7rhk
Perhaps the fact that 2022 was the worst year for real wage growth in nearly half a century since the early 1970s, meaning their fairy story that increases in your wages are fuelling inflation is a lie?
2022 was the worst year for real wage growth in nearly half a century – average real wages in UK will be lower in 2026 than they were in 2008 – so on what planet can it be said wage rises are causing high inflation! Never underestimate how thick this Government thinks we all are https://t.co/CBJNORJug6
Perhaps the fact that they spent more than one-and-a-half times as much money on duff Covid-related contracts through their illegal “VIP lane” as they have allocated to the building of new NHS hospitals?
FURTHER NOTE RE "NEW HOSPITALS"
Just £3.7bn has been committed . Public accounts committee report June 2023: £6bn given to VIP Covid contractors recommended by Tory MPs & peers
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 Department for Work and Pensions is being forced to rethink a scheme to pay debts and bills directly out of a person’s benefits without discussing it with them first.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the current guidance on the Third Party Deduction (TPD) scheme issued by the DWP is unlawful because it says there is no point in finding out whether a claimant’s personal circumstances affect whether deductions should be made, since it only makes a difference in very few cases.
The court said this is very close to saying that the interests of the claimant are irrelevant, which is precisely the opposite of what the regulations demand.
The decision was in response to Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride’s appeal against the findings of a judicial review brought by benefit claimant Helen Timson.
The review found in her favour last September and the appeal was heard in April. Now the Appeal Court judges have ruled unanimously that the way the DWP operates the scheme is unfair.
Lord Justice Edis said:
The submission of the Secretary of State… comes down to the proposition that because only in very few cases can the personal circumstances of the claimant or their family make any difference, there is no point finding out what they are.
This is very close to saying that the interests of the claimant are irrelevant, which is precisely the opposite of what the regulations say.
The Secretary of State can only make a TPD direction after forming an opinion or being satisfied about the interests of the particular claimant and family under consideration.
The regulations therefore require that their interests are assessed in the light of all relevant information which must include anything they wish to say on the subject. After forming that judgment the Secretary of State may make a TPD direction.
He added:
In my judgment, the regulations, by framing the decision-making as they do, require a consideration of the interests of the individual claimant and their family.
Under the guidance, however, the decision-maker has the option of contacting them, or of investigating their benefit records, but the guidance allows a decision to be made where the claimant or their family has been given no opportunity to supply information beyond what the utility company puts in the spreadsheet.
This appears to me to be obviously unfair.’
This is an important victory for anybody who might be affected by deductions in the future – and the High Court judgment recorded that there were more than 250,000 deductions in respect of water, electricity and gas debts last year.
In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, it seems reasonable to expect the relevant utility firms to make increasing numbers of TPD requests in the foreseeable future.
This judgment means no deductions may be made without first discussing the extent of any hardship they are likely to cause with the claimant. This may lead to the request being turned down.
But it isn’t all good news: the judgment applies to deductions for utility charges from legacy benefit (non-Universal Credit) only. The DWP can make deductions from benefit for other things which don’t have the same statutory requirement to be in a person’s ‘interests’ (e.g. for council tax, fines, and child support) and so will not be caught by this judgment.
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!
Closed: if high street sales continue to fall – and with high inflation and utility bills, that seems likely – then you should expect to see some of your favourite shops closing in the next few months, like this Mothercare store from three years ago.
Is this the first sign of the economy overbalancing? We’re being told that the UK won’t go into recession – that the economy will grow – but if high street sales are falling it is clear that people don’t have money to spend.
Where is all the cash going, then?
(This is the important news, by the way. The stuff about Boris Johnson resigning, his honours list, and the Labour Party becoming a cesspit under Keir Starmer is just gossip in comparison.)
The figures are clear:
Total like-for-like retail sales, combining in-store and online, fell by 1.5% overall compared with last May, according to business advisory firm BDO’s latest High Street Sales Tracker.
Online sales fell by 3.3%, one of the lowest results recorded outside of the pandemic, while in-store sales rose by just 1% across the month.
The homewares sector recorded a “very poor” total fall of 9.2% in May – off the back of last May’s 14.9% decline – as the higher cost of big-ticket items and rising interest rates deterred budget-conscious shoppers from spending on furniture and electronics.
Fashion recorded its third consecutive month of poor results, with total sales down by 1.5% in May – the first time in more than two years that the sector has recorded negative growth.
The lifestyle sector was the only category to record growth in May, but at a “far from reassuring” 0.7%.
Put this together with claims that the economy is improving and we may consider that inflation and high utility bills have sucked all the spending power out of the vast majority of the UK’s population,
None of us – apart from the rich – have money to spend on anything other than survival.
This is a situation that cannot last for long without causing societal change.
Inflation has fallen, but that only means prices are rising at a slower rate. With so many of us having taken real-terms pay cuts for many years under Tory government, it won’t be long before we can’t even afford to put meals on our tables.
The high street shops don’t have contingency plans for long-term sales drops so, if this new trend continues, they’ll be going out of business in a couple of months’ time.
And then we’ll see some real fireworks.
I wonder how Rishi Sunak is planning to keep the peace. Does he think his Public Order Act is going to stop riots?
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!
‘Talks not courts’: RCN general secretary Pat Cullen outside the High Court in London.
The High Court has upheld a government claim that a nurses’ strike planned for the Bank Holiday weekend is partly unlawful.
The Royal College of Nursing had promised to abide by any decision, meaning that strike action from midnight until 8pm on May 2 has been called off.
So the government that clapped nurses during the Covid-19 crisis has now taken them to court – and took £35k in costs from the RCN – for having the temerity to ask to be paid enough money to live on.
Nurses outside the High Court in London made the point by brandishing placards bearing the question: “Who takes their heroes to court?”
The Tories are already pushing their narrative that nurses are being selfish by denying NHS patients “the service they deserve”.
But the simple fact is that nobody deserves a health service that is on its knees because of constant de-funding by the Tory government that is driving good, qualified nursing staff away in search of work that pays enough for them to survive.
The Tory rhetoric is nothing more than emotional blackmail, which is a form of bullying.
Health Secretary Steve Barclay is already being accused of intimidating his staff. His treatment of nurses indicates a precedent for those accusations.
RCN general secretary Pat Cullen made the obvious point in her response to the ruling:
Cullen, who joined nurses outside the court in a demonstration on Thursday morning, said she accepted the ruling but claimed it could rally her members to support further strikes.
She said: “The full weight of government gave ministers this victory over nursing staff. It is the darkest day of this dispute so far – the government taking its own nurses through the courts in bitterness at their simple expectation of a better pay deal.
“Nursing staff will be angered but not crushed by today’s interim order. It may even make them more determined to vote in next month’s reballot for a further six months of action. Nobody wants strikes until Christmas – we should be in the negotiating room, not the courtroom today.”
The High Court hearing was unusual in that the RCN did not send lawyers to represent nurses, saying it did not want to “give credence” to Barclay’s legal action and the trade union legislation on which it was based.
Instead it relied on a witness statement by Ms Cullen – which Mr Justice Linden told the court suggested she had accepted the government’s legal position. He suggested that much of it had been written for a “different audience”.
The RCN is set to re-ballot its members next month, seeking a legal mandate to continue its strike action from June to December.
Will nurses be discouraged by the court ruling – or will they be infuriated by the government’s intransigence and demand redoubled strike action, simply to get a fair rate of pay?
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!
Suella Braverman: this is an archive image but you can bet she’s happy now.
The Tory government’s plan to send people who have arrived in the UK by illegal means to Rwanda is lawful, and the administration acted rationally in arranging the deal with that country – according to the High Court.
Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is treating it as a major victory, saying she will move ahead with the policy as soon as possible.
But how soon is that?
Well…
First, the courts will have to deal with any appeals against this decision. That process will begin in January.
Then, there could be a challenge to the Supreme Court, depending on whether there is concern over the interpretation of any points of law.
Furthermore, the High Court has ruled that more care needs to be taken in the judgement of each case, meaning that many candidates – if they may be described that way – for deportation to start a new life in Rwanda may be found unsuitable for it.
And finally, any who are sentenced to go may try to petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to have the ruling overturned.
So Braverman has been careful not to suggest that any flight will take place soon.
Meanwhile, opponents of the policy have been condemning it from all sides.
Labour’s Yvette Cooper said the policy remains “unworkable, extortionate and deeply damaging”, and “risks making trafficking worse”.
Alison Thewlis for the SNP said the police was “deeply immoral”, saying people “fleeing war, famine and oppression deserve and need our full support”.
Clare Moseley, founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, called the decision on Monday “disappointing”.
She said: “People who have suffered the horrors of war, torture and human rights abuses should not be faced with the immense trauma of deportation to a future where we cannot guarantee their safety.”
Josie Naughton, chief executive of migrant charity Choose Love, said the ruling “flies in the face of international commitments and accountability”, adding that campaigners will “continue to fight” for the “human right to seek asylum”.
James Wilson, deputy director of Detention Action, said: “We are disappointed that the High Court has found the removal of refugees to an autocratic state which tortures and kills people is lawful. However, we will fight on.
“The Rwanda policy is brutal and harmful and we will now consider an appeal against today’s judgment.”
It seems clear that the jubilation from the Tories is premature.
The Tories may be kicked out of government before this controversial policy reaches any kind of fruition at all.
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.
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:
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.
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 Tory government is suing the company that Baroness Michelle Mone recommended to it as a supplier of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during the Covid crisis – for £122 million.
PPE Medpro won contracts through the government’s so-called VIP lane in 2020 after being recommended by Baroness Mone.
But the government is now trying to get its money back on one of the deals – to supply medical gowns – through the High Court.
It has been claimed that Mone’s recommendation was duff because the equipment provided was substandard, but PPE Medpro has denied any failings on its part, saying that it supplied its gowns to the correct specification, on time and at a highly competitive price.
Instead, it was the Department of Health and Social Care that acted incompetently, by failing to correctly specify and procure the PPE it needed during the crisis – according to the company.
But how will this affect the allegations against Baroness Mone?
She is currently on a leave of absence from the Lords – and suspended as a member of the Tories – after it was alleged that she had recommended PPE Medpro as a supplier, and then taken a payment of £29 million from the firm.
Will the allegations against her be affected, depending on what the High Court decides?
This Writer thinks not.
The question hanging over the former underwear magnate concerns whether she took money from the firm after lobbying on its behalf, which is not permitted according to Parliamentary rules.
The quality of the equipment, and the robustness of the contract under which it was supplied, would be irrelevant to that – although…
They would weigh heavily on public opinion of the Lady in question.
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.
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:
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.
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!
Jake Berry: he looks like a far-right skinhead, and he acts like a far-right skinhead. Do you think it’s because he IS a far-right skinhead?
Jake Berry is the chairman of the Conservative Party. He can be expected to provide the party line on all the major issues.
So when he spoke out to address the concerns of ordinary people about energy bills that, even with Liz Truss’s price cap, are still too high, you can be sure it is what the Tories think.
Here’s what he said:
Tory Chairman just said.
If you’re unhappy with your energy bill cut down on energy use or get a higher paid job. 👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/JnsFyVAyyC
Firstly: the Conservative Party does not care if your bill is too much for you to pay.
Secondly: the Conservative Party is happy to let you freeze in your home, rather than take action to prevent that from happening.
Finally: the Conservative Party is happy to fob you off by saying you should try to take a non-existent “higher-paying job” if you want to heat your home properly.
Many of us have an opinion about that…:
Naked cruelty from Conservative Chair Jake Berry today:
“People know that when their [fuel] bills arrive, they can either cut their consumption or get a higher salary, higher wages, go out there and get that new job. That’s the approach the govt is taking".
The Chairman of the Tory Party is very clear: people on income support or low wages; nurses, teachers, traffic wardens, rubbish collectors, cleaners, cashiers should not be able to afford to heat their homes. This is what they are. https://t.co/94geQXOgj3
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.
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:
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.
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!
Hi @BBCNews@Telegraph@TheSun just wondering why you haven’t got round to the sorry about the chancellor seemingly high and definitely muttering to himself and laughing at a state funeral? I assume it’s an oversight you’ll soon rectify.
Even if it’s not true, the BBC will be prey to such accusations as long as it has a Tory on its board, responsible for “impartiality” (a euphemism if ever there was one).
So how about it, BBC? Why not kick Robbie Gibb off your board and run a proper investigation into Kwasi Kwarteng?
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.
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:
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.
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.
