‘Let the bodies pile high’: we still don’t know whether Boris Johnson actually said it but we know that he agrees with the sentiment because, in the UK, due to Covid-19, the bodies have. Now he is attacking another world leader for causing similar carnage. Hypocrisy?
Are you finding this as hard to swallow as I am?
According to the BBC, Boris Johnson – the man who allegedly expressed his own comfort with the deaths of thousands of people in the UK – wants you to think he is appalled at the alleged mass deaths of civilians in Ukraine:
Mr Johnson has said the UK “will not stand by whilst this indiscriminate and unforgivable slaughter takes place”.
He added: “We are working to ensure those responsible are held to account. We will not rest until justice is done.”
What is he saying, then?
That it is all right to make decisions that result in the deaths of thousands of people – if those people are fellow citizens of your country – but it’s wrong if they’re foreigners?
Call me picky if you like, but I tend to think that any leader who makes decisions that kill thousands of people (and let’s remember that Boris Johnson absolutely and certainly falls into that category) has failed in their most fundamental duty.
We already knew Johnson was a hypocrite, but this is genocidal hypocrisy.
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!
Taking the knee: Starmer and Rayner claimed it was in solidarity with victims of racist prejudice but it seems more likely they were going to follow up the gesture by drawing weapons and taking aim at the same victims.
I wonder how all those new, allegedly-genuine, Labour members feel about the policies and viewpoints they claim to adore being dissected and destroyed on live TV?
That’s what happened on Monday (February 21) on the BBC’s Politics Live. We can go through the content in a moment but let’s hear it first:
First up: Angela Rayner’s support for the murder of people accused of terrorism.
In fairness, her comment was, “Shoot terrorists and ask questions later.” It suggests she means genuine terrorists deserve to be shot, rather than people like Jean Charles de Menezes who was wrongly identified as a suspect by the Metropolitan Police – who shot him anyway.
But how do you identify who is a genuine terrorist and who is innocent – especially in an emergency?
That’s why Rayner’s comment was so dangerous, and why people like Sonali Bhattacharyya are right to be scandalised by her advocacy of it. She claimed to be “soft left” but seems to be more “hard right” as far as this is concerned.
Cressida Dick is mentioned because she was the senior Met Police officer in the operation that led to his fatal shooting.
Ms Bhattacharyya’s observation that Rayner’s words seem like posturing for the right-wing press is right on the button – especially at a time when Starmer Labour is trying hard to create a false distinction between it and the party as led by Jeremy Corbyn by saying he was (seen to be) soft on crime.
He wasn’t; Blairites such as Starmer like to make the claim, though. It harks back to Tony Blair’s attack on the Conservatives, back in the mid-1990s, and his 1993 slogan, “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.”
Anyone can see that this focused on rehabilitation as much as on punishment, but Starmer’s crowd has chosen to ignore the former in order to appeal to readers of right-wing low-intelligence tabloids.
Shadow Skills Minister Toby Perkins tried to laugh it off. He pointed out that Rayner’s comments were made on Matt Forde’s political comedy podcast. But this is not a laughing matter. Is it?
It’s very telling that at one point he said, “I think what Angela Rayner was trying to get away with-” before catching himself and rephrasing. So she was trying to get away with a claim about Labour’s attitude to terrorism, was she? Moments before, she had been making a humorous comment about her own, personal, attitude. Which was it? I couldn’t be both!
The weird part of that is, Labour’s attitude to terrorism really isn’t different now from its attitude under Jeremy Corbyn. There has been no policy change.
Ms Bhattacharyya went on to point out the apparent hypocrisy of Starmer Labour’s new attitude. Having taken the knee in support of Black Lives Matter protests, Rayner is now apparently saying she would prefer it if people like George Floyd (whose death prompted them) were murdered by police as a matter of course.
She might have said it humorously on a comedy podcast but if Mr Perkins is trying to use it to justify Labour’s claim to be tougher on crime than Corbyn, then she was also putting it forward as a genuine expression of policy direction. That’s hypocritical and Starmer himself needs to straighten out this tangle.
Next, host Jo Coburn made matters worse for Starmer by pointing out that, after being elected Labour leader on a “continuity Corbyn” platform, he has ditched all the promises he made.
Ailbhe Rea of New Statesman agreed that Starmer appealed to the left to take the leadership and was now going to “run to the centre” in his bid to become prime minister – in the belief that he has to do so in order to be electable.
Her claim that Starmer and his people are comfortable with making comments like Rayner’s because they “hope their voters/members who are less comfortable with that will know that it’s not fundamentally what they mean”. So, definitely hypocrites, then. Now the claim appeared to be that they had said they want to shoot people accused of terrorism but didn’t mean it. This story twists like a snake – which is what the Labour-representing participants are starting to resemble.
Asked to comment about the new attitude to crime in relation to Labour’s 2019 manifesto, Mr Perkins dug himself deeper into a hole by referring to the election result as the worst defeat the party had suffered since the 1930s – ignoring the fact that more people voted for Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour than for Ed Miliband in 2015, Gordon Brown in 2010 or Tony Blair in 2005. Corbyn’s 2017 vote count was larger than Blair’s in 2001. In fact, the only time a Labour leader in the last 30 years has earned more votes than Mr Corbyn was 1997.
So when we hear Starmer say “a vote for him is a change of direction”, we hear a political leader determined to haemorrhage votes.
Ms Bhattacharyya had the perfect counter for Mr Perkins, simply by pointing out that Starmer was elected leader on his 10 pledges to continue Corbyn policies – policies that Mr Perkins had just rubbished.
And Mr Perkins then claimed that Starmer’s leadership offer was to say that the Corbyn manifesto of 2019 was “unrealistic in its totality”.
So, Starmer was elected Labour leader on a promise to continue policies that he was also saying were “unrealistic” in their “totality”. Nobody should buy that.
Jo Coburn re-inserted herself to draw attention to an opinion poll that shows Labour ahead of the Tories on issues including the economy, crime and immigration – trailing only on Covid-19 (because Starmer has supported Boris Johnson to the disastrous hilt, perhaps).
Asked to comment, old Tory Ann Widdecombe agreed that Starmer is trying to get away from left-wing Corbynism but said his problem is that much of Labour membership and support is left-wing and Corbynist, and aligning with them makes him “unelectable”.
But is it?
Labour nearly lost its de facto control of Bristol City Council on February 17 when the Green Party candidate in the Southmead by-election came within a few dozen votes of taking the seat.
Turnout was just 21.2 per cent, though – in a ward with considerable poverty. And it’s not the usual by-election apathy – in the 2019 general election, 47 per cent of the poorest people didn’t vote.
So Labour’s electoral victory isn’t conditional on appealing to an ever-diminishing crowd of right-wingers.
It should be considered conditional on enticing an increasingly-disillusioned – and growing – population of the UK’s poorest citizens into voting for the party.
Starmer isn’t going to do that – ever. And certainly not by pandering to bloodthirsty fascists.
Marcus Rashford: he has done far more for the United Kingdom than Natalie Elphicke.
Natalie Elphicke should have learned to keep her opinions to herself after she tried to influence senior judges after her husband was convicted of sexual assault. Clearly she didn’t.
That breach of the MPs’ code of conduct resulted in a pathetic punishment – just one day’s suspension from Parliament. Clearly it wasn’t enough to teach her the lesson she needed to learn.
Earlier this year, she criticised Marcus Rashford – the footballer whose campaigning ensured that the poorest schoolchildren could avoid malnutrition by forcing the government to continue providing free school meals to them during school holidays at the height of the Covid-19 crisis.
After he missed a vital penalty in the Euro 2020 final, she said he should have focused on his football rather than “playing politics”.
What a hypocrite! It turns out that she is among the legion of Tory MPs who have a second job.
The Mirror has the story:
Natalie Elphicke earns almost £100 an hour as the chair of the New Homes Quality Board.
She was handed a one-off £12,000 in November 2020, and since January has been paid just under £700 per week for eight hours’ work, on top of her £81k job as an MP pic.twitter.com/FB8LcNuZdS
Ms Elphicke later apologised, saying: "I regret messaging privately a rash reaction about Marcus Rashford's missed penalty and apologise to him for any suggestion that he is not fully focussed on his football." pic.twitter.com/DtbkU3bBKz
Perhaps Ms Elphicke was distracted from her responsibilities as an MP by the demands of her own second job?
In any case, since she is clearly averse to the idea of people having occupations that distract them from their main work – and therefore must disagree with the Tory claim that it brings a “richness” to their Parliamentary experience…
Will she be resigning her £100-an-hour second job any time soon?
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!
How can Keir Starmer seriously propose banning ‘fire and rehire’ policies by employers when he has brought that odious practice to the Labour Party?
This Site reported on July 21 that Starmer has almost bankrupted Labour, making it necessary for the party to axe 90 full-time jobs.
At the same time, Starmer was hiring 30-50 staff on short-term contracts. I stated:
That’s ‘fire and rehire’ because you know some of the axed staff will have been doing the same work that the new employees will be asked to do – and some of these jobs will be occupied by the same people.
The mainstream media has picked up on this, with The Independentreporting on it only a day or so ago.
How tone-deaf, then, for Starmer to send his deputy leader, Angela Rayner, out to promote a policy that condemns ‘fire and rehire’!
Consider this, from the BBC’s article on the new policy:
Labour also says it wants to outlaw “fire and rehire” practices whereby employers dismiss workers and then offer to hire them back under new, often poorer, terms and conditions.
That is exactly what Starmer is doing.
The new policy has other holes that have led critics to claim that it is merely tinkering around the edges of employment law and not revolutionising it at all.
For example, the “real living wage” of £10 per hour has been attacked as not being enough to lift anybody out of dependence on state benefits or – in extreme cases – food banks.
This is simply not good enough.
Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour devised policies that would have changed the UK from a country that exploits its population for the benefit of a tiny minority – which is what it is now, and don’t you forget it – into a progressive, trailblazing nation that valued all of its citizens.
Our success as a nation would have been valued, not by the number of billionaires we had, but by the absence of poverty.
But Starmer isn’t interested in this.
His plan isn’t revolutionary. It is hypocritical and so is he.
And the truth of that is clear to everybody.
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!
Apt: Keir Starmer reckons he was named after original Labour leader Hardie – but can anyone doubt that his illustrious forerunner might have said these words, if confronted with evidence of Starmer’s abysmal performance.
What else is NuLabour’s suit-in-chief lying about?
Starmer is on the record as saying he opposes ‘fire and rehire’ – the practice of firing employees, only to offer them their old jobs at a significantly reduced pay rate and/or with worsened working conditions.
But at yesterday’s (July 20) meeting of Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee, he pushed through a plan to axe 90 full-time jobs, while also taking on 30-50 staff on short-term contracts.
That’s ‘fire and rehire’ because you know some of the axed staff will have been doing the same work that the new employees will be asked to do – and some of these jobs will be occupied by the same people.
And what work will they be doing?
They will be identifying members of the Labour Party whose left-wing/socialist tendencies make them likely candidates to be victims of Starmer’s next purge.
But Starmer promised he would not attack party members too – didn’t he?
We already have such a man making a complete mess of running the UK.
Nobody is going to vote for Labour if it is only offering a Hobson’s Choice of the same evils with a different face.
POSTSCRIPT: You’ll notice that the 90 Labour staff who lost their jobs were the lowest-paid. This is because Labour refused to take a single penny from the salaries of its overpaid elite senior apparatchiks:
If there’s one quote that captures liberal ideology it would the one below. They choose to make 25% of their staff redundant (almost all the lowest paid) but won’t take a single penny off the bloated salaries of their senior management. pic.twitter.com/qDuPbmpWvg
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!
Hypocrite: Patel chose to side with racists who opposed the England team ‘taking the knee’ against racism – then tried to take the moral high ground when the same racists heaped abuse on team players for missing penalties. Tyrone Mings was right to tackle her.
Kudos to Tyrone Mings for correctly singling out Priti Patel and the Tory government as the cause of the wave of racist abuse against members of the England football team after Sunday’s Euro 2020 loss.
Readers of This Site will know I have been writing about Patel’s racism for a considerable period of time, but Vox Political doesn’t have the following that Mings has. He will get the message to millions, while I only reach thousands.
He correctly identified Patel’s dog-whistle racism as the cause for which the attacks on his teammates Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho were symptoms.
She denigrated England’s decision to ‘take the knee’ in support of the fight against racism as “gesture politics” that she would not support – encouraging a certain type of ‘fan’ to shout abuse when the team did it. I called her out over it in an article on June 15.
Other examples of Patel’s racism include her Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that advocates prejudice against the Gypsy/Romany/Traveller community.
And her immigration policy locked hundreds of people into a concentration camp together at the height of the Covid pandemic, causing hundreds of them to be infected with the disease. She is pushing a law through Parliament that will make it illegal for refugees to come to the UK, and anybody helping them to do so – even if it is the RNLI rescuing them from drowning – could face imprisonment for life.
So Mings was absolutely on-target when he scorned her condemnation of the racist abuse his teammates received.
“You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ & then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens,” he tweeted.
You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ & then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens. https://t.co/fdTKHsxTB2
It really is vile hypocrisy – as was Patel’s sudden show of support for England as it became clear that Gareth Southgate’s squad was heading for the final. I also highlighted that, on July 8.
Team Captain Harry Kane has also condemned the racist attacks on his teammates, saying, “If you abuse anyone on social media you’re not an England fan and we don’t want you.”
Personally, I would wish that he extend that to include people like Patel who stoke racist abuse, as Tyrone Mings pointed out.
One last point: I wonder if the racists attacking three black players even understand their monumental hypocrisy if they agree – as I do – with Alan Shearer’s choice of “player of the tournament”: Raheem Sterling.
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!
Rees-Hitler: he lacks the moustache but his attitudes are in line with the Nazi dictator.
What a prize-winning public school chump.
Jacob Rees-Mogg tried to be down with the kids by quoting England football anthem World in Motion, but instead only demonstrated that he was up his own nationalist rectum.
The comment from Russ Jones on Twitter was entirely deserved:
I bet when they wrote it, they never guessed it would end up being hooted at parliament by the disappointing result of an evening of hate-sex between a dalek and a pendulum https://t.co/Ir3dF91y06
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a man of strong Christian beliefs apparently, boasting about harsher immigration laws. Even as an atheist I wonder if Jesus would have done the same.
This is the Bill that could send members of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to prison – for life – if they even try to save the lives of refugees in danger of drowning while trying to cross into the UK.
It is the Bill that turns the UK into a full-on Nazi country because
Tories have introduced an Anne Frank law, that means if someone hid Anne Frank in their attic today, they would be prosecuted as a criminal.
Clearly Rees-Mogg is the anti-Semite in this situation. Priti Patel is the anti-Semite for pushing this Bill through the Commons.
They are clearly both racist to the core – and he’s a hypocrite too:
'We can't have people simply loafing about. doing nothing and expecting the state to finance their lifestyles.' Jacob Rees-Mogg 🧐💤 pic.twitter.com/cOIDlXZiyi
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!
Priti Patel: this is a more accurate representation of the image she should have had on her shirt.
Priti Patel really has a nerve.
Only a few days ago, she was saying she saw nothing wrong with racist football fans booing the England Euro 2020 squad for ‘taking the knee’ before its matches.
That was before Gareth Southgate’s team won a place in the final, of course.
Had Priti Patel and Boris Johnson believed England would succeed would they have attacked the team for taking the knee? Of course not: they were betting on failure.
— Clare Hepworth OBE (@Hepworthclare) July 8, 2021
Just wait until somebody tells her that her idea of good immigration law would have denied eight of the 11 team members their place in the team she now supports so fanatically:
Half the England team are descended from immigrants who wouldn't have been allowed to enter the country under this psychopathic hypocrite's hostile immigration policy. https://t.co/9CU8dCYomB
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush 🟨🟥🥀🇵🇸 (@WarmongerHodges) July 7, 2021
As it is, she seems intent on criminalising the Royal National Lifeboat Institution with her proposed new laws to stop us saving refugees from death. Get your head around this:
Should you be fishing offshore and spot a dingy sinking and a child drowning this Government intends you be subject to criminal proceedings, maximum life in prison, for saving that child's life.
That’s right – for seeing somebody in desperate need and saving their life, you could be imprisoned for the rest of yours under Patel’s (and her boss Boris Johnson’s) dictatorial, fascist regime.
Perhaps the worst indictment against her is that she can’t deny that her proposals would have outlawed initiatives like the Kindertransport that saved hundreds of Jewish children from Nazi death camps by bringing them to safety in the UK before the outbreak of World War II:
We twice asked @pritipatel’s @ukhomeoffice whether her proposed legislation regarding people who help asylum seekers would have rendered an humanitarian mission like the Kindertransport criminal. They declined/refused to answer the question. Make of that what you will.
— Clare Hepworth OBE (@Hepworthclare) July 8, 2021
Final word:
It's a harsh reality but Britain is much better at creating refugees around the world rather than saving them. #PritiPatel
— John Smith (son of Harry Leslie Smith) (@Harryslaststand) July 7, 2021
So much for Patel.
If you want to admire a political figure who supports the England team in an honest way, here’s the Left’s Grace Blakely:
Bitch who didn’t know what the euros were until a month ago but is now absolutely certain that it is in fact coming home dot jpg pic.twitter.com/xAMMF324TT
Poor Sarah Vine! After marrying the odious Michael Gove and spending years enjoying the Tory limelight, now that she and he are splitting, she wants to be left alone!
Normally, This Writer might be inclined to support such a request. After all, I said Boris Johnson’s wedding to… whatsername… shouldn’t get huge media coverage because it was only the wedding of a public servant to his long-term fiancee, and that sort of thing happens all the time. A divorce should get similar treatment.
However:
Also:
And this:
There’s the hypocrisy we see here:
And finally, there’s the very ugly hypocrisy of this:
Given the way Vine has pursued public figures – my understanding is that Meghan is only the latest and highest-visibility in a series – and has tried to influence public opinion about them, it would be unfair to allow her the kind of relief she denied to them.
To me, it seems only fair that even the slightest details of her divorce are entirely appropriate for discussion on every possible public forum.
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!
Lover boy: what do you think attracted Gina Coladangelo into a social distance-busting affair with Matt Hancock? It’s hard to see the incentive from this image.
This is a test of Boris Johnson’s leadership.
Matt Hancock has appeared to be Teflon-coated ever since he was first appointed as Health Secretary in 2019.
He immediately set about corrupting and discrediting the position (which some might consider a hard job, after his Tory forerunners stank up that office in their own ways). I’ll go into that shortly.
The current allegations are that he corruptly appointed a college friend, Gina Coladangelo, to a non-executive directorship in the Department of Health, where he then had an affair with her – breaking social distancing rules in the process.
So he was abusing his power in order to bypass the selection process to get his choice. Oh, but wait:
A government spokesman said Ms Coladangelo’s appointment had been “made in the usual way” and had “followed correct procedure”.
If “the usual way” is bypassing fairness in order to appoint cronies, we might be more inclined to accept this explanation. Was “correct procedure” the emergency rule that the government used to dodge competitive tendering to give Covid-19 contracts – and huge amounts of public money – to Tory cronies?
He was also abusing his own social distancing rules by having an affair with this woman.
And he was a hypocrite because he had criticised Professor Neil Ferguson for breaking the rules to have an affair, then deliberately did the same thing himself:
Let’s add these latest indiscretions to the list already accumulated by Hancock, shall we?
First, perhaps we should discuss the firm run by his in-laws that he got onto the NHS procurement list and that made him a major shareholder right before it received a big NHS Wales contract.
Perhaps he’s counting his lucky stars, today, that it wasn’t a firm run by relatives of his wife?
Hancock’s offences are legion. So is his incompetence. But Boris Johnson has stood by him throughout all of the above – possibly in the knowledge that, as long as Hancock is around, Johnson himself won’t take all the blame for the decisions of his government.
In times past, a cabinet minister like Hancock would have been off to “spend more time with his family” the moment a whisper of an indiscretion or lack of integrity made it into the newspapers.
That hasn’t happened yet with Hancock – but for how much longer can Johnson resist demands to sack his floundering flunkie?
The longer he delays, the more incompetent and weak Johnson will make himself seem.
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.
