Jeremy Corbyn: He’ll win the next election or quit as Labour leader, according to the shadow chancellor in a new interview.
The Independent is running a disturbing report that claims Jeremy Corbyn will quit as Labour leader if the party loses at the expected general election later this year.
The claim is from an interview between former New Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell and shadow chancellor John McDonnell, in GQ magazine.
Mr McDonnell is quoted as follows, after being asked if Mr Corbyn would “stay on”: “I can’t see so. What we’d do is as the tradition, which is have an election for a new leader.”
He added: “I think it is the same for my own personal position.”
This is unfortunate as it gives every troublemaker in the UK a reason to campaign hard against Labour – to end the hope of a government that serves the majority, rather than a greedy few.
This Writer certainly expects Mr Campbell to try to capitalise on this as, being a staunch ally of the neoliberal Blairite project, he’ll want to see the reinstallation of an anonymous suit as Labour leader with a brief to make it as close to the Conservative Party as possible, in order to deny us any real choice in a general election.
The Liberal Democrats and the Tories, under the unspeakable Jo Swinson and the abominable Boris Johnson, will be much worse.
The forthcoming election is therefore shaping up to be a battle for the soul of the nation.
Will Mr Corbyn’s supporters fight to win?
Or do we hand the United Kingdom to the forces of darkness?
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 sign says ‘leader’: but is there somebody in the shadows, telling him what to do in their interest, rather than that of the UK as a whole?
The Labour Party has demanded an independent “conflict of interest” inquiry into Boris Johnson, over claims that the prime minister’s backers will profit hugely from a “no deal” Brexit.
John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, has written to the UK’s most senior civil servant, Cabinet Office secretary Mark Sedwill, calling for an investigation into alleged collusion with currency speculators.
The demand is based on comments by Mr Johnson’s sister Rachel and claims by former chancellor – now an Independent MP – Philip Hammond that speculators were investing in “short” positions – betting on the pound plummeting and inflation rocketing – after a “no deal” Brexit.
It has been reported that they could make more than £8 billion – while the rest of us suffer.
In his letter to Sir Mark, the shadow chancellor said there had been widespread reports of increases in short positions taken against sterling in the lead-up to a possible no-deal Brexit.
Mr Johnson and the Conservative party had received “a significant sum” in donations from no-deal backers, a number of who are involved in hedge funds, he said. Meanwhile, the PM has made it clear he is ready to go ahead with a no-deal outcome to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
“These three facts have caused concern that the prime minister may have a conflict of interest,” wrote Mr McDonnell. “Donors to the Conservative party and/or the prime minister could stand to gain from a no-deal Brexit – even if only through cushioning losses by adopting short positions. The prime minister could reasonably be seen as having an interest in securing a no-deal Brexit to financially benefit his donors.”
He added: “It is becoming increasingly apparent from public comment that the prime minister is bringing into doubt whether he is upholding the highest standards, thereby further undermining public confidence and trust in him and his government… It is important for public confidence and trust in the House of Commons that any real or apparent conflict of interest is investigated.”
“The prime minister could reasonably be seen as having an interest in securing a no-deal Brexit to financially benefit his donors.”
No UK public servant can serve two masters in such a way, and for a prime minister the good of the nation must come before any personal benefit to that person, their friends or supporters.
The Jennifer Arcuri scandal has already placed significant doubt on Mr Johnson’s loyalties. The British public consider him entirely capable of putting the interests of himself and his financiers before those of the nation.
And in the meantime the Brexit deadline clock is ticking down to October 31.
Mr Sedwill must agree to this inquiry, and it must be carried out with haste. Everybody needs to know the facts before it is too late.
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!
While the Tories – and other right-wingers around the globe – are still messing up the planet with fossil fuels, Labour has announced a game-changing plan to democratise ownership of electric cars.
A Labour government will offer loans of up to £33,000 to low- and middle-income households, people in rural areas, independent contractors and small-to-medium-sized businesses, to buy electric cars.
The intention is to provide clean transport for everyone, with 2.5 million interest-free loans; the government would cover the cost of interest.
And the scheme would boost the national grid, as everyone receiving a loan would be required to participate in a mass trial of “Vehicle-2-Grid” technology.
Electric cars will store energy when demand is low – during the night when the wind is blowing but people are asleep, for example – and discharge into the grid when energy use peaks -in the evening as people arrive home from work. This smooths out demand and reduces reliance on gas-driven power stations.
The plan was explained by shadow chancellor John McDonnell:
“This will stimulate the automotive industry. It will sustain jobs in the conversion from fossil fuels to electric but actually it will create new jobs as well.
“So this is beneficial in terms of the climate, [and] it is beneficial for those people who want to convert their carbon-fuel powered car into an electric vehicle that is sustainable.
“At the same time, it will help support the automotive industry and create jobs. Those jobs are in areas where we have had real issues, particularly with Brexit.”
The plan has been announced to contrast with the Conservative government, which has been slammed repeatedly, including by the Society of Motor Manufacturers, for scrapping support for electric cars.
Labour’s plan seems much better all round, it seems.
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!
Over-run: This graffito shows Jeremy Corbyn, having already run down David Cameron and Theresa May on his bike, in the act of doing the same to Boris Johnson.
Opposition parties will be challenged to put the good of the nation before their own ambitions if Labour wins a ‘no confidence’ vote against Boris Johnson’s government next month.
Political opponents of Mr Corbyn have suggested that a so-called ‘Government of National Unity’ could be formed if BoJob loses such a vote, but shadow chancellor John McDonnell has said Labour would not support it.
This means the plan should fail, as too few MPs would support it.
Instead, Mr McDonnell said Labour would demand the keys to 10 Downing Street from Mr Johnson and he would personally put Mr Corbyn in a cab to Buckingham Palace, to tell the Queen that Labour would take over.
And he issued a challenge to members of other Opposition parties:
The shadow chancellor said that if the Conservative leader failed to quit he would not “want to drag the Queen into this but [he] would be sending Jeremy Corbyn in a cab to Buckingham Palace to say ‘we’re taking over’”.
Ruling out any deals with the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish National party, McDonnell said the only guarantee to other opposition parties would be to block a no-deal Brexit and organise a fresh EU referendum.
“That means no coalitions or pacts, we just put it there [and] I think people of goodwill who are concerned about the interests of this country, about avoiding a no-deal Brexit, will vote for it,” he said.
The challenge will be particularly strong for the Liberal Democrats, whose new leader Jo Swinson has ruled out co-operating with Labour, claiming that Mr Corbyn is “unfit” to be prime minister.
But her party has framed itself as the champion of voters who wish to remain in the European Union and failure to support Mr Corbyn in a confidence vote would indicate support for a “no-deal” Brexit instead.
Of course there is also the question of whether the Queen would dismiss Mr Johnson if he refused to resign as prime minister voluntarily.
It is within her power but opinion is divided as to whether she would, with some saying it would only happen if the House of Commons indicated clearly who was to be prime minister in his place.
And this creates a challenge for all Opposition parties, and for potential Conservative rebels as well – as they are unlikely to want a man they have consistently described as a “hard-left Marxist” taking office.
But Mr McDonnell said Labour would form only a caretaker government while a “no-deal” Brexit is averted and a general election arranged.
Will this be enough to persuade MPs to back a “no confidence” vote in Boris Johnson? We’ll see. The clock is ticking.
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!
John McDonnell: He made Labour’s position perfectly clear last year. Why, then, did other politicians and media types try to muddy matters?
It seems there have been a few recriminations – inside and outside the Labour Party – over its performance in the European Parliamentary elections.
Many people are saying the party came a distant third behind the Liberal Democrats and the Brexit Party because the message from the leadership wasn’t clear enough.
Silly, silly people.
I can show you the problem in a short sequence of tweets:
So people are absolutely clear what I am saying.Of course I want a general election. But I realise how difficult this is to secure.I will do anything I can to block no deal Brexit. So yes if,as likely GE not possible, then I support going back to the people in another referendum
— John McDonnell MP (@johnmcdonnellMP) May 27, 2019
Do you support Remain being on the ballot, John? Only when you tell us that will we be absolutely clear.
— John McDonnell MP (@johnmcdonnellMP) May 27, 2019
That is the problem, right there.
Labour had a very clear message to put out; one that made sense. It wasn’t divisive – it wasn’t “Remain at all costs!” or “Leave without delay!”
It was that Labour wanted the best deal for everybody. If that was impossible to achieve, it would be because of Parliamentary arithmetic – the opinions of MPs – and that could only be changed by a general election, so Labour would campaign for a GE to change Parliamentary arithmetic, making a better deal possible.
And if that didn’t work/happen, it would be because Parliamentarians were determined to make a mess of the matter. In that circumstance, Labour would campaign for the matter to go back to the people.
Simple. Practical. Clear-cut.
And then a bunch of tom-fools – in the press, in the Party itself, and on the social media – waded in with mealy-mouthed questions designed to muddy the water.
“Why haven’t you mentioned…” when Labour had mentioned it.
“When will you support…” when Labour already had.
“Why won’t you rule out…” when Labour had ruled it out.
“It won’t be clear until you say…” As John McDonnell wrote, above, he said it very clearly a year ago.
What’s most saddening is that some of the people pulling this nonsense out of their collective rear ends would have claimed This Writer’s respect before they did so.
I have had a lot of time for David Schneider in the past. I’m sure he still makes sense on many other issues – but he lost my respect on this.
If you recall anyone pulling this stunt – or hear it in the future – they should lose yours. And you should tell us who they are.
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!
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is calling for voters to force their MPs – particularly Tory MPs – to admit the brutality of Universal Credit, benefit sanctions and disability benefit assessments that he says are now unchallengably linked to people’s deaths. But will it do any good?
He wants us all to speak personally to MPs because they refuse to face the facts when discussing it in a Parliamentary debate.
It’s an optimistic view, in This Writer’s opinion, because it assumes that Conservative MPs don’t understand that people are dying as a result of their policies. They do – or at least many of them do.
Not only do they understand that people are dying, they approve of that fact.
They agree with the 1930s Nazi definition of the sick and disabled as “useless eaters” and they think any policy that reduces the numbers of such people is a benefit to the nation (meaning it cuts the tax bill for the very very rich).
The problem with that is, we could very easily point out that those very very rich tax dodgers may also be described as “useless eaters” as they contribute increasingly less to the nation as a whole while using a proportionately higher amount of the services those taxes fund; many of them rely on the profits of businesses that were started by their ancestors and which they do not understand; and they are therefore worse parasites than the disabled people their votes persecute.
Mr McDonnell says it is possible to gain “appreciation” of the situation by introducing MPs to people who have been sanctioned. I don’t think that’s true. They may nod and say placatory things, but they will do nothing because they want those people to die.
Mr McDonnell says it is possible to gain “awareness” by mentioning individual cases in which people have committed suicide because of the hostile environment they have to endure. I don’t think that’s true either. The official government response is that there are many reasons for people to commit suicide; they spit out this line even in the face of hard evidence that the deaths were prompted by their policies.
There may be productive ways forward. A court case or public inquiry to examine the relationship between deaths of people on benefits and the behaviour of the system itself may conclude that a reasonable person would find a connection between them. If so, the government will be open to more than 100,000 legal challenges for corporate manslaughter – at the very least.
Realistically, the most likely way of lifting the Tory threat hanging over benefit claimants is the election of a Labour government.
That is one reason This Writer wants an early general election, which seems possible with Theresa May’s failures over Brexit.
The trouble is that, despite the fact that a vast majority of the public support Labour Party policies, people are being misled by an overwhelmingly Tory-supporting mass media into believing that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is a threat.
Consider the scandal last week, in which it was revealed that members of the armed forces have been using a poster of Mr Corbyn as target practice.
The system is stacked against Labour, and therefore against anybody who is in a position of vulnerability; anybody who isn’t a vastly rich Tory.
So if you have a relative or friend who has to claim sickness and/or disability benefits, go and see them, and give them a lot of affection. They may soon be dead – and if you voted Conservative, it’ll be because of your vote.
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!
Vindicated: John McDonnell was lectured by Labour colleagues Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting on Robert Peston’s ITV talk show – but he was right and they were not.
A bid to backstab Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell backfired in the faces of Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting after all three appeared on Robert Peston’s ITV chat show yesterday (February 27).
Ms Nandy and Mr Streeting were keen to suggest their own party had failed to act appropriately in the early days of anti-Semitism accusation against members, citing the case of their colleague Naz Shah as an example.
But Mr McDonnell contradicted them, saying he had intimate knowledge of that matter as Ms Shah was his Personal Private Secretary (PPS) at the time.
Here’s part of the discussion – and note how Peston describes it:
Labour’s @wesstreeting and @lisanandy tell @johnmcdonnellMP that he is not telling the truth on how previous cases of antisemitism were dealt with within the Labour Party.
The impression you are intended to get is that Mr McDonnell was in the wrong. But he was right.
James Mills is a former director of communications for Mr McDonnell and the Shadow Treasury Team (STT). He tweeted his recollection of events to put the record straight:
There was only 3 of us in the room at this stage, I was asked for my opinion on the matter and I gave my honest opinion, which was that I wouldn't defend it & she had to go. There was not any difference of opinion from anyone. Naz was asked to come in and JC with JM informed her.
Isn’t it interesting that we can see the same pattern here as faced Diane Abbott on the BBC’s Question Time a few weeks ago, when she rightly said that Labour was doing well in the opinion polls but other panellists – and even host Fiona Bruce – ganged up on her and gaslighted her with false claims that she was mistaken?
We can learn several things from this:
Firstly, the backstabbers in the Parliamentary Labour Party are now lining up to make their treacherous intentions known to the general public. Wes Streeting was already on my list; now we can add Lisa Nandy (unless she wants to plead stupidity; this is doubtful as she argued with Mr Mills on Twitter, pushing a claim that he was wrong). They probably thought they could get away with this story because the sequence of events was not reported when Ms Shah was accused in 2016. More fool them.
Secondly, we should also be making a list of mainstream news reporters who can’t be trusted to report events fairly and accurately. Again, I have to say that Robert Peston was already on my own list.
Finally, the reason this was being discussed is a claim by Ms Nandy and Mr Streeting that nothing has changed in the nearly three years since Ms Shah was accused. Their story was that the Labour leadership had to be challenged before any action was taken – as it was in the case of Chris Williamson yesterday.
But Chris Williamson’s case is different from that of Naz Shah. Ms Shah admitted that she had made a series of Twitter posts with anti-Semitic intent as a reaction to the deaths of many Palestinians during “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014, after the tweets were brought to light by the Guido Fawkes blog two years later. In contrast, Mr Williamson has made it abundantly clear that he opposes anti-Semitism; his statement that Labour has been “too apologetic” over accusations arose from a desire to support innocent party members who have been wrongly accused.
And that is the heart of the matter. For some reason, some MPs and officers of the Labour Party are desperate to hide the fact that party members – and former party members, like myself, who have been wrongly expelled – have been treated unfairly.
That is why they keep telling these tall stories.
It is also why they keep coming unstuck. Please draw your own conclusions regarding what this means about Chris Williamson, Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s “anti-Semitism” row.
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!
Churchill: Don’t let the Tories insult history by pretending he was a saint.
Here’s more fake outrage from Conservatives – this time at John McDonnell’s, entirely accurate, assertion that Sir Winston Churchill was a wrong ‘un.
I’m glad my brother, Doctor of History David Sivier (also known as Beastrabban), is around to give a learned historical perspective on this matter.
Mr McDonnell was answering quick-fire questions on the Politico website, including: “Winston Churchill. Hero or villain?” McDonnell replied: “Tonypandy – villain.”
Here’s the Beast:
This referred to the Tonypandy riots of 1910, when striking miners were shot down by the army after clashing with the police. According to the I’s article on the controversy on page 23 of Wednesday’s edition, Churchill initially refused requests to send in the troops, instead sending a squad of metropolitan police. Troops were also sent in to stand in reserve in Cardiff and Swindon. Following further rioting, Churchill sent in the 18th Hussars. He later denied it, but it was widely believed that he had given orders to use live rounds. There’s still very strong bitterness amongst Welsh working people about the massacre. The I quoted Louise Miskell, a historian at Swansea University, who said that ‘He is seen as an enemy of the miners’.
So there’s precedent for Margaret Thatcher’s behaviour in the 1980s, then.
Apparently Boris Johnson was outraged about this. He has written a biography of Churchill, and claimed the former prime minister “saved this country and the whole of Europe from a barbaric fascist and racist tyranny, and our debt to him is incalculable”.
It’s certainly the popular interpretation of Churchill’s contribution to history.
But if we look into his career, we find that perhaps “Winnie” was only saving Europe from a barbaric fascist and racist German tyranny, as he was regularly willing to impose his own brand of barbarism and racism wherever he could.
As Mr McDonnell said, Churchill was undoubtedly a hero in the Second World War, but other moments in his life let down his memory.
The i newspaper has provided a list of incidents in Churchill’s life, some of which corroborate the allegations of villainy. For example:
* According to his biographer, John Charmley, Churchill believed in a racial hierarchy and eugenics, and that at the top of this were White Protestant Christians.
* He said it was ‘alarming and nauseating’ seeing Gandhi ‘striding half-naked up the steps of the vice-regal palace.’ He also said ‘I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion’.
* Three million people died in the Bengal famine of 1943, in which Churchill refused to deploy food supplies.
On the Bengal famine, the Beast continued:
The Bengalis starved because their grain had been sequestered as back up supplies to feed British troops. In the end they weren’t needed, according to one video I’ve seen on YouTube. Churchill also said that the famine was their fault for having too many children.
Vile.
He also supported the brief British invasion of Russia to overthrow the Communist Revolution, and the use of gas on Russian troops. Just as he also wanted to use gas to knock out, but not kill, Iraqi troops in Mesopotamia when they revolted in the 1920s against British rule.
Barbaric.
He also said that ‘Keep Britain White’ was a good slogan for the Tories to go into the 1951 general election.
Racist.
As for World War II – the Beast says that, according to historian of fascism Martin Pugh, Churchill wasn’t opposed to fascism in itself; he was simply concerned that Nazi Germany threatened British interests in the North Sea.
The Beast goes on to say that Peter Hitchens has pointed out that Churchill wasn’t interested in saving the Jews; he was simply honouring treaties with Poland and France.
Visit the Beast’s own site for his opinion on other issues in which Churchill exposed his own villainy.
None of this is to deny Churchill’s contribution to WWII – which Mr McDonnell fully acknowledged. His leadership saved millions.
But don’t let the Conservatives whitewash history. He was no saint, and Mr McDonnell was right to straighten the record.
Brian Cox: His head has been above the clouds for so long he has lost touch with what’s happening here at ground level.
I suppose it was only logical that one of the minds behind D:Ream’s Things Can Only Get Better – also known as Tony Blair’s theme song in the 1997 general election – should hold a centrist worldview that absolves Conservative MPs of guilt for their many crimes against the UK’s population.
So it should be no surprise that Professor Brian Cox would take issue with Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s statement that he could not be friends with a Conservative politician after the cruelty of their austerity policies over the last eight years.
Here’s what Mr McDonnell said:
"I can't forgive them for what they've done… I've never seen human suffering like this."
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell on why he won't be friends with the Conservative party.
To me, it seems unlikely that Professor Cox saw that clip. More plausible is that he read the LBC tweet quoted below – “After John McDonnell reveals he couldn’t be friends with a Conservative, Iain Dale asks: do you struggle being friends with someone of the opposite political persuasion?” The context – that it is a decision reached by observation of the human suffering caused by the Tories – is missing.
Still, the conclusion to which the professor is drawn seems incongruous. Here’s what he wrote:
If you struggle to be friends with someone of the ‘opposite political persuasion’ then it seems to me that you believe a one party state is the way forward – because the only ‘good’ people are people who agree with you. Certainty suggests hubris – doubt suggests wisdom. https://t.co/2JWCMhBhZf
It is a huge leap of logic to suggest that denying friendship to a politician who intentionally causes suffering is equivalent to wanting a one-party state (like the Soviet Union). It is also an example of thinking in absolutes – Mr McDonnell wasn’t saying the only good people are those who agree with him; he was saying he, personally, cannot accept that there is anything good about the suffering inflicted needlessly on innocent people by the Conservatives. Personally, I’m with him.
In the interests of fairness, it is worth reporting a YouGov poll which states that an “overwhelming majority” (of the 1,000 or so people the organisation asked) said they could be friends with someone who has a different political view.
John McDonnell has said he could not be friends with a Conservative, but only 3% of Brits say they also couldn’t be friends with someone who has a different political opinion to them – 82% say they could be https://t.co/xc8FnggOlHpic.twitter.com/rUcsTgaEs5
But it doesn’t say they could be friends with a politician who had inflicted huge suffering on people they know, so is it entirely appropriate to this case?
When a person of Professor Cox’s standing makes a blunder, Twitter pays attention – and his comment attracted a wealth of stinging responses.
Was it a dogpile – an instance in which many people attack someone over a wrong or offensive post because that person is an easy target, or to gain popularity points? I don’t think so. The criticisms of Professor Cox were largely reasonable attempts to show him his error.
For example, Sarah stated: “The issue for many right now Brian is that the game has changed over last 8 yrs (& particularly th last 3) of Tory rule. While you’d be having a friendly debate with Tories about your political differences, this degradation is happening to millions.”
Consider this:
I would never befriend a Tory. It doesn’t make me intolerant – the thought of having to be friends with someone who supports things like arms sales to Saudi, or austerity, and many other things, just makes me nauseous.
“Bootstrap Cook” Jack Monroe was a little more biting: “If you struggle to understand why that ‘opposite political persuasion’ is not a clever dinner debate but a real harmful ideology that is killing the vulnerable in society, then it seems to me that your wealth, celebrity and privilege are occupying the space your heart should be.”
And perhaps Socialist Voice can be forgiven for the implication that Professor Cox has lost his principles: “Dear Professor Brian Cox,
“Tory MPs laughed and brayed in parliament as they voted against giving nurses a pay rise. Some nurses are now using food banks.
“So, please excuse those of us who have principles and strictly refuse to collaborate with the enemy.”
The suggestion may be more understandable if taken in connection with the exchange that Another Angry Voice discusses, below. After suggesting that Mr McDonnell would deny a voice to anybody who disagreed with him, Professor Cox then did exactly that to a commenter who disagreed with him:
1. We must respect other people's politics and be their friends, even if they're extremists who actively create extreme poverty, impose misogynistic economic policies, and discriminate against disabled people.
Perhaps, in the heat of the moment, Professor Cox failed to realise his own behaviour resembled his argument far more than Mr McDonnell’s.
At the end of the day, this contretemps won’t matter to Professor Cox. He has a large fan base that is undoubtedly very forgiving and his career won’t be harmed.
But we may hope that, next time, before he jumps to insupportable conclusions, maybe he will take the time needed to consider all the evidence.
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!
Homeless: A man living on the streets in Birmingham.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has appealed for MPs of all parties to vote down Philip Hammond’s Budget when he announces it tomorrow (October 29) – if it fails to stop Universal Credit forcing people into poverty.
Mr McDonnell’s words came on the day The Observer published a report exposing how Universal Credit is forcing people out of their homes.
“The rollout of universal credit and freezes to local housing allowance rates put even basic accommodation beyond the means of many. One shelter said universal credit was a factor in a third of its clients ending up in its care,” the report states.
“Last week, the Commons public accounts committee said universal credit was responsible for increased debt, rent arrears and food bank use.
“But it has also emerged that it is a significant contributor to both “invisible” homelessness – such as people “sofa-surfing” or living in emergency accommodation – and rough sleeping.”
It adds that Tory and DUP rebels threatening to force the government into a rethink over universal credit claimed that they had secured a £1bn injection for the programme.
Several Conservatives have spoken out over the scandal of Universal Credit, but it is worth remembering that there are NO Tory rebels. Conservatives always fall back into line, claiming they have secured the means to solve crises – and once they have voted for the government, the promised measures magically disappear.
Asked about the issue on the BBC’s Marr Show, Mr Hammond said he had used previous Budgets to put money into the project, adding: “When we see things that need addressing, we address them.”
Mr McDonnell was not impressed. Speaking before the Hammond interview, he told Andrew Marr:
I am calling on other parties and members of other parties in Parliament to vote down the budget if the Chancellor refuses to halt the roll out of universal credit pic.twitter.com/oIo4xb9zev
Other commentators pointed out that Mr Hammond didn’t seem to understand how Universal Credit works, who it affects or how it affects them. He seemed to think it only affects people who are out of work, and said he hoped they would not be worse off with the benefit.
We don't need the chancellor to 'hope' people won't be worse off under Universal Credit. We need him to know for sure.
More than 35,000 families have turned to “baby banks” – charities that work in the same way as food banks – to feed and clothe their children. Users include “families affected by the Universal Credit fiasco”.
More than 14 million people in the UK are living in poverty, including seven million in “persistent” poverty that has lasted more than four years. A further 2.5 million are in danger of falling below the poverty line.
Children are now routinely rooting through bins in search of clothes and supplies for their families, while Universal Credit has left some people suicidal and forced others into sex work.
A report by Citizens Advice has shown that Universal Credit renders disabled people £300 a month worse-off. That’s a loss of £3,600 per year.
Even people with terminal cancer are being forced to wait five weeks for their first Universal Credit payment, putting them at risk of hardship, stress and anxiety at a time in their lives when they should be making peace with themselves.
But the Department for Work and Pensions, which runs the system, has developed a “culture of denial” over its failings, it has been claimed. Needless to say, the DWP has denied the allegation.
You can read much more about the Universal Credit disaster in this article by Another Angry Voice.
Labour has made 10 “emergency demands” for measures Mr Hammond should include in his Budget, if he is serious about helping people who have been locked into the nightmare of a Universal Credit claim. I reproduce them in full below:
1. Cut the five-week wait
People having to wait five weeks for their entire payment is unprecedented in social security. For comparison, the target wait for Jobseekers Allowance is 10-14 working days
The excessive waiting period is causing severe poverty, food bank use, rent arrears and even homelessness
The Conservatives assume that people can survive off savings in the meantime. In fact, families in the UK are more likely to be in debt than have savings and savings are at their lowest level since 1963[1]
Low-income families are less likely than average to be able to cope with gaps in their finances: researchers at Policy in Practice have found eight in 10 households due to receive UC have savings below £100[2]
Policy in Practice has estimated it would require one-off spending of £2.7bn spread over four years to get the waiting period down to 21 days[3]
2. Remove the insistence on making and managing a claim online
The government insists that claimants must make a Universal Credit claim online. This is a problem for those who do not have internet access or lack computer skills
According to the Department for Work and Pensions, nearly half of claimants need help to make a new claim online.[4] One in three (29%) claims to Universal Credit are closed and not paid within the complicated system that people find hard to navigate.[5]
The government claims that Universal Support can help people use a computer for their claim. In reality, the funding doesn’t even cover the costs of proving support[6]
According to the National Audit Office, providers themselves say Universal Support doesn’t meet people’s needs and they have insufficient time to assist people[7]
There have been 91 JobCentre closures in England alone and, across the UK, 1-in-6 JobCentres have closed
The government should staff JobCentres sufficiently and provide more funding for support
People should be able to choose to make a written claim
3. End counter-productive sanctions (e.g. requiring people to demonstrate in an online journal that they are spending 35 hours a week looking for work)
There is no evidence that sanctions are effective at helping people into sustainable employment[8]
A major study led by the University of York found that sanctions are pushing people into destitution, survival crime and ill health[9]
Further, benefit fraud accounts for just 1.2% of total benefits payments[10]
In 2016, the Department for Work and Pensions estimated it spends more than £240m a year administering the sanctions regime, the majority of which is estimated to be spent on administering conditions (around £200m)[11]
The NAO estimates DWP withheld £132m from claimants due to sanctions in 2015, and paid them £35m in hardship payments. The overall impact of sanctions on wider public spending, such as homelessness and ill health, is unknown[12]
4. Protect domestic abuse sufferers and allow families to split their UC payments
Universal Credit makes one payment to a household
It has been estimated that in 80% of cases the payment will be paid to the male partner[13]
This can be problematic and harmful if domestic abuse exists in a relationship and one partner exercises coercive control over their partner
Women’s Aid reports that survivors say that abusers will exploit single household payments. Yet applying for split payments can be dangerous, so many partners will not request a split[14]
The government only allows couples to request split payments in “exceptional” circumstances
Domestic abuse survivors say there is a strong case for splitting UC couple payments more routinely or even by default. The Scottish government has passed legislation that requires split payments by default
The government must remove the rule that split payments can only be made in “exceptional” circumstances. As a minimum, it should not require onerous evidence and it should monitor outcomes in Scotland
5. Protect families from homelessness and give tenants the right to have their housing costs paid directly to their landlord
Universal Credit pays people’s housing costs to the tenant, instead of directly to their landlord
Many tenants prefer this arrangement as it allows them to manage their finances. But for some people this can be problematic.
Vulnerable people, who should be on alternative payment arrangements but are not, are getting into arrears and put at risk of homelessness
Tenants should be able to choose to have their UC housing element paid directly to their landlord without supporting evidence or the need to have been in two-months of rent arrears
6. Reverse cuts to disabled people
Universal Credit abolishes both severe and enhanced disability premiums (the SDP is worth £64.30 a week for a single person and £128.60 a week for a couple, the EDP is worth £16.40 a week for a single person and £23.55 a week for a couple)[15]
Disability groups have warned that the Tories’ cruel cuts to disability benefit in UC are likely to result in them struggling to pay for basic essentials such as food and heating[16]
People in receipt of SDP currently will get Transitional Protection under Managed Migration, however this protection is lost if, for example, couples split up or get together
7. Reverse the cuts to children: reinstate the family element and get rid of the two-child limit
Two-child limit
This measure limits the child element of Child Tax Credit and Universal Credit to 2 children or children born on or after 6 April 2017. It also limits the child element in Universal Credit to the first 2 children for new claims after this date
The two-child limit is an attack on low-income families, is morally wrong and risks pushing children into poverty.
It cannot be right that the Government is making children a target for austerity, treating one child as if they matter less than another
The Government estimated that this would save £1.2bn in 2019/20[17]
Family element
This measure removes the family element of Child Tax Credit and the Universal Credit equivalent, for first children born on or after 6 April 2017
It also removes the family premium in housing benefit, which is an income allowance for families with children.
The Government estimated that this would save£540m in 2019/20[18]
8. Support people on fluctuating incomes
The way that someone’s Universal Credit is calculated fails to take account properly of fluctuating incomes that are a basic fact of life for many people on low income who are self-employed or in insecure work such as zero-hour contracts
As a result, self-employed people can find that their entitlement to Universal Credit in the course of a year is lower than someone who is employed even though both have the same annual income
Self-employed people are assessed monthly for Universal Credit like everyone else, but reporting earnings every month can be onerous for the self-employed as they have to provide information on receipts, minus income tax, National Insurance, permitted expenses and pension contributions qualifying for tax relief
This flaw also affects people who are employed so that even someone who is just paid twice in a month because their pay day falls near the end of the month can lose their Universal Credit for that month
Self-employed people should be allowed to report their income annually, not monthly. The government must ensure that Universal Credit takes proper account of fluctuating incomes.
9. Restore work allowances
The work allowance is the amount that claimants can earn before their Universal Credit payment is affected
Cuts to work allowances have made working families on universal credit worse off
The cuts damage financial work incentives, directly contradicting the policy’s stated agenda of making work pay
According to Child Poverty Action Group, work allowance cuts have the greatest impact in cash terms on households in the second and third deciles (the ‘just about managing’ group)[19]
Cuts to work allowances have undermined gains from increases in the National Living Wage, personal tax allowances and help for childcare
The cut announced in the Sumer Budget 2015 is set to save £2.9bn in 2019/20[20]
10. End the freeze on social security
The government froze working-age benefits for four years from 2016
These are: Child Benefit, Universal Credit, (non-disability) Tax Credits, Housing Benefit limits, Jobseeker’s Allowance, Income Support and Employment and Support Allowance (except the Support group Component)
It means that no matter what the rate of inflation is, benefits were not increased in April 2016, 2017 and 2018, nor will they be in 2019
Inflation has actually been higher than expected – CPI reached 3% in September 2017 – because of the Brexit vote and consequent price increases
According to the Resolution Foundation, the real cut to many benefits from the four-year freeze is over 6%. Its figures show that the freeze will have reduced working-age household incomes by almost £5 billion in 2019-20[21]
The Resolution Foundation calculates that £1.6 billion will be saved from the freeze from April 2019[22]
Universal Credit is not the only reason people have to be angry about Mr Hammond’s budget. Consider Mr McDonnell’s comments about other burning issues, also to Sophy Ridge:
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.
