Tag Archives: Labour Party

Vox Political boss’s court joy is first step in new battle

Lawyers for the Labour Party have been sent away to think again after entirely failing to understand the allegations against them in a court battle – against me.

That’s right, This Writer has challenged the Labour Party over its decision to expel me from membership on charges relating to anti-Semitism, using a compromised disciplinary procedure that, I am alleging, breaches the terms of the party’s contract with its members.

My contention is that the party breached our contract by failing to follow its own disciplinary rules in investigating a complaint against me, by charging me with breaking a rule that did not exist at the time the complaint was made (let alone when I wrote the articles to which it related), and with two data protection breaches: passing information about me – including false information – to third parties and failing to honour a subject access request.

As I was making a money claim, I had to attach a value to the allegation. So I pointed out that my party membership had been suspended – and I had been denied permission to take part in any party activities – from the moment the disciplinary process against me was activated. As that process had been prejudiced against me, the outcome was wrong and I should not have been expelled. Therefore my party subscriptions for that period should be returned to me.

And I requested a declaration by the court that Labour had been wrong to expel me.

The party’s lawyers had failed to realise that a data protection breach can also constitute a breach of contract and had tried to say the part of my charge relating to them had not been properly made out. The judge disagreed.

To my joy, he explained that he had read the claim against Labour in exactly the way I had intended – and that it was Labour’s mistake to see it otherwise.

I think I’m right in saying we all agreed, though, that the online submission form run by HM Courts and Tribunals Service was not clear in its instructions and had failed to provide me with the information I needed, in order to provide the court – and the defendant – with the necessary information in the form it expected.

Labour had expected a charge, followed by itemised particulars, but the online form had not requested that – it had called for me to write the reasons for my claim, which I did in narrative form.

(I had expected to be contacted again with instructions on how to provide a properly made-out charge sheet, but this had not happened, hence the confusion).

The judge kindly decided that this was not the fault of either myself or the defendant.

But he said it would be unfair to try the case there and then – not only because Labour had not properly grasped the issues but because there was only an hour’s time left to do so, and there was far too much evidence to consider.

So he adjourned the case, to allow me to prepare a charge sheet, with particulars, and for Labour to draft a new response, and possibly to gather evidence and witness statements.

He also pointed out that this case has implications that go far beyond a small money claim.

If the court finds against the Labour Party, it can only harm that organisation’s reputation.

And think what may happen if the court declares that the party wrongly expelled a member charged with offences relating to anti-Semitism!

On hearing this, the party’s advocate asked for the case to be transferred to the next level of civil court proceedings – the ‘fast track’, in which the costs to the parties are much higher. The judge told me I would have to pay £7,000-£10,000 over the course of only a few months.

But he had already offered us the opportunity to change track and we had both turned it down (Labour in the knowledge of what a finding against it would mean), so he ruled against Labour’s request. He said the reputational damage to Labour would arise from a finding against it, not from the remedy.

The judge also expressed surprise that no members of the press were present at the hearing in Bristol Civil Justice Centre yesterday.

Well, I’ll give them ample warning before the next hearing.

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

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

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

MPs split off from the Labour Party. Voters say ‘Good riddance!’

Chuka Umunna: Good riddance.

A group of seven MPs has split off from the Labour Party – to gasps of relief across the United Kingdom.

The reaction is probably not what they wanted.

The group includes Chuka Umunna, Chris Leslie, Gavin Shuker and Angela Smith as expected.

Joining them are Luciana Berger – quitting before her Liverpool Wavertree CLP pushes through the “no confidence” vote that members have been readying? – along with Mike Gapes and Ann Coffey.

The group has released a statement but it seems its website is having teething problems – odd since it has been registered since 2015 – and I can’t really be bothered unless Vox Political readers are genuinely interested. Are you?

It’s much more fun to highlight the public response, which is primarily relief. The flood of comments yesterday (Sunday, February 18) when rumours spread that the split would happen today, speaks for itself. Some thought this was another publicity stunt and they would not go through with it:

Others pointed out the qualities of the expected splitters and the likely tensions between them:

The prevailing mood – especially in the case of Mr Umunna, was clear:

And some posted wish lists of other Labour members they would like to see split off – for a very obvious reason:

Mr Jeffery will be pleased to see Ms Berger and Mr Gapes among the splitters. Mr Gapes is also on Matt Zarb-Cousins’s list:

Speculation on what the “Independent Group” would represent has been overwhelmingly negative towards them:

And the departure will provoke comparisons with the “Gang of Four” who formed the SDP in 1981. That decision led to the formation of the Liberal Democrats, a party that apparently killed itself off as a national political organisation by forming a coalition with the Conservatives between 2010 and 2015. Here’s Martin O’Neill:

As ever, Tony Benn called it correctly – 38 years ago.

Last word goes to Liam Young:

Damn straight – good riddance.

Labour has a chance to change the nation’s thinking on education. What should it do?

Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner should ‘resist announcing new policies at first and talk about what a national education system should be trying to achieve’. [Image: Christopher Furlong/Getty.]

Shadow education secretary Angela Rayner should ‘resist announcing new policies at first and talk about what a national education system should be trying to achieve’. [Image: Christopher Furlong/Getty.]


If the Labour Party is serious about beating the Conservatives, it needs to present a clear – and distinct – alternative.

On Saturday, This Blog published a piece saying politicians should stop over-managing schools and teaching – this would be a good place to start.

Tory education policy is rubbish. It is all about giving the best possible start to the children of those who are already over-privileged – using money belonging to the masses wherever possible.

So you get privately-owned academies and ‘Free Schools’ eating up our money while state-run schools lose out.

Tory education policy calls for learning to be a chore. Michael Gove wanted to force children to learn their facts by rote, rather than by discovery. No thinking required – for a population the privileged want compliant and unquestioning; and a bad reputation for anything associated with education.

Tory education policy calls for teaching to be a nightmare, with restrictions on how it is to be done and then constant monitoring of achievement – so not only are teachers prevented from using the best practices, they are also attacked for failing to get results using the substandard methods available to them.

Labour’s best choice is simple: Remove the restrictions. By all means set targets – to be met or, preferably, exceeded – but then leave teachers to do what they have been trained to do. Stop staring over their shoulder. Take the money out of management and invest it in resources instead.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject: Labour should end academisation and reabsorb those schools – and ‘Free Schools’ – into state-run education. And privately-owned and run schools that claim charitable status should lose it. They are not charities; they’re businesses.

Have I missed anything?

Clearly, Labour must and will play a leading role in the battle over grammar schools but it needs to do more to appear a credible alternative. There is a growing chasm between politicians and the public, in education as elsewhere. What should be a shared national agenda of higher standards for more children has turned into mistrust and friction, no more so than in the relationship between government and teachers. Any sense of shared purpose and joint endeavour has given way to weary suspicion.

Politicians talk of a revolution in our schools but the passion, creativity, excitement and possibility that underpin any revolution have given way to the language of data, targets and threats. I am a fully signed up supporter of targets and data but these are hardly the things that enthuse me – or I suspect many others – about education. Ministers talk about the number of six-year-olds who have passed the phonics test or the number of free schools in the pipeline as though they were ends in themselves. Political discourse seems disconnected from what inspires parents, teachers and children about what they think should happen in our schools.

Labour must respond to this. It has to revisit the purpose of education policy, encouraging debate and consensus about what we value and expect from our schools; it must offer leadership in aligning policy with the view that education should be broad, rich, exciting, demanding, rewarding and fun.

Labour’s education spokeswoman, Angela Rayner, should resist announcing new policies at first and instead talk about what a national education system should be trying to achieve. Let people know Labour still believes that an education without the arts and creativity, sport and literature, is no education at all. Remind people that the party has always understood the barriers that can hold some people back and has a history that shows how they can be overcome. And acknowledge that the relationship between teachers and government is not what it should be and that it will change.

Source: Conservative education policy is in chaos. This is Labour’s chance I Estelle Morris | Education | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Never mind the lifted Labour suspensions – what about everyone who was EXPELLED?

Former Labour Party member Krystyna Koseda out campaigning for Labour with Sadiq Khan (that's her, just to the left of him). She was expelled from Labour in September, on the grounds that she had campaigned for George Galloway.

Former Labour Party member Krystyna Koseda out campaigning for Labour with Sadiq Khan (that’s her, just to the left of him). She was expelled from Labour in September, on the grounds that she had campaigned for George Galloway.

I received a message today from a former Labour Party member who was booted out in the NEC’s summer purge after around six years as an active member. Her question: Where’s the justice for Labour members who have been expelled?

Krystina Koseda was active in Hornchurch and Upminster Labour Party, and spent spring campaigning with Sadiq Khan for him to become Mayor of London (and, as we all know, he succeeded).

But in September, as she prepared to vote for Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership election, she received notification that her membership had been terminated – because she is a personal friend of George Galloway.

161105-kk-with-george-galloway

She wrote: “I am friends with George Galloway; my CLP were aware of this and there was no problem.

“I posted a photo of George on my personal Facebook account. It was George’s mayoral candidate photo but I cropped out the wording and placed it as my cover picture so it just showed his face as I liked the photo.

“My personal Facebook account is non political and all my friends and family are aware George is my friend. I thought nothing of it.

“I received a letter on September 10 to say I was expelled as, in March, I had placed this photo on my Facebook account. This was deemed as campaigning for a rival candidate to Sadiq.”

She told me: “I campaigned all spring for Sadiq as my CLP can vouch – and have in their letters to the NEC. I was even out with Sadiq and am pictured on his Twitter account. I was out campaigning for him with Jeremy when he came to Dagenham in March.”

She was indeed:

161105kk-with-jeremy-corbyn

“I worked so hard for the party this year. I have written and appealed as have my CLP but I have not even received any form of acknowledgement which I feel is very unfair.

“I feel I have been victimised due to my contact with George Galloway which is pretty bad considering he was Labour for 36 years and is an active campaigner for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party.

“I believe Labour hacked into my Facebook account as my privacy settings were on. I have asked where they got their evidence from as they also had my personal photos including those of my deceased parents, but they have failed to respond in any way.

“I feel they have broken data protection rights and I would like someone to highlight my case and the many others that were expelled.”

Ms Koseda’s expulsion letter is copied below.

161105-kk-expulsion-letter1

It states: “It has been brought to our attention with supporting evidence that you have publicly advocated support for George Galloway as a candidate for Respect on social media on 6 March 2016.

“You are therefore ineligible to remain a member of the Labour Party.”

This is why organisations like the Labour Party are supposed to allow accused members a chance to defend themselves against any claims made against them.

How many more innocent members have been thrown out by the former NEC’s (several members were replaced after elections over the summer) kangaroo court?

At a time when a great deal of attention is being focused on members who were suspended but have now been allowed back into the party, these people should not be forgotten.

Ms Koseda stated: “I passed the rigorous selection programme to become a councillor for the London Borough of Havering. I was shortlisted to the final three and was the only woman to get this far. Why did I pass all the selection criteria with them knowing about my friendship with George but then was expelled?”

She’s right; it doesn’t make sense. But then, very little about the Labour ‘purge’ ever did.

Do you want Vox Political to cover a story? Use this form to tell us about it (but NOT to comment on the article above, please):

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Desperate John Mann falsely denounces Jewish doctor’s letter criticising him

John Mann.

John Mann.

Here’s some bad news for John Mann and all his followers – Zionist or not – who have been saying Dr Sam Glatt’s letter attacking him was a forgery: It wasn’t.

The first I heard about the latest false claim was in a comment to This Blog by a person called David Collier, who describes himself on his own website as “100% a Zionist”.

It referred to my previous publication of Dr Glatt’s open letter in which he said John Mann MP’s claims of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party were attention-seeking and politically-motivated.

Mr Collier wrote: “oh dear. It is a forgery. A con. Written it seems by a non Jewish Momentum activist. People on the radical left forging ‘Jewish documents’ that are used to spread the disease of antisemitism.Where have we seen this before?

“One would hope at some point you realise how far down the slippery slope some have fallen.”

Right back at you, Mr Collier!

I did a little checking of my own, with the online sources I used for my article, and am grateful to Tony Greenstein for doing all the work.

It seems that Dr Glatt’s invitation to Mr Mann – “So, please feel free to denounce me, though, I suspect, that you lack the moral and political courage to do so” – has been taken up by the MP, who wrote the following on his Facebook page:

161023-john-mann-forgery-claim

Mr Greenstein was preparing to write a public acceptance that he had made a mistake when “I was made aware of a tweet from a Dr Alan Maddison, a friend of Dr Glatt, who insisted that the letter was genuine.

“After corresponding with Dr Maddison it was clear that there were grounds for questioning whether the the letter was a forgery.   Alan gave me the phone number of Dr Glatt and I spoke to both him and Graham Martin.  It became clear to me very quickly that the original letter was not a forgery.”

He went on to copy both a typed draft of a second letter by Dr Glatt and the letter itself, which is handwritten “in best doctor’s handwriting”. Here it is (I have obscured his address for reasons I hope are obvious):

161023-sam-glatt-second-letter-address-edited

Here’s a typed version which may be easier to read:

“Dear Mr Mann,

“Thank you for your letter.

“Let me say immediately that it was a joint effort with Graham Martin and I acknowledge full responsibility for the contents.

“If the language appears to you to be robust in places I can only reply that the incidents you were involved seriously undermine the character of at least two persons and reduce the chances of victory in the forthcoming general election.

“Graham Martin shared my concern and was a great help in assembling the facts in each case.

“It is physically difficult for me to visit people but I am in full possession of my mental faculties and certainly not a puppet of Graham’s. Although I am 90 years old I must repeat that I am not demented and in no way a puppet of Graham’s.

“There is one word in your letter which is sheer invention on your part. I have  never said or written that I despise you or hate you. I want to make that absolutely clear.

“Your expressed view that Jackie Walker and those who support her should be expelled from the party, I find abhorrent.

“In my opinion this undermining of Corbyn and supporters by weaponising anti-Semitism repeatedly has to stop.  It damages the Labour Party and offends many of its members.

“If a forthright letter from me can stop that, then I will have achieved my object.

“Yours sincerely,

“Sam Glatt”

Mr Greenstein also posts the text of this article by Dr Maddison in support of Dr Glatt, which may also provide illumination for those who wish to be enlightened.

Finally, Mr Greenstein made an excellent point, which may be applied to many Zionist attacks on their opponents: They rely on ad hominem responses, attacking the man in order to undermine the message.

He wrote: “Even John Mann is going to have difficulty alleging that the second letter is a forgery since it is written, in best doctor’s handwriting (!) by Dr Glatt himself.  I just hope that Mr Mann is hungry as he has an awful lot of humble pie to consume.

“John Mann’s allegations of a forgery are classic Zionist tactics.  It’s all an anti-Zionist conspiracy!  Attack the messenger and avoid the message.  Instead of coming to terms with what Dr Glatt was saying, that he was falsely accusing people like Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone of anti-Semitism and also destroying the chances of Labour electorally, Mann did what we have come to expect from him.  He sought to evade the message by attacking the man.”

That applies also to supporters of John Mann like Mr Collier.

Source: Tony Greenstein’s Blog: A Desperate John Mann MP Tries to Undermine 90 year old Jewish Doctor’s Letter by Falsely Alleging It was a Forgery

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Seriously, Simon Danczuk? You think Labour MPs should reject the will of the party?

If this report on politics.co.uk is accurate, it seems some so-called Labour MPs are too big for their boots and need to be kicked out.

The article claims that the Parliamentary Labour Party would try to remove Jeremy Corbyn if he becomes their leader, in a move that would be seen by the grassroots party as arrogant and undemocratic.

Any such rejection of the will of the Party is likely to cause a backlash that will break the MPs behind it – and quite right, if they are willing to split the party in order to service their own bloated egotism.

The article quotes Simon Danczuk as saying Labour MPs would “not put up” with Corbyn’s “crazy left-wing” policies.

If this is correct, perhaps Mr Danczuk didn’t realise which party he was joining when he signed up. He’s in the Labour Party, not with the Conservatives – although, with views like these, he can cross the floor to be with his real friends any time he likes.

“Am I going to put up with some crazy left wing policies that he is putting forward and traipse through the voting lobby to support him? It’s not going to happen is it? So I would give him about twelve months if he does become leader.”

The report states that, under Labour party rules, MPs can force a new leadership election with the support of as few as 47 MPs.

So what?

If Labour’s membership wants a left-wing leader, after the policies of all the right-wing neoliberals failed them twice, then they won’t brook any nonsense from the idiot right-wingers and will simply eject them, rather than the leader they want.

Yet the apparently-deluded Danczuk seems determined to deny the facts of the matter. If his view is widely-held in the PLP, the fact that Labour lost an election that should have been easy pickings suddenly becomes far easier to understand.

With a new poll suggesting Corbyn is set to win the leadership by a landslide, many Labour MPs are now calling for the whole race to be suspended and re-run.

“[The race is] not even tenable. We’re moving towards a position where [re-running] it is necessary,” Danczuk told LBC.

No, we’re not.

We’re moving towards a position where the resignation or removal of anti-democratic MPs like Danczuk is not only necessary but vital.

Source: Labour MPs plotting coup against Jeremy Corbyn ‘on day one’ – Westminster

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Is this the leadership candidate Labour has been awaiting?

Jeremy Corbyn

It seems the Parliamentary Labour Party has finally produced a candidate for the role of Labour leader who doesn’t want to turn Labour into a pseudo-Conservative Party.

Jeremy Corbyn has launched his bid for the leadership, claiming he will offer a clear alternative on the economy – particularly opposing austerity – and to social security.

Here’s the Daily Mirror‘s view:

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn tonight launches a surprise bid for the party leadership.

The left-winger revealed he wanted to give Labour members “a proper choice” when they elected a new chief.

Mr Corbyn believed the four declared candidates were too similar, saying: “They are not offering a clear enough alternative on the economic strategy and austerity, and our attitude to welfare expenditure.

The 66-year-old, who has been MP for Islington North since 1983, needs the backing of 35 MPs for his name to appear on the ballot paper sent to members.

Mr Corbyn, a vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and chairman of the Stop the War coalition, said he offered a “different economic strategy, particularly opposing austerity”.

And he believed a Labour Party he led would be “exciting, outgoing, very rooted in the community and very committed to social change in our country”.

Source: Jeremy Corbyn runs for Labour leader: Veteran MP launches surprise bid declaring other contenders are too right-wing – Mirror Online

POLL: Is Labour’s tuition fee pledge a vote-winner?

150227milibandtuitionfees

Ed Miliband has today unveiled Labour’s pledge to cut tuition fees – on the grounds that they are causing rising debts for graduates and the taxpayer.

It is part of Labour’s overarching pledge for young people: tuition fees reduced to £6,000, an apprenticeship for every school leaver who gets the basic grades, and smaller class sizes for five, six and seven-year olds.

Labour says the Government’s £9,000 tuition fee system is bad for graduates because it loads them up with an average of £44,000 each in debt.

It is also disastrous for the public finances, though – adding £281 billion to the national debt over the next 15 years and with £2 billion in unpayable debts being written off every year by the 2040s.

In response, Labour is planning to introduce reforms of Higher Education earlier than intended so that from September 2016, the next Labour government will have:

  • Reduced the tuition fee cap from £9,000 to £6,000, and
  • Increased student maintenance grants by £400 – benefitting half of all students.

The aim is to:

  • Reduce the national debt by more than £10 billion over the next parliament and £40 billion over the next 15 years.
  • Ensure our universities remain world-leaders with increases in the teaching grant matching pound-by-pound the reduction in fee income.

The reduction in tuition fees will cost £2.7 billion. It is funded by:

  • Reducing tax relief for people on very high incomes paying into pension schemes, so it is set at the same rate as for basic rate taxpayers
  • Capping the total eligible for tax relief in a lifetime at £1 million, and
  • Limiting the annual sum eligible for tax relief at  £30,000, but with greater protection for those in defined benefit schemes.

The increase in maintenance grant is funded by making the system of graduate repayment of loans fairer, with the highest-earning paying slightly more.

Ed Miliband, announcing the planned measures, said: “These are fair choices, fair choices that allow a better future for our young people, a better future for Britain. Britain must not penalise the young, if we’re going to prosper in the future. Our economy and our country can’t afford to waste the talent of any young person.”

He added: “Let me say to Britain’s young people: I made you a promise on tuition fees. I will keep my promise. I don’t simply want to build your faith in Labour, I want to restore your faith that change can be believed. I owe it to you. We owe it to our country.”

And he appealed directly to parents and grandparents to help turn around the prospects for the next generation: “Today is about our responsibilities to the young – and that is the concern of every generation, every parent, every grandparent, every person in our country who cares about the future of our young people.

“Today is the day we say: We will not make the young pay the price of hard times. I am a father of two young boys, and I appeal to every parent and grandparent in Britain, every concerned citizen: Let’s together turn around the prospects of young people; let’s restore the promise of Britain; let’s make ourselves again a country where the next generation does better than the last.”

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls added a few big points, too. He said: “This government’s system is not only bad for students; it’s bad for the public finances too.

“Students are graduating with a bigger burden of debt and our Zero-Based Review has exposed how it is leading to higher national debt too… it’s not sustainable and we need to fix it.

“Unlike the Tories we won’t make promises without saying where the money is coming from – and unlike Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems we will not make promises we cannot keep. We will pay for it in a fair way by limiting the tax breaks which go to the richest in society.”

“Our fully funded plan will cut the debt burden on students – and it will reduce the national debt by £40 billion by 2030.

“It’s the right thing to do – for students, graduates and taxpayers as a whole.”

Ed Miliband’s full speech is available here: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/112217705819/a-better-plan-for-a-better-future-fairer-for

Ed Balls’ full remarks are available here: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/112217840524/ed-balls-mp-labours-shadow-chancellor-remarks

That’s Labour’s plan – but what do you think?

Let’s have a poll:

[polldaddy poll=8687571]

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
debating proposed policies.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Labour’s tuition fees cut

Here it is – Labour’s much-anticipated announcement on its plans for tuition fees:

150227labourtuitionfees

For some of you, this won’t be enough. “Labour introduced tuition fees,” you’ll no doubt be saying. “Labour should be getting rid of them altogether.

Clearly the money for that isn’t known to be available at the moment. This is part of a costed plan for all government services, remember.

It’s a step in the right direction, and it will help.

The Conservatives have nothing like it, nor do the Liberal Democrats (it would be hypocritical). UKIP would scrap tuition fees for people from poorer backgrounds, subjecting them to demeaning means-testing, no doubt. Plaid Cymru seeks the abolition of fees when the public finances allow it; the SNP would continue to pay tuition fees itself. And the Greens would abolish them altogether – but have not said where they will find the money to do so.

This is being trailed as a big move for Labour.

Is it?

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have enjoyed this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
following the major election campaign announcements.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Thornberry resignation – engineered by the right-wing press?

Emily Thornberry and the image she tweeted [Image: BBC].

Emily Thornberry and the image she tweeted [Image: BBC].

Here’s an alternative view on the resignation of Labour’s now-former shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry. You’ll recall that she unfortunately tweeted a shot of a house festooned with St George flags, with a white van parked outside, accompanied by an off-colour comment (or at least, one that could be interpreted in such a way). The right-wing media jumped on it and Ed Miliband asked her to resign.

Vox Political took the view that her resignation was in the best interests of the Labour Party, especially as her background did not suggest a person who was particularly well-disposed towards the working classes.

Then Peter Bowman posted the following on the Vox Political Facebook page, and in the interests of fairness it is getting an airing here as well. See what you think of his interpretation:

“I really don’t know where to begin. I am so exasperated with this nation’s press, radio and TV media. Emily Thornberry’s tweet was an error, and as leader of our party, Ed had no choice to do what he did.

“Or should I put it like this: ‘Damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t’?

“The Sun started this Tory-biased media ball rolling. The Sun could say in a similar vein, as it did some years ago, ‘It’s The Sun Wot did It’. As for these Tory-leaning media being representatives of the conscious beliefs of Britain’s working classes, well, that is too funny to even contemplate.

“I just by chance caught a part of an LBC (London Broadcasting Company) radio interview with Conservative MP Michael Fabricant, who also had a twitter incident in his past. He reminded the host, Julia Hartley-Brewer, that Ms Thornberry came from a council house background – therefore how can she be classed as part of the Islington Set by the Tory Press? Thank you Mr Fabricant.

“Even with this, the host asked callers to ring in if they thought that Labour has become the ‘wine and couscous set’.

“On Sky News there is a strand called ‘Stand up and be counted’, in which two opposing young party activists give their opinions against each other. The UKIP rep, though young, was aggressive, rude and did not allow the young Labour rep time to counter his arguments, which were, to say the least, absurd. He suggested that it was Labour who were the racist party and did not understand working class Britain.

“The Labour rep had to remind him that it was Farage who had an Oxford education and was a stock broker – and his new MPs could not be called working class.

“And the Mail on Sunday (November 23, 2014) maps out where Labour’s leadership resides in North London, on top of which, a top Tory is now saying, ‘Shut the doors, Britain is full of immigrants’.

“If anybody despises working class Britain, it’s the Tory leaning press and media.

“This nation, by the way, is made up of immigrants – going back to The Angles, Saxons and Celts; then the Romans, the French and Vikings.

“Ed and Labour have a fight on their hands with all this propaganda weighed against us. We must not fall for these right-wing Tory and UKIP traps. Ed and Labour have to win in 2015.

“If they don’t it will be a Zero Future for all of Britain’s citizens for the next five years – except the Top five per cent, that is – and that is a very frightening prospect, to be sure.”

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you personal viewpoints on the events of our times!
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook