Tag Archives: men

If you don’t know why Laurence Fox ranted about Ava Santina you need to see this

Andrew Neil, Ava Santina and Laurence Fox: if you want to know why Mr Neil is in this image, read on.

I wasn’t going to comment about this until it turned out there was a genuine public-interest side to it.

You may be aware that has-been actor and failed politician Laurence Fox has been suspended by right-wing channel GB News over comments he made about Politics Joe journalist Ava Santina (also known as Ava Evans).

What’s strange to me, as a reporter myself, is the media coyness about what she said to trigger his rant.

It was prompted by a discussion about comments she made about men’s mental health during an appearance on BBC Politics Live, discussing whether there should be a minister for men.

Here’s the relevant segment:

For clarity, Ms Santina said: “I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women.”

Afterwards, she admitted: “I was a little rash on my anti-minister for men comments which I do regret and am actually very interested in a brief for a minister on young men’s mental health.”

I’m not convinced by this retraction. If she said it, she meant it. This afterthought suggests that she has realised she misjudged the national mood and wants to ingratiate herself with the public again.

Still, knowing the above, take a look at Fox’s outburst. I’ll use the link from Ms Santina’s ‘X’ account:

What does a journalist’s physical attractiveness have to do with whether men’s mental ill-health might justify them having their own dedicated Cabinet minister?

It is entirely inappropriate to denigrate another’s personal characteristics during a discussion of such a topic, just because their politics and yours don’t correspond.

To make a similar – and appropriate – comparison, we might refer to the original chairman of GB News itself, who left the BBC to set up the channel that provided a platform for this rant, and who therefore seems more likely to be up Mr Fox’s political alley.

Would Laurence Fox shag Andrew Neil?


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

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

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

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

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

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

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

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

Did generalising Jess realise she was testing Labour’s anti-sexism policy by being sexist herself?

Want to know why this is an image of Jeremy Corbyn and not Jess Phillips? It’s because he’s one of the people she attacked in her misandrist rant, and because the Labour Party under his leadership will have to decide what to do about the sexism she represents.

We’re going to have to devise a new word to describe people like Jess Phillips; the ones we have aren’t adequate.

The word This Writer used to describe her, last year, certainly comes nowhere near summing up the sexist – misandrist, in fact – stubborn illogic of her pronouncements.

I’ll be interested to see if the Labour Party responds to her claim that women are “entirely missing” from the party’s industrial strategy, but I don’t see that as any reason to denounce every single man who has left-wing leanings.

Nor do I see that she has much of a point in using some leftie Graun hack (and isn’t that a contradiction in terms these days? A leftie working for the Guardian?) and his (presumably his and not her) comments about Harriet Harman to support her.

Saying Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way” can’t be used to say this person was suggesting he was better for women than Harriet Harman. That’s a non sequitur – the one statement does not follow on from the other.

And using sarcasm to attack Jeremy Corbyn is meaningless. What’s his record, and does it corroborate what Ms Phillips said? I doubt it (see tweet below).

The Times report that she said left-wing men pay lip-service to equality until it threatens their position, and never consider that women have changed the world, suggests that she thinks she knows what every left-wing man thinks. She doesn’t. She can’t.

If she said it, she’s a sexist and really doesn’t belong in the Labour Party. There is no room for that kind of prejudice in a modern political organisation.

Perhaps we should give her a new nickname: ‘Generalising Jess’. Look at these words, quoted from her appearance at the Edinburgh Festival: “Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

Men said.” Not some men. Not these men. Men.

Sexist. Misandrist.

Ignorant, too.

And any men who try to defend our gender against her tirade will be told they “want it to puff out their own chests”.

That is really annoying.

But then, This Writer is a left-wing man so you had all better disregard anything I have to say on the subject. Right, Jess?

Perhaps you would prefer to pay attention to women instead? Here are just some of them:

https://twitter.com/racybearhold/status/897484036137988100

https://twitter.com/earthygirl01/status/897131551212929024

https://twitter.com/dscale/status/897462357659701249

https://twitter.com/openjools/status/897457040678944768

I’m not sure if this person is female or not but they make an important point:

Perhaps my favourite tweet on this subject comes from – would you believe it? – Jess Phillips. It was posted on August 14:

And in fact, she was right. Will she be suspended and disciplined for her blatant sexism? If not, then the Labour Party clearly doesn’t have zero tolerance for sexism.

Jess Phillips has criticised the behaviour of left-wing men as the “absolute worst”.

The Birmingham Yardley MP spoke out at the Edinburgh International Book Festival and said women were “entirely missing” from Labour’s industrial strategy.

The backbencher also said that a leading left-wing journalist from The Guardian, who she would not name, had “lectured” her saying that ex-deputy leader Harriet Harman was “not that great for women” despite her role as a pioneer for all-women shortlists in party selections, as well as in equality legislation.

This figure had apparently added that Jeremy Corbyn had “always voted the right way”.

“So yeah, Jeremy Corbyn better for women than Harriet Harman, obviously. I remember him in all those meetings, there with his banners for [equality],” Phillips added.

Phillips told the festival that while left-wing men wanted to see equality “they don’t think of you on the same level”, The Times reported.

“When they close their eyes at night and think of amazing people who have changed the world, it’s always some white dude that pops into their head,” she explained.

Phillips was asked whether the “out and out sexists of the right” were worse than those “well-meaning” on the left, replying: “They [the left-wing men] are the worst, the actual worst. Men said they supported better female representation but, when it came to losing their own jobs, they would say, ‘Oh, you mean me? But I am so clever. I’ve got so much to offer the world’. They are literally the worst.”

She added later that this she feels “so cross about this”.

“Men who want to own your equality and the things you fought for are absolutely fine if they want you to own it as well but when they want it to puff out their own chests, that is really, really, really annoying,” she continued.

She was critical of Labour policy, saying that women are “entirely missing” from the proposed industrial strategy, as it is all about “men with shovels”.

Source: Jess Phillips: Men on the left are the “absolute worst” | LabourList


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!

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

You will not benefit from Britain leaving Europe

Run, David, run: UK Crime - sorry, Prime - Minister David Cameron has found a reason to be in America while his party tears itself apart over Europe. Nice one, David! We all thought the Tories were turning their Lib Dem Coalition partners blue but in fact, they've turned you yellow!

Run, David, run: UK Crime – sorry, Prime – Minister David Cameron has found a reason to be in America while his party tears itself apart over Europe. Nice one, David! We all thought the Tories were turning their Lib Dem Coalition partners blue but in fact, they’ve turned you yellow!

Look at all this political theatre over Europe. It’s for the entertainment of you, the voter – even though you won’t actually gain a thing from staying in or leaving the Brussels-based bureaucracy.

The Conservative Party is going into meltdown about it, certainly – but that’s because individual Tory MPs fear losing votes to UKIP at the next election, making it possible for their party to lose the only thing that matters to them: Power.

UKIP wants out because it is composed – or was, back when it began – of businesspeople who believe that they are being over-regulated by the European Union. They want the freedom to sell inferior products to you, without being penalised for it.

The Tory amendment to the Queen’s speech is nothing but a performance, put on for the benefit of the plebs. It’s a pantomime, with the British public urged to shout “Look out behind you!” at David Cameron’s Widow Twanky, whenever we see the Eurosceptics creeping up out of the shadows.

Note that, in this scenario, Education dunce Michael Gove and damp squib Defence sec Philip Hammond play the ugly sisters; they say they want out of Europe, but they won’t actually do anything about it. Straw men.

The amendment, which condemns the Queen’s speech for failing to include a bill preparing the way for a referendum on whether we stay in the EU, is not only pointless but dangerous. As mentioned previously on this blog, amendments to the Queen’s speech are traditionally taken as confidence votes. The fact that this is a Conservative Party amendment suggests that the government no longer has confidence in itself. If the amendment succeeds, the Prime Minister should resign and the government should fall.

Perhaps I am mistaken. This is not pantomime – it’s farce.

And the amendment is certain to be defeated, according to the pundits, because all the Liberal Democrats, most of Labour and a significant proportion of the Conservatives will vote against it. This means that even the question of confidence in the government can be avoided because nobody will be able to raise it as an issue.

That’s why I said, elsewhere on the internet, that Labour should abstain.

On the Huffington Post site, I wrote: “Labour’s best move is to abstain, let the Tories defeat their own government with the amendment, and then see if Cameron follows Parliamentary convention and resigns. It’s possible he’ll say that a vote on the Queen’s speech is no longer a confidence issue because of his Fixed-Terms Parliaments Act, which defined a ‘no confidence’ vote for the first time, but this may be countered by saying that, if Parliament does not support the planned legislative programme, then it does not support the government or the Prime Minister who leads it.

“If the PM ignores the resignation issue, then we can all say he is running an outlaw government and nothing he does from now on should be considered legal; if he resigns, then the amendment won’t matter because it won’t go forward.

“And let’s face it, if Labour can abstain on the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, there’s no reason not to abstain on this!”

If the amendment succeeds, we can have a proper debate on whether this government is fit for purpose – at a time when people are still coming to terms with the first death directly attributed to the imposition of the Conservative Bedroom Tax, which itself follows the deaths of thousands due to the Conservative-employed Atos firm’s mismanagement of Employment and Support Allowance assessments.

It won’t, and we’ll be denied our chance to have that debate.

But just remember – despite all the swagger and show – you’re being denied the chance to have a proper debate on Europe as well.