The Lords will consider a ‘fatal motion’ on a Tory plan to undemocratically restrict your right to protest – TOMORROW (Tuesday, June 13).
There is a petition for Labour Lords to back this motion, rather than a “motion of regret” that will let the Tory change happen – and I urge you to sign it if you haven’t already.
You can sign the petition here demanding @LabourLordsUK back the fatal motion tabled by @GreenJennyJones to stop Sunak’s Government restricting our right to protest using an unprecedented abuse of power https://t.co/yR5WUOPAZD
The Tories aren’t happy with all the power they’ve given the police to stamp on your right to protest.
They reckon the interpretation of ‘serious disruption’ of other people’s day-to-day activities, as described in the Public Order Act, should be changed to mean ‘anything more than minor’.
But instead of seeking a democratic vote on this potentially wide-ranging and serious change, Rishi Sunak’s gang of bandits want to impose it by ‘Ministerial decree’ – basically, by the Home Secretary saying she’s changing it unilaterally – like a dictator.
It’s the first time ever that a government has used what’s known as secondary legislation to overturn the democratic will of Parliament.
Green Party Baroness Jenny Jones isn’t having it. She has tabled a ‘fatal motion’ against it.
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn ‘special attention’ to the change. The committee’s report stated: “As well as not justifying the substance of the provisions, the Home Office has not provided any reasons for bringing the measures back in the form of secondary legislation, which is subject to less scrutiny, so soon after they were rejected in primary legislation... We believe this raises possible constitutional issues that the House may wish to consider.”
there is no point in having Parliament if a Minister can just ignore the outcome of debates and votes by imposing draconian laws on the public.
If this motion fails, we might as well give up and accept that the UK has finally become a right-wing dictatorship.
Rishi Sunak: the nervous look on his face here has come to be symbolic of his style of government – weak.
Here’s another mess Boris Johnson has created for the Conservatives.
It has taken nine months for current prime minister Rishi Sunak to approve Johnso’s resignation honours list – presumably because some of the name on it are controversial.
And it is precisely because of the controversial choices among the 38 honours and seven peerages that have been approved, that Sunak has been accused of weakness.
He should have vetoed honours that went to people implicated in scandals and controversies during Johnson’s time, Sunak’s critics say.
And they question why some on the list are being given any honours at all.
Today (June 12, 2023), Sunak has bitten back, claiming that he actually did veto eight peerages that Johnson wanted to bestow. This may account for why Alok Sharma, Nadine Dorries and Nigel Adams were not on the list (and why the latter two have now resigned as MPs).
According to the BBC,
The House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC) has confirmed it rejected eight of the former prime minister’s nominations.
Mr Sunak said Mr Johnson asked him to overrule them, or “make promises to people”.
But he said he refused, adding it was “something I wasn’t prepared to do”.
“I wasn’t prepared to do that, I didn’t think that was right. And if people don’t like that, then tough,” he told a tech conference in London.
Well… it seems clear that Sunak was trying to appear tough. In fact the peerages were vetoed by the House of Lords organisation that checks the appropriateness of such appointments.
And when this happens…
Does anyone know why Boris Johnson made his former parliamentary assistant Charlotte Owen, 29, a life peer? pic.twitter.com/fzIa5TLZ0p
Martin Reynolds, Mr Johnson’s former principal private secretary, was awarded the Order of Bath.
In May 2020, Mr Reynolds sent an invite to a “bring your own booze” party to Downing Street staff when the nation was under lockdown.
… people may be justified in thinking that Johnson has abused the honours system, along with all the other systems of Parliament he managed to influence during his too-long period in office.
And it calls into question Sunak’s claims about asserting himself.
If it’s “tough” that eight peerages were disallowed, why did Sunak roll over and let these other honours through?
Baroness Jenny Jones: she knows her rights – and she knows you’ll have less of them if her ‘fatal motion’ fails.
The Tories aren’t happy with all the power they’ve given the police to stamp on your right to protest.
They reckon the interpretation of ‘serious disruption’ of other people’s day-to-day activities, as described in the Public Order Act, should be changed to mean ‘anything more than minor’.
But instead of seeking a democratic vote on this potentially wide-ranging and serious change, Rishi Sunak’s gang of bandits want to impose it by ‘Ministerial decree’ – basically, by the Home Secretary saying she’s changing it unilaterally – like a dictator.
It’s the first time ever that a government has used what’s known as secondary legislation to overturn the democratic will of Parliament.
Green Party Baroness Jenny Jones isn’t having it. She has tabled a ‘fatal motion’ against it.
Mark the date – 13th June.
This fatal motion MUST pass to prevent the government overriding parliamentary sovereignty.
Here’s Peter Stefanovic to explain the gravity of the situation in more detail:
GB news won’t be reporting this make or break moment for parliamentary democracy but we will. We may not have their millionaire backers but are doing our best to get the facts to the country. If you are with us RT & follow. Let’s do this TOGETHER pic.twitter.com/L7dgJKp54M
— Peter Stefanovic (@PeterStefanovi2) May 30, 2023
See also Damo’s YouTube clip on the same subject:
Let’s highlight a couple of points:
The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn ‘special attention’ to the change. The committee’s report stated: “As well as not justifying the substance of the provisions, the Home Office has not provided any reasons for bringing the measures back in the form of secondary legislation, which is subject to less scrutiny, so soon after they were rejected in primary legislation... We believe this raises possible constitutional issues that the House may wish to consider.”
Damo also mentioned the response from Keir Starmer’s Labour, which was whipped to abstain on the original legislation. It has tabled a ‘motion of regret’ – that won’t actually have any effect at all on what Suella Braverman wants to do.
Trade union – and indeed any other – backers should reconsider funding that party from this moment forward.
Baroness Jones has this to say:
The #PublicOrderAct has passed, but something the Lords rejected, as too extreme, has been brought back by the Tory Govt in a less visible way. It's sneaky. It's cheating. No Govt has ever attempted it before. We must stop them. https://t.co/gbLYvZZjWd
The last time the Lords passed a ‘fatal motion’ was 2015 – and it provoked a small constitutional crisis.
But – while you’re contacting your MP and the peer of your choice to demand support for this one, remember there is no point in having Parliament if a Minister can just ignore the outcome of debates and votes by imposing draconian laws on the public.
If this motion fails, we might as well give up and accept that the UK has finally become a right-wing dictatorship.
Robert Jenrick: while he was presenting press conferences about Covid-19, he has also been mired in an apparent corruption scandal.
The evidence is mounting against planning minister Robert Jenrick in the scandal over the Westferry development – and interest in the controversy has revealed further potential corruption.
It seems Robert Jenrick was induced to overturn the refusal of the Westferry planning application after property developer Richard Desmond showed him a promotional video for the £1bn development. Here’s The Guardian:
“What I did was I showed him the video,” Desmond told the Sunday Times, adding that Jenrick had watched it for “three or four minutes”, and adding: “It’s quite long, so he got the gist.”
Jenrick subsequently overturned a decision by a local council and the government’s planning inspectorate in order to approve a 500-apartment, 44-storey development at Westferry Printworks, a former printing plan in east London.
Viewing the video would appear to constitute lobbying by Desmond, potentially giving rise to a conflict of interest.
Labour will use the opportunity of a three-hour opposition day debate on Wednesday to discuss the controversy.
A Tory former planning minister is reportedly under investigation for failing to declare an interest in a hotel development in his constituency.
Sir Bob Neill wrote a letter to his local council in December 2018, urging them to approve the redevelopment of The Royal Bell – a neglected hotel in his Bromley Constituency.
But he failed to mention in his letter that he was on the payroll of the Substantia Group – the firm handling the planning application for the hotel.
Sir Bob has been paid £50,000 by the firm for “strategic consultancy advice” since 2016, according to the register of members’ interests.
But his links to the firm were not explicitly outlined in the letter.
Shadow Housing Minister Mike Amesbury said: “It beggars belief that a former planning minister would not be aware of the obvious conflict of interest in this case.”
And the Telegraph today reported Sir Bob had intervened in another planning application being handled by the same firm – again without mentioning his paid position.
MPs voted in 2018 for investigations by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to remain secret. Some might suggest that this was an offence against justice, which must be seen to be done.
But it has been reported the Commissioner has launched an investigation into Sir Bob’s involvement in the project after receiving a complaint.
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!
At first I thought this was a pointless effort because MPs simply won’t vote to annul Article 50.
But then it occurred to me that Conservative “rebels”, who disagree with Theresa May’s “Chequers” plan, might find it more palatable, despite what Brexiter voters may think of them.
So, I don’t know; what do you think?
[polldaddy poll=10114621]
Anti-Brexit campaigners have been given permission to take their case to Europe’s highest court as they seek a ruling on whether it can be halted.
The cross-party group of politicians argue that Article 50 can be revoked if MPs vote to do so.
The Court of Session in Edinburgh had previously rejected their bid to have the case referred to European judges.
But they have now won an appeal, and the European Court of Justice will be asked to give a definitive ruling.
The panel of appeal judges at the Court of Session said the “urgency of the issue” – with the UK due to leave the EU on 29 March – meant its request to the European Court was being done under expedited procedure.
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 plan was detailed by Andrea Leadsom, the Conservatives’ leader of the Commons [Image: PA].
What do you do if you’re a Tory MP whose party has flung away its Parliamentary majority in a vanity election? Hold another poll, to try to get your majority back?
NO! You try to nullify the will of the people by corruptly stuffing Parliamentary committees with your fellow Tories!
That is what Andrea Leadsom is proposing.
She – together with her boss, Theresa May – knows that the other parties in Parliament would never tolerate the huge injustices that they intend to perpetrate on working people and the poor, while continuing to grab power and wealth for people who don’t need it (their own supporters and donors – but only those who are very rich).
So they intend to force Parliament to accept more Conservative MPs on Parliamentary committees than the election result justifies.
Presumably they are hoping they can rely on their far-right Northern Irish allies the DUP to force the vote through, even though it is an affront to democracy and a slap in the face for every single voter in the UK.
Like it or not, the people have spoken and we have a hung Parliament.
In that situation, the party governing by minority rule must accept that, if it wants to get any legislation passed, it must persuade the other parties to support it.
The resulting laws would tend to be more balanced than in Parliaments with outright majorities for any party.
By trying to bypass that situation, the Tories are saying they wish to impose dictatorship on the people of the UK.
They’re saying our vote didn’t matter; they will grab power for themselves and use it to enrich themselves. The rest of us can go to Hell.
And it seems we must rely on the DUP to save us from this fate.
If the Tories get their way, I think we should have a general strike.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have accused ministers of seeking to subvert democracy by proposing a rule change that would guarantee the government a majority on crucial committees that scrutinise legislation.
Jeremy Corbyn said the proposal, published on Friday and to be voted on next week, amounted to an “unprecedented power grab” by the government.
The plan, detailed in a motion by Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, seeks to change the rules on membership of public bill committees, often referred to by their former name, standing committees.
As part of the progress of a bill through the Commons, a committee is set up to scrutinise it in detail. This is often the period when the most amendments are made and potential problems addressed.
The party makeup of such committees is based on the composition of the Commons, meaning that since the election in June, when Theresa May lost her majority, newly formed committees would seek a political balance.
However, Leadsom’s motion, to be considered on Tuesday, says that while parity should be sought on other types of committee, this would not happen on public bill committees.
The rules should be interpreted, it reads, such that “where a committee has an odd number of members the government shall have a majority, and where a committee has an even number of members the number of government and opposition members shall be equal; but this instruction shall not apply to the nomination of any public bill committee”.
Corbyn tweeted: “An unprecedented attempt to rig parliament and grab power by a Conservative government with no majority and no mandate.”
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:
Extremists: Theresa May (left) and Michael Gove. [Image: BBC.]
The alleged rift between Michael Gove and Theresa May over claims that Muslim extremists have taken over 25 Birmingham schools is bizarre.
These are government ministers who most closely share the extremist attitudes that the ‘Trojan Horse’ school governors are said to have; their methods are the same, even if their aims are different.
Consider this. The claims made about the Birmingham school are that:
A ‘Trojan Horse’ (stealth) takeover of schools in Birmingham, by Islamic extremists, has taken place.
Governors were installed who undermined and then replaced school leaders with staff who would be more sympathetic to their agenda.
Boys and girls have been separated.
Assemblies put forward extremist Islamic views.
Other religions are downgraded.
Now let’s look at Theresa May, who:
Took part in a backdoor (stealth) takeover of the UK government after the Conservative Party failed to win a majority in the 2010 general election.
Wants to repeal the Human Rights Act as it protects UK citizens against some of her favourite policies:
The duty to refrain from unlawful killing, investigate suspicious deaths and prevent foreseeable loss of life runs against the results of the Coalition’s changes to incapacity/disability benefit assessment which led to the unnecessary deaths of 73 people per week between January and November 2011.
The prohibition of slavery, servitude and forced labour is contrary to the government’s mandatory work activity schemes.
The right to a fair trial contradicts the changes the government has been making to Legal Aid.
The right to respect for one’s privacy, family life, home and correspondence runs against the “snooper’s charter” that Mrs May wished to impose.
And so on. The Tories would dearly love to remove your rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, as that means they could outlaw this blog and abolish trade unions.
Authorised a plan to use a fleet of advertising vans telling illegal immigrants to “go home”, which split the London communities in which they were used and led to false accusations against British citizens.
The phrase “go home” on the vans attracted criticism from the Advertising Standards Authority as it was a reminder of an extremist racist slogan.
And Michael Gove:
Took part in the backdoor (stealth) takeover of the UK government.
Has imposed an army of independent advisors on his education department, to overrule the opinions of expert civil servants, grind down their morale and force them out of their jobs.
Planned to give a Bible to every state school in the country, clearly implying an intention to assert the supremacy of Christianity over every other religion practised in the UK, with others downgraded.
Vox Political needs your help! This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions. Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going. You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first, Strong Words and Hard Times is still available in either print or eBook format here:
‘U’ for effort: Why should parents vote ‘Labour’ if Tristram Hunt won’t repair the disastrous harm that Michael Gove has been inflicting on our school system – and our children’s future?
According to shadow education secretary Tristram Hunt, Labour will not repeal Michael Gove’s major – useless – changes to the British school system if it wins the next election. In that case: Why vote Labour?
Gove has proved to be the stupidest education secretary of recent history. His divisive ‘Free Schools’ vanity project is a disaster that has increased costs for children who must get their education miles away when there is a school next door to them, while standards of teaching have plummetted at the new establishments – with unqualified teachers and calamitous Ofsted inspection reports.
Not only has he created appalling imbalances in the school system, but Gove has also de-stabilised his own department, bringing in unqualified ‘advisors’ to overrule seasoned civil servants on major decisions. The result has been wide-scale demoralisation, with many experts leaving the profession, their experience lost forever.
The agenda, as far as it is possible to see one, seems to be to maim the state education system so badly that it will be unable to compete with privately-run schools on any level, meaning the sons and daughters of the rich will be able to beat state school pupils to the choicest jobs.
Now, Tristram Hunt – whose political beliefs appear to be so amorphous that he could belong to any one of the major political parties – says he won’t sort out any of the problems Gove has been creating. He says that would be “tinkering”.
Many of Gove’s reforms “built on” Labour ideas, he told the BBC.
Those were bad ideas, Tristram. For a man who is supposed to be well-educated, you don’t seem to notice much, do you?
We currently have a system stuffed with so many kinds of school it must be impossible for parents to work out what’s best for their pupils, even if they have a decent choice available to them.
In practice, it seems, there is little difference between them as none seem capable of providing the education that people need. As a writer, I have seen the quality of written English nosedive over the past 30 years. Tristram Hunt will do nothing to change that. So why vote Labour?
Instead of having Free Schools, academies, grammar schools or whatever silly name people want to give them, why can’t we just have schools?
Hunt does put forward some useful ideas in his BBC interview but – having seen what he thinks of the Gove policies – it is hard to have faith that he can carry them out adequately.
He says the Free Schools policy has been wasteful in adding new places where there is already a surplus – and any new schools should be built where there is a shortage.
Also, Labour would put resources into technical and vocational education in a change from previous policy – which attempted to funnel half of school leavers into university, whether they deserved the extra education or not.
These are practical ideas, but if the system is not based on solid principles, they will not make any difference at all.
Mr Hunt is himself an educated man and must be made to see that his policies are ridiculous. He should receive a ‘U’ for effort and be made to take his exams again.
And, while Ed Miliband is putting people like this on his front bench, the question remains: Why vote Labour?
Vox Political is an independent political blog.
We don’t receive any funding other than contributions from readers. Vox Political cannot continue without YOUR help. You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book, Strong Words and Hard Times in either print or eBook format here:
Corporate trade a-greed-ment: Notice that this image of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has mighty corporations straddling the Atlantic while the ‘little’ people – the populations they are treading on – are nowhere to be seen. [Picture: FT]
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is bitter pill for anyone to swallow, if they have spent any time defending Britain’s membership of the European Union.
The partnership between the EU and the United States would open America to the kind of free trade deals that have been going on in Europe ever since the original Economic Community was formed – but there is a problem.
It isn’t a problem for businesses; they are in line to get a deal better than anything ever experienced in the world of trade. Citizens and national governments, on the other hand – you, me, and the people who represent us – will be railroaded.
This is because the agreement includes a device called ‘investor-state dispute settlement’, which allows corporate entities to sue governments, overruling domestic courts and the will of Parliaments.
In other words, this could be the biggest threat to democracy since World War II.
In the UK, it could be used by shale mining companies to ensure that the government could not keep them out of protected areas, by banks fighting financial regulation, and by cigarette companies fighting the imposition of plain packaging for cigarettes. How do we know? Because these things are already happening elsewhere in the world.
If a product had been banned by a country’s regulators, the manufacturer will be able to sue them, forcing that state to pay compensation or let the product in – even if this undermines health and safety laws in that country.
It seems that domestic courts are deemed likely to be biased or lack independence, but nobody has explained why they think the secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers will be impartial. Common sense says they’ll rule for the profit, every time.
Now ask yourself a question: Have you ever heard about this?
Chances are that you haven’t – unless you have read articles by George Monbiot (one in The Guardian this week prompted this piece) or have insider knowledge.
The European Commission has done its utmost to keep the issue from becoming public knowledge. Negotiations on the trade and investment partnership have involved 119 behind-closed-doors meetings with corporations and their lobbyists (please note that last point, all you supporters of the government’s so-called Transparency of Lobbying Bill), and just eight with civil society groups. Now that concerned citizens have started to publicise the facts, the Commission has apparently worked out a way to calm us down with a “dedicated communications operation” to “manage stakeholders, social media and transparency” by claiming that the deal is about “delivering growth and jobs” and will not “undermine regulation and existing levels of protection in areas like health, safety and the environment” – meaning it will do precisely the opposite.
Your Coalition government appears to be all for it. Kenneth Clarke reckons it is “Scrooge-like” to inflate concerns about investor protection and ignore the potential economic gains – but if the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement is any yardstick, exports will drop and thousands of jobs will be lost.
Green MP Caroline Lucas has published an early day motion on the issue – signed by a total of seven fellow Parliamentarians so far.
Labour MEPs are doing their best to cut the ‘investor-state dispute settlement’ out of the agreement, but they are fighting a lonely battle against the massed forces of greed.
So now ask yourself a second question: Why is the European Commission lying to Britain when we are already halfway out of the door?
Britain is not happy with the European Union or its place within that organisation. People think too much of their national sovereignty – their country’s freedom to do what it wants – is being stripped away by faceless bureaucrats who do not have the best interests of the population at heart. Now the European Commission is trying to foist this upon us.
For Eurosceptics in Parliament – of all political hues – this is a gift. For those of us who accept that we are better off in Europe – as it is currently constituted and without the new trade agreement – it is a poisoned pill.
Are we being pushed into a position where we have to choose between two evils that could have been avoided, if only our leaders had had an ounce of political will and an inch of backbone?
Vox Political needs your help! This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions. Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going. You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy Vox Political books!
The second – Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first, Strong Words and Hard Times is still available in either print or eBook format here:
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.
![Extremists: Theresa May (left) and Michael Gove. [Image: BBC.]](https://i2.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/140605extremism.jpg)
![Corporate trade a-greed-ment: Notice that this image of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has mighty corporations straddling the Atlantic while the 'little' people - the populations they are treading on - are nowhere to be seen. [Picture: FT]](https://i1.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/131204useutrade.jpg)