Rishi Sunak: he has found a way to make sure rich people get twice or three times as much help from his energy bill discount as people who genuinely need the money. How utterly disgusting.
Rich people who have second homes will receive Rishi Sunak’s energy bill discount twice, in a slap in the face for people who are in genuine energy poverty.
Those with three homes will receive £1,200 – of which two-thirds of the money would be better-spent on people in real need.
Obviously, nobody can live in two or three houses at the same time, so there is no reason for these people – 772,000 with two houses, 61,000 with three (including Sunak himself) should receive these huge extra amounts.
The total amount of extra money being paid out to rich people is £357,600,000. They don’t need it; they won’t use it to cover extra heating costs – and vows to donate it to charity miss the point.
There has been criticism of Rishi Sunak’s energy bill discount after it was revealed that second home owners will get it twice – double the £400 received by others.
The Treasury has confirmed that this applies to every individual house – including second homes.
Rishi Sunak has found a way to turn an offer of help to people suffering energy poverty as a result of stupid Tory political policies into a grubby handout of public money to rich private homeowners. What a dirty trick.
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!
Data theft: the Labour Party has admitted that details of members – and FORMER members, that it handed to a ‘third party’ without telling us, have been stolen. This includes information the party should not have had. Should we take the party to court over it?
The Labour Party has informed This Writer – and many others, it seems – that my data may have been hijacked after it was given to a “third party”.
This is very concerning for several reasons:
Firstly: I am no longer a member of the Labour Party and it should not be holding any information of mine, for any reason at all.
Secondly: I have not given permission for any data held by me to be passed on to any third party, and it is illegal for the Labour Party to have done so.
Next: The Labour Party has not passed on details of the identity of this mysterious third party. Why not? Is it embarrassing? Is it potentially incriminating? I want to know, and I reckon thousands of others will want to know as well.
Finally: Why am I hearing about this on November 4, possibly an entire week after the incident took place – and a day after many other victims were informed? Why were we not all informed at once?
According to Labour’s letter to affected people (which the party is apparently asking us not to share, although that part seems to have been cut from mine), party officers were informed of the incident on October 29.
This implies that the data was hijacked on a still earlier date, meaning that we went uninformed that our illegally-held data had been held by wrong-doers for a longer time than Labour suggests and that we have been vulnerable to cyber crime for all of that period without even knowing about it.
The crime itself seems to be a ransomware incident in which data is rendered inaccessible to a user unless it pays the hijacker some form of remuneration. If such payment is refused, the hijacker may go on to use the stolen data to harm the people to whom it belongs. Labour doesn’t mention this in its email.
Nor are we informed of the nature of the data that was stolen. It may include personal information that could be used for identity theft or blackmail, and/or financial information that could result in plain theft from our bank accounts. We don’t know because Labour hasn’t told us.
The email goes on to say that Labour has reported the incident to authorities including the National Crime Agency (NCA), National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). No doubt those organisations are busy doing very little about it (I have experience of the ICO’s dawdling with regard to Labour Party data breaches; it says it has received so many reports about the party that it is swamped).
And we are told that the Labour Party “takes the security of all personal information for which it is responsible very seriously”, which seems plainly untrue, considering the fact that it should not have had any of my personal information at all.
Members – old and current – are up in arms about this:
Labour was in possession of data that should have been deleted years ago.
It is possible to confirm this because tonight they are emailing old email accounts long discarded by members who left years ago.
That on its own poses and exceptionally serious legal question.
Given I resigned from @UKLabour over a year ago via the correct process I'm angry to receive an email from [email protected] telling me my data may have been breached
The fact Labour *still* had my info on file is surely a data breach in itself
i got one too BUT truth is they’ve been leaking my data for YEARS. i complained to ICO who said they had received so many complaints about Labour they were snowed under AND theyn they employ an allegedly ex Mossad spy to oversee Members!!!! these mother f***ers!! https://t.co/6WOKNTs6rR
Just received an email from the Labour Party telling me they have been hacked and that my data has been compromised. I left the Labour Party a year ago. Are they allowed to hang onto my data without my permission?
I’ve just had the email informing me of this data breach but very little detail of what information was leaked or who the third party provider was. #labourdataleak2021@PeterStefanovi2@MidWalesMike
— Aaron M AMUK #SOA #Standup #fairness #equal (@mnet_stratford) November 3, 2021
If the @UKLabour Party need to retain my data- despite expelling me- for future reference, ok, but why have they given it to a “third party”?
It is the Labour Party I was a member of & the Labour Party which I was expelled from.
We do need to know the identity of the “third party”. For one thing, it might be an organisation we would not want to have any of our information at all.
I would also be concerned if my information had been handed to the Jewish Labour Movement, the organisation Labour has said it would task with providing training to members on the nature of anti-Semitism and indoctrination against it.
That organisation is highly prejudiced, in the experience and opinion of This Writer, and I would not trust it with my personal details in any event.
One final point: Labour Party members may have no choice on who receives their information because party secretary David Evans and the leadership helmed by Keir Starmer demand that they automatically agree to everything the party does with it, as a condition of membership.
But I am no longer a member.
I think a class action lawsuit on this case may be appropriate, don’t you?
I would certainly be interested in hearing from anybody who feels the same way and is interested in taking the matter forward (although I would not want to be the principal claimant as I am already involved in a highly time-consuming court case, as is well known).
Who’s interested?
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!
Sajid Javid: look at that blank-eyed stare and ask yourself whether his appointment is good for the UK – or good for the banks who employed him?
Sajid Javid is going to have to try a lot harder if he wants us to think he can do the Health Secretary job better than Matt Hancock.
He has made a a ham-fist of it by trying to put down a vital question over conflict of interest between his new Cabinet role and his extra-Parliamentary jobs with JP Morgan bank and… who’s the other one with? – by failing to answer it.
In the Commons, Labour backbencher Richard Burgon asked – well, see for yourself, along with Javid’s ridiculous non-answer:
The new Health Secretary has been getting paid £1,500 an HOUR over the last year for his second job and for his third job too.
Today I told him that he has absolutely no right to deny NHS staff a proper pay rise.
Yes, the Daily Expressloved it, but that just shows the depths to which national journalistic standards have fallen.
It is perfectly reasonable to want to know whether a Cabinet minister is giving up jobs that might conflict with his duty to the nation.
I want to know if Javid is going to blab government secrets to JP Morgan and I want to know if he’s going to give away information – against the national interest – to his other employer.
That is, after all, the most likely reason they employed him.
He was warned by ACOBA – the Advisory Committee On Business Appointments – that there were “potential risks” that he could provide “privileged information” that would give his employer an unfair advantage over its competitors, in spring last year when he took the JP Morgan job.
ACOBA provided advice on how to avoid “potential risks” but it is easy to circumvent them. The only way to ensure that former ministers don’t blab is to forbid them from taking jobs until any information they had is out of date and useless.
Two years has been suggested as a reasonable period of delay but Javid took his jobs straight away and at the time of writing, the suggested period has still not expired.
It has been suggestted that Javid has already given up his outside jobs.
But if that’s true, where’s the evidence? We cannot rely on his say-so because he belongs to an organisation of liars, headed by a liar. We simply cannot trust him.
And that is the reason MPs – and commentators like This Site – are demanding full disclosure, as you can see from the following representative sample on Twitter:
Now that Sajid Javid has been "re-habilitated" and is now back in the "club" as Health Secretary ; will he forgo his little sideline with JP Morgan ?#AskingForTheWoodPidgeonPerchedOnMyPatioTable
Can Sajid Javid confirm he will resign from his extra-parliamentary role as an advisor to JP Morgan or that he intends to do so at the earliest opportunity to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest as he takes on the role as guardian of the NHS?
Sajid Javid gets paid £1,500 an hour for his whilst Jeremy Corbyn spends his time not on MP work helping out at a #Foodbank & campaigning for a better world for all (& often criticised for it).
Greed valued so much more than care 💔
— Prof Gayle Letherby 💙 #PeaceAndJustice (@gletherby) June 29, 2021
Javid must decide:
He can be a banker, or in charge of our NHS but he cannot do both.
Of course there are also serious questions to be answered about the decision to appoint Javid to the Health portfolio, considering his extremely shady history:
How on earth did a multi-millionaire ex-Deutsche bank Thatcherite landlord that voted against making rented homes fit for human habitation actually end up responsible for the health and social care of an entire nation?
My message to Sajid Javid today : Remember you are now the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care – not the minister for selling off our NHS or gifting contracts to your mates in banking and finance.
As far as his actual ability to do the Health Secretary job is concerned, Javid has already disgraced himself. But that’s another story…
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!
This Site has been warning that the NHS is gearing up for another wave of Covid-19 infections by or around July – now here’s expert opinion:
Leading scientists have warned that the government is risking a third wave of Covid-19 by easing the lockdown at a time when official data still shows virus hotspots across many parts of the country.
With the UK poised to lift many Covid restrictions on Monday, the scientists accuse ministers of abandoning their promises to “follow the data, not dates” in a rush to reopen society and the economy.
A more cautious, sensible approach would be to wait until more among the tens of millions of people who have yet to be inoculated have had their vaccinations, they say. In addition, they point out that without an adequate system for isolating people who become infected, there could be significant rises in daily Covid cases that could erupt over the next few weeks.
So it seems a delay until July may be overly optimistic and a new wave could happen within weeks!
Take special note of the observation that Johnson is following his timetable rather than paying attention to the facts. “Follow the data, not dates,” he was told – but we know he never does what he’s told.
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!
Defeat: It seems the EU has proved to be the demise of another Conservative leader. Are we heading for another general election? If so, it seems unlikely Theresa May will lead the Tories into it.
Theresa May has admitted defeat on her Brexit deal.
She has told Parliament there is not enough support for it, so a third “meaningful vote” on it will not happen this week. She says she still wants to drum up support for it, but commentators are likely to conclude that such an outcome seems unrealistic now.
This means the terms of the EU’s offer to extend to Brexit deadline until May 22 cannot be met and Parliament now has until April 12 to set forth options for a way forward.
This opens the way for Parliament to hold a series of “indicative” votes on the form Brexit should take.
Some may say this should have been done long ago. Better late than never? But Mrs May told the Commons today (March 25) that she is sceptical about such a process and may not act on the results.
Here’s the crucial part:
She said no MP can commit to accepting something that contradicts the manifesto on which they were elected.
In that case, if MPs decide to support a departure from the EU that conflicts with Mrs May’s aims as stated in May 2017, it seems the UK is set for its third general election in four years. Some may say it will happen not a moment too soon!
Of course, the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 General Election was a hugely malleable thing, and the minority government that followed the election result pretty much threw it away in its entirety, the instant it took office – so Mrs May’s caveat may be a little rich for some tastes.
At the time of writing, Parliament has yet to agree the EU’s extension to April 12. If it doesn’t, we leave the EU on Friday (March 29) amid legal confusion. I think we can assume that it will.
Then Parliament will have to consider alternative options – most probably via the “indicative” votes that Mrs May doesn’t want. Options include:
Leaving with no deal;
Cancelling Brexit by revoking Article 50 (this may become a viable option by that date as the petition calling for revocation creeps towards the kind of numbers needed to show popular opinion has shifted against it); or
A further extension of Article 50.
If the last option is chosen, then the UK would be dragged into the European Parliament elections and the most likely options would be renegotiation of Brexit, a second referendum, or a general election.
Perhaps Mrs May has had enough and is preparing to skip straight to the election.
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!
Theresa May will undoubtedly be furious as she has been desperate to get her specific Brexit deal passed by Parliament. Too bad that Parliamentary convention means that cannot happen without substantial change.
But shouldn’t she have known that it was impossible – that the rules don’t allow it?
Now she can’t have her deal.
And she only has a short period of time to sort out another.
She’s talked herself – and her government – into a corner. Does anyone seriously think she can talk her way out of it?
The House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, has said the government cannot bring back the meaningful vote again to parliament unless there has been substantial change to the Brexit deal.
In a shock move likely to infuriate the prime minister, the Speaker said the House of Commons was “being repeatedly asked to pronounce” on the same question.
Quoting from the guide to parliamentary procedure, Erskine May, Bercow said that by convention, the question “may not be brought forward again during the same session” and that it was a “strong and longstanding convention” dating back to 1604.
“Decisions of the house matter. They have weight,” he said. “It is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house’s time and the proper respect for the decisions which it takes.”
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!
Having failed to get her imbecilic Brexit deal passed after no less than two attempts, Theresa May is threatening MPs with a third.
Does anybody remember – it wasn’t that long ago – how we were all told we couldn’t have another referendum on whether to leave the EU because it was “undemocratic”?
We were told the people had spoken and the decision must be respected.
Well, MPs have spoken on Mrs May’s draft withdrawal agreement. But Mrs May won’t respect their decision.
Why is the former decision sacrosanct while the latter is treated as a mistake?
Why is Mrs May insisting on vote after vote until she gets the result she wants? Remember the outrage over that behaviour when EU nations were forced to vote again on major treaties that they rejected?
Why is this monumental hypocrite trampling on democracy in this way?
Theresa May will make a third attempt to get her EU withdrawal deal through Parliament in the next week.
She told MPs that if her deal fails again to get their backing, a lengthy delay to Brexit may be needed.
The prime minister’s warning comes ahead of a Commons vote later on whether to ask the EU for permission to delay Brexit beyond 29 March.
MPs voted on Wednesday evening to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances.
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 Duchess of Cambridge: She will not experience the trauma other people are forced to undergo when they have a third child.
At risk of angering the taste police, I repeat what I wrote about this when the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy was announced:
“Nobody ever mentions it but the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, like the rest of the Royal Family, are effectively benefit claimants.
“They live on money provided by taxpayers for their upkeep – just like, for example, people claiming Child Benefit.
“I mention this because there is a two-child limit on Child Benefit. Nobody who has more than two children can claim any extra money for them – except under certain circumstances.
“Bearing in mind what one of those circumstances is, can you imagine the scandal if any government employee asked the relevant question before handing over the Cambridges’ share of our money?
“The only difference between these people and Child Benefit claimants is an accident of birth – the Duke of Cambridge was born into a family that, as Tony Benn once described it, stole lots of land, claimed fancy titles and surrounded themselves with weak-minded followers.
“Yet because of that, his wife can hold her hand out for as much of (our) cash as she wants – while other young mums have to suffer the indignity of being asked to satisfy the demands of the rape clause.”
I would amend the last sentence now, to “other young mums have to suffer the indignity of being forced to satisfy the demands of the rape clause”.
This is a pressing issue at the moment, after Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey tried to tell the Scottish Parliament the rape clause is “potentially double support” for victims because it gives them the “opportunity to talk”.
Her words sparked outrage among everybody with a sense of decency in the UK; she was saying poor people who have been raped should be forced to relive that trauma before receiving benefit for a child that resulted from the attack – and that they should feel grateful for it.
Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, will not be asked to prove any such thing before receiving money for her third child. It would be inappropriate to suggest it in any case – but that raises the question: Why should she receive state funding for the baby when others have to face such a humiliating inquisition or be denied it?
The answer is as I defined it in my article on Ms McVey’s ill-advised outburst:
“Tories… naturally assume that people who aren’t born with a title, or money, are property; they don’t understand why you should have any rights and expect you to do as you are told by your so-called ‘betters’.”
The Duchess of Cambridge, of course, has a title and therefore is considered by Tories to be one of our “betters”. Therefore, Tories think she is entitled to as much of your money as she wants – whenever she wants it.
The Duchess of Cambridge has gone into labour with her third child.
Catherine and the Duke of Cambridge travelled to the Lindo Wing at St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, in central London on Monday morning.
Catherine has been on maternity leave since making a last royal visit to a charity lunch in London on 22 March.
The baby will be fifth in line to the throne and the Queen’s sixth great-grandchild.
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!
Do the Tories still think people are stupid enough to believe them when they lie that taking away the tax-funded benefits they need in order to subsidise the rich is “fair”?
Theresa May has used that line several times too often.
But I dare say she will continue to use it until we demonstrate to her what we consider to be fair.
That is, the removal of Mrs May and as many Conservatives as possible from Parliament, never again to blight our country with their deranged concept of ‘fairness’.
Besides…
We all know she’s lying. She doesn’t think it’s fair. She just wants the money for herself and the Tories.
Theresa May has defended the Tories’ latest round of cruel welfare cuts as “fair” to the thousands of families being hit.
Speaking on a trip to the Middle East, Mrs May said it was right to slash payments to bereaved children who have lost a parent.
A raft of welfare cuts are due to come into force this week including swingeing reduction in payments to many disabled people, and an end to extra child benefit payments to families which have a third child.
One of the most controversial cuts will see families lose bereavement payments 18 months after a parent has died.
Previously families would get money to support them until a child turned 18 years old.
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!
More on the way: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with children George and Charlotte. Do they really need any more, considering WE are paying for them?
Nobody ever mentions it but the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, like the rest of the Royal Family, are effectively benefit claimants.
They live on money provided by taxpayers for their upkeep – just like, for example, people claiming Child Benefit.
I mention this because there is a two-child limit on Child Benefit. Nobody who has more than two children can claim any extra money for them – except under certain circumstances.
Tories introduced a 2 child benefits limit, so will William and Kate receive no taxpayer funded support for their third child? #royalbaby
Bearing in mind what one of those circumstances is, can you imagine the scandal if any government employee asked the relevant question before handing over the Cambridges’ share of our money?
The only difference between these people and Child Benefit claimants is an accident of birth – the Duke of Cambridge was born into a family that, as Tony Benn once described it, stole lots of land, claimed fancy titles and surrounded themselves with weak-minded followers.
Yet because of that, his wife can hold her hand out for as much of (our) cash as she wants – while other young mums have to suffer the indignity of being asked to satisfy the demands of the rape clause.
It is as described in today’s Independent article:
“The contrast lays bare the fundamentals of reproductive injustice: the fact that class, wealth and race control which groups are considered worthy of the privilege of reproduction. Underpinning this is the lie that the wealthy are self-sufficient, whereas the poor upon whose work they depend are parasites. We know this is not true.”
Perhaps the parasites who were the centre of media attention today should think carefully about contraception in the future.
Oh. By the way, I’m not a republican. I simply think the Royal Family have a duty to understand the harsh conditions under which most of us are living and behave in a responsible way – rather than rubbing our noses in the difference between their style of benefit conditionality and ours.
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their third child, Kensington Palace has announced.
The Queen and both families are said to be “delighted with the news”.
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:
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.
