Tag Archives: undemocratic

Undemocratic, unrepresentative: but the Board of Deputies is gaslighting Labour into thinking it stands up for British Jews

Marie Van Der Zyl: What is the president of the Board of Deputies trying to achieve? And why is she trying to gaslight us all into thinking she represents all British Jews? She doesn’t.

This Writer came in for some flack a couple of days ago after I characterised the Board of Deputies of British Jews as undemocratic and unrepresentative.

A person on Twitter claimed that the BoD, that has managed to get eight of the Labour leadership and deputy leadership candidates to sign up to its 10 pledges intended to seal its anti-Semitism witch-hunt into party policies (see my recent articles), is democratic because it has elections.

Well, I did a bit of research, going to Jewish sources.

According to Jewish Voice for Labour – which I certainly trust more than the Board of Deputies itself or that organisation’s Wikipedia page – this is the situation:

The Board’s claim to be democratic is, however, distinctly tenuous. There are no British Jewish elections, no direct way for all British Jews to directly elect the board’s 300 Deputies. To be involved in electing Deputies, one must be a member of one or more of approximately 138 synagogues, or be connected to one of 34 ‘communal organisations’ (such as the UJIA or Reform Judaism) that are affiliated with the Board, all of which elect one to five Deputies—anyone not involved with these institutions does not have a vote, despite the Board still claiming to speak on their behalf. Inevitably, some individuals may be represented multiple times, through being members of more than one organisation.

The biggest problem, however, is with the elections held by affiliate organisations to select their deputies—it is these that justify the Board’s claim to be a representative democracy. Transparency is a fundamental requirement of democracy—there needs to be openness as to who the electorate is and how many of them turn out in order for any election to be considered legitimate. Despite its own constitution obliging it to receive the data (Appendix A, Clause 3: “the election shall not be validated unless the form incorporates… the total number of members of the congregation… and the number who attended the election meeting”), the Board does not release a list of the membership size or the numbers voting in each affiliate organisation, and claims to have no idea what the numbers might be. The Board’s spokesman explained to me that, “While we do need to be more thorough in collecting statistics, these figures wouldn’t add anything—they don’t speak to the democratic legitimacy of the organisation or to anything else.” This seems extraordinarily complacent—can we imagine a British election in which the size of the electorate, the list of candidates standing, and the turnout remained secret? It would be regarded as an affront to democracy.

So there you have it.

There are indeed elections for the Board of Deputies…

But they are an “affront to democracy”.

And this is the organisation that dares to lecture Labour on its policies, practices and procedures?

Pathetic.

The members of Labour cannot allow anyone who supports this group’s bigoted demands to have a senior role in the party.

I tweeted Jennie Formby, the party’s general secretary, to ask if there was a system by which the membership could hold a “no confidence” vote in the current election process.

But she hasn’t even had the courtesy to respond.

Source: Who exactly does the Board of Deputies represent? | Jewish Voice for Labour

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

Brexit: EU points out logical fallacies in Boris Johnson’s request to remove NI backstop

Pop-eyed: Is this Boris Johnson’s reaction to the EU’s latest rejection?

The European Union has rebuffed Boris Johnson again, refusing his request for them to take the Northern Ireland border backstop out of any Brexit agreement.

BoJob had called the backstop “undemocratic”, and the EU’s representatives are to be lauded for their restraint in not mentioning the most obvious inconsistency in his argument.

It is best-elaborated in this tweet, responding to James Cleverly’s repetition of Mr Johnson’s comment:

That’s right.

Mr Johnson is in no position to call anything “undemocratic” while he owes his job to a tiny minority of the voting public – and insists on denying the rest of us an opportunity to vote on his leadership.

The European Union has rebuffed Boris Johnson’s attempts to tear up the Irish backstop, in a coordinated response that appeared to close the door on further meaningful Brexit negotiations.

Officials had already strongly rejected Johnson’s claim that the backstop was anti-democratic, pointing to the fact Northern Ireland had voted to remain in the EU and non-unionist parties were in favour of the backstop.

Johnson’s claim that it would be possible for two separate legal and economic jurisdictions to exist on the island of Ireland with an open border was judged “misleading” as EU law provided “the common framework needed to enable frictionless trade between member states today”.

While the EU has said it was ready to examine alternative arrangements to the backstop, officials have stressed that no such options exist today anywhere in the world.

Source: EU rejects Boris Johnson request to remove backstop | Politics | The Guardian

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

Israeli prime minister demands support for racist apartheid law

Racist: Benjamin Netanyahu.

Are we all agreed, now, that Benjamin Netanyahu is a racist?

He has been trying to push through his Apartheid law – misnamed the “Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people” Bill – for five years and I’m told he is demanding it now in order to have it running in time for that country’s next general election, when he hopes to win by securing far-right-wing votes.

Think about that in the context of the history of the Jewish people. Are you feeling nauseous yet?

This Writer’s attention was brought to the issue by a long-term friend who posted, on Facebook [boldings mine]: “This is a bill to make Israel clearly and definitively a racist and religious state. It permits neighbourhoods to block people of specific nationalities or religions from moving in, removes Arabic as an official language, and directs judges to look for precedents from Jewish legal rulings in instances where Israeli law offers no guidance.

“For those that haven’t been following along at home, the Israeli government have been trying to get a bill like this passed for the last five years. Because Israel’s legislature is elected under the most proportionally representative system I’m familiar with, there are enough parties in the Knesset that oppose parts of the bill that they have been unable to do so.

“What has changed recently is that Netanyahu is making passing it a top priority in the run up to the 2019 election so he can win far right votes.”

He added: “Once it’s in, a lot of damage can be done in a short amount of time that will take a lot of time, money, and political capital to undo.

“And there are a significant number of Israelis that support it too.”

Another commenter stated: “Racists are racists anywhere. But the Knesset has been fighting this for so long in all their parties besides the most right-wing, I’ll be happy to see them stand up against Netanyahu one more time. I just hope they can block him. His choices are horrifying.”

Racists are racists anywhere.

Sometimes, people forget that a Jew – such as Benjamin Netanyahu – can be a racist too. Perhaps that is why it is important that his rancid bid to institutionalise racism in his country needs to be exposed to the world.

It is also the reason it must fail. If Mr Netanyahu makes it possible for Israel to be denounced as a racist endeavour, then he will only fuel anti-Semitism, both at home and abroad. And that cannot be tolerated.

Israel is in the throes of political upheaval as the country’s ruling party seeks to pass legislation that could allow for Jewish-only communities, which critics have condemned as the end of a democratic state.

For the past half-decade, politicians have been wrangling over the details of the bill that holds constitution-like status and that Benjamin Netanyahu wants passed this month.

The proposed legislation would allow the state to “authorise a community composed of people having the same faith and nationality to maintain the exclusive character of that community”.

In its current state, the draft would also permit Jewish religious law to be implemented in certain cases and remove Arabic as an official language.

A vote on the bill is expected next week, although a final draft has yet to be agreed on. The legislation has been compared to South African apartheid by Israeli parliamentarians, and several thousand Israelis protested in Tel Aviv on Saturday.

“Our main concern is that it is changing the nature of the state and it changes the balance of Israel as a nation state,” said Amir Fuchs, the head of the defending democratic values programme at the Israel Democracy Institute. “You can be a nation state and still be a democracy as long as you don’t discriminate,” said Fuchs. “That the state is allowed to create villages that will separate on the basis of race or religion or nationality – this is outrageous.”

The purpose of the bill, he said, was “to change the balance, to make us more of a nation state, more of a Jewish state, and less of a democracy. There is no other way to put it. And this is the biggest problem.”

Source: Israel in turmoil over bill allowing Jews and Arabs to be segregated | World news | The Guardian

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court


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

Constituency boundary changes: Unfair, undemocratic and unlikely to be approved

Boris Johnson: This is probably what he looked like, the moment he realised his own party’s proposed boundary changes mean he would lose his seat.

One of the few joys of the years since the Conservatives tricked their way back into office is their complete lack of success at gerrymandering the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies to suit them.

First they had to rely on the Liberal Democrats, who abandoned them when the Tories refused to support reform of the House of Lords.

Now they have to rely on the Democratic Unionists, who have never supported the Tory proposals.

The Tories are desperate to rig the next election as the average age of their party’s members is 72, and they have utterly failed to attract support from the young.

The revelation that Boris Johnson would probably lose his Parliamentary seat, if the changes go through, is a double-edged sword; some members of the public might support them for that reason – others might not.

Mr Johnson himself probably wouldn’t approve – and it seems a considerable number of his fellow Conservatives feel the same way.

And Labour?

Let’s see what Cat Smith has to say about it:

“Labour stands ready to work with all parties to ensure that a boundary review can go ahead in a way that benefits our democracy, not just the Conservative Party. However it has been clear from the start that the Tories have only been interested in their own political advantage rather than what is in the best interests of the country.

“To lose 50 MPs at a time we are repatriating powers from Brussels as we leave the European Union risks leaving the UK Government struggling to keep up with the day to day requirements of legislation.

“They need to drop their unfair, undemocratic plans, as well as ensuring the review is based on the most up-to-date register and that there is appropriate flexibility to take into account community ties and geography.”

Good points – especially concerning the fact that the proposals use an out-of-date version of the electoral register from 2015. Many more people have registered to vote since then – mostly spurred to do so by Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader.

So you can see why the Tories wouldn’t want to update their ideas.

It all boils down to mathematics – and the numbers are against Mrs May.

She doesn’t have enough support, even from her own MPs, to push through this legislation.

So This Writer reckons it will be shelved – again.

And anyway, who says we’ll have to wait until 2022 for the next election?

Revised proposals for the shape of parliamentary seats at the next general election have been published.

The proposed constituency boundaries in England, Scotland and Wales have been drawn up on the basis the total number of MPs will be cut from 650 to 600.

Parliament approved the principle of reducing the size of the Commons in 2011, intended as a cost-saving measure in the wake of the expenses scandal.

But it is uncertain whether the Commons will end up backing the detailed plans.

If they do so, the proposed new constituencies – recommended by independent bodies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – will take effect in 2022, the scheduled date of the next election.

Prime Minister Theresa May is reliant on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) for getting legislation through the Commons after her failure to win a majority in June’s snap election.

The DUP opposed the last boundary review when it was put to a vote in 2013, while many Conservatives are thought to have reservations about the scope of the shake-up, which could lead to a scramble for seats as a host of constituencies are abolished.

Source: Boundary changes: Latest plans for Commons seats published – BBC News


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

Labour’s power struggle can only end if grassroots members lay down the law

161024-power-grabIt seems clear that the Labour Party’s right-wing has turned its back on democracy and is now doing everything within its power to hinder Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

That is no way to behave, in a party of government. Labour cannot oppose the Conservative government if its once-favoured few are determined to throw a spanner in the works every five minutes.

They need to be shown that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

This Writer has already shown the way – my CLP has passed a motion calling for the National Executive Committee to nullify the decision to introduce 15 rule changes at once, because Paddy Lillis prevented conference delegates from voting in the proper manner.

The vote may be voided because what followed was the will of Mr Lillis – not conference.

Further, similar, motions are on the way from other constituencies, I understand.

Now, we have information that conference was misled about the package of rule changes in three important ways – further invalidating the vote.

All those involved need to face party disciplinary procedures. They should be removed from positions of responsibility as they clearly cannot be trusted to fill them in a responsible way.

It is for the members to ensure that this happens, through the National Executive Committee.

If you’re a member of the Labour party (if you’re not, join!), then it’s essential that you move a resolution, in time for your next monthly CLP meeting, demanding the annulment of this completely-illegal power-grab, which cannot be allowed to stand, and the immediate removal of the two additional ‘crowbarred’ members from the NEC.

New evidence has emerged that confirms not only the desperate lengths to which the plotters were prepared to go in order to nullify a huge democratic landslide, but that they acted in an unprecedentedly illegal manner. A new Left Futures article reveals that it wasn’t only at the Conference that the rules were ignored and broken, but also that:

  • contrary to what was claimed at the Conference, the CAC (conference arrangements committee) had not been sent a package of rules by the NEC, but a list of individual rule changes to be voted on by delegates
  • that a staff member misled the CAC by advising them that it was a package deal
  • that there is no precedent whatever for rules being forced through as a ‘take it or leave it’ package at an annual Conference – which means that delegates were lied to from the platform when it was claimed this was standard practice

It’s clearer than ever that the right-wingers of the Labour party have no intention of ‘unity’ or ‘pulling together’ and that the words are regarded merely as convenient cover for their continued attempts to control the party by undemocratic means. Expulsion is the only real remedy.

Source: We told you so – new evidence confirms NEC power-grab rule package illegal | The SKWAWKBOX Blog

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

National Park pay cut highlights the need to strengthen trade unions

141130kittysjonesunions

The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority has unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of work for 19 of its staff, removing enhanced rates of pay for weekend work.

The organisation’s bosses reckon they do not have the cash to continue with a pay condition that used to be mandatory across the United Kingdom; if you worked Saturdays, you got time-and-a-half, and on Sundays, double-time.

What was their pay cut, then?

The article in this week’s Brecon and Radnor Express doesn’t mention one. It states: “Following a consultation with staff, the authority amended its proposals and agreed to continue paying the enhanced time-and-a-half rate for working bank holidays [bank holiday work used to be paid on the double-time rate, This Writer believes]… [Staff] have been given until this week to accept the new terms and conditions.”

This is the kind of unacceptable behaviour that working people have been forced to endure for too long, under successive right-wing governments that have legislated against trade unions and industrial action.

The current Conservative Party manifesto gives a prime example of ‘boss’ thinking: “We will protect you from disruptive and undemocratic strike action. Strikes should only ever be the result of a clear, positive decision based on a ballot in which at least half the workforce has voted. This turnout threshold will be an important and fair step to rebalance the interests of employers, employees, the public and the rights of trade unions.

“We will, in addition, tackle the disproportionate impact of strikes in essential public services by introducing a tougher threshold in health, education, fire and transport. Industrial action in these essential services would require the support of at least 40 per cent of all those entitled to take part in strike ballots – as well as a majority of those who actually turn out to vote.”

A “fair step to rebalance the interests of employers, employees, the public and the rights of trade unions”? Really?

Apply the same rules to political elections and none of the Conservative Party would be elected at all. None of that party’s expensive and pointless ‘Police and Crime Commissioners’ would have been elected, either.

There is nothing “fair” about this Conservative proposal – and I expect the workers at the Brecon Beacons National Park to agree.

Picket line: FBU members on strike in June 2014. The government was imposing new conditions of employment that would have ensured far fewer firefighters would qualify for their pensions in the future.

Picket line: FBU members on strike in June 2014. The government was imposing new conditions of employment that would have ensured far fewer firefighters would qualify for their pensions in the future.

Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK, states a very good case for trade unions, as follows: “Unions are essential for three reasons. The first is to ensure fair pay and conditions. Many of the things that people take for granted now, from sick pay to holiday pay to employment rights only happened because of trade unions.

“Secondly, collective bargaining is essential if working people are to stand up to employers who can otherwise use their relative power to suppress wages on an individual basis. Unions are, therefore, essential for the improvement of the incomes of wage earners and one reason why we have growing inequality in the UK is the loss of union representation.”

[Going back to the national park, the newspaper article quoted the authority as saying its change would bring it into line with “much of the public sector across Wales”. Clearly, the public sector in Wales needed collective bargaining; they have been picked off, one organisation at a time, by cynical bosses.]

“Third, unions are economically efficient. They reduce employer negotiating time. They reduce the number of disputes by resolving vast numbers of them by their interventions. And they reduce the inefficiency that results from the uncertainty of individual negotiations and resulting grievances.”

Mr Murphy continues: “This is class warfare and it will harm the UK by reducing wages, increasing inequality, denying representation to people who need it and reducing efficiency in the workplace.

“No logic can support this policy. Dogma based on class hatred can.”

Agreed.

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
countering the anti-union propaganda spouted by Tories.

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

Despite two democratic defeats, the Tories are STILL privatising our forests

Now imagine it filled with holiday cabins and a sewage treatment plant.

Now imagine it filled with holiday cabins and a sewage treatment plant.

Do you remember when the Conservative-led Coalition government relented on its plan to sell off our public forests into private ownership? It was only last November.

Here’s how Vox Political reported it. The article said the then-Infrastructure Bill would give Government agencies carte blanche to hand over any public land – including countryside and forests – to private developers.

But the article said campaigning organisation 38 Degrees had fought off this underhanded plan by the government: “They U-turned and made changes which will mean our forests are protected – in law.”

This was the second attempt by the government to sell off our forests. The first was abandoned in 2011.

Now it seems the Tories want to make it third time lucky.

The Guardian is reporting that there are plans to build luxury holiday cabins, majority-owned by venture capitalists, in public forests, putting protected wildlife and their habitats at risk.

Mark Avery writes: “One of my local woods, Fineshade wood in east Northamptonshire, is owned by me, and you, and every other taxpayer, as it is owned by the Forestry Commission (FC), a non-ministerial government department.

“Despite its wildlife, landscape and wider social value, the FC believes that Fineshade wood is the right place to plonk down 70 luxury holiday cabins, extra roads, and a sewage treatment plant. These would be built and managed by Forest Holidays, a company largely owned by venture capitalists, Lloyds Development Capital, in which the FC (ie you and me) has a small and diminishing holding. The development will be considered by East Northants Council on Wednesday evening.”

Didn’t we all decide, democratically, that this privatisation of our public forests should not happen?

But here it is.

And only days after we heard the Coalition in the House of Lords had voted to overturn regulations that would keep our drinking water safe from the effects of fracking. Greedy little piggies.

Is it time for another 38 Degrees petition? Or have the architects of this betrayal ensured that it is already too late?

Whatever happens, this is further proof that the Tories and the Liberal Democrats don’t believe in democracy.

They knew that the public wanted these forests to be safeguarded forever, but they are allowing them to be sold into private hands anyway.

Why, then, do they want us to – democratically – elect them back into Parliament?

Since they do not believe in democracy, they should not be part of 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
telling you about the latest betrayal of democracy by the Tories
and their little yellow Liberal Democrat helpers.

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

SNP starts to crumble as councillors quit – one citing vote-rigging

[Image: BBC]

[Image: BBC]

How humbling for the Scottish National Party that, after its Yes campaigners complained about vote-rigging in the Independence referendum, two SNP councillors have quit, citing undemocratic behaviour and – you guessed it – vote-rigging.

Cllr John Taggart (Murdostoun) walked out after a row over the selection process for Motherwell and Wishaw. His statement reads as follows: “The reason behind my resignation is that I feel that democracy within our party is under serious threat, when HQ in Edinburgh decided to refuse to reveal the breakdown of the votes cast for each candidate involved in the Westminster ballot for the Motherwell and Wishaw Westminster candidacy.” That’s vote-rigging, then.

“I am a committed democrat and I believe that when an election is carried out, people expect to see full and proper disclosure of the results, this is one of the fundamental tenets of a democratic society, and we all should all be extremely concerned of decisions taken at HQ in Edinburgh which allows the dark veil of secrecy to descend on our democratic processes.”

Cllr Alan Beveridge (Airdrie North) said in his statement: “I have been alarmed by the climate of fear, intimidation and false allegations which operates within the SNP locally.

“I have raised these matters directly with SNP headquarters but much to their shame and my disappointment, they have totally failed to address any of my concerns.

“Therefore I feel I have no alternative but to resign from the party.

“I have agonised over whether or not I should speak out in public, but I felt a sense of responsibility to my constituents that they should be made aware of the reasons behind my decision.

“I spent an entire career in the police force protecting the public and doing my very best to treat people with fairness.

“I joined the SNP fully expecting people to be treated the same way, however in the past few months I have been shocked at the way some members of the local branch have been treated and by the failure of SNP headquarters to respond to the concerns which I have raised.

“This is not the party I thought I had joined and I cannot continue to be a member of such an organisation.”

Both statements are published in the Scottish Daily Record (although not exclusively there). No doubt SNP supporters will try to attack this source; they would do well to note that this article quotes only the councillors’ words.

It seems the SNP may not be the standard-bearer for decency and morality in politics that its ill-mannered supporters claim.

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
revealing the facts that some political parties want to hide.

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

Tories are trying to buy the election with ‘quiet’ candidate spending hike

141214torydonations

Candidates in the general election will have 23 per cent more money to spend after the Tories slipped the increase through without debate. This only applies if any candidates other than Tories actually have that much money, of course.

The Observer has reported that, under the new limits, the total amount the candidates of each political party can spend has increased from £26.5m to £32.7m.

In March, the Electoral Commission recommended there should be no such increase in spending limits for candidates over the so-called “long campaign” period between December 19 and general election day on May 7.

The change to the law on candidates’ election spending, passed without parliamentary debate, was made despite a direct warning by the commission against “excessive spending” in order to “prevent the perception of undue influence over the outcome of the election”.

Ministers changed the law through a statutory instrument, the terms of which were not debated in the Commons, which is used more properly for consensual changes in the law. A Labour source said the move had not been spotted by them at the time, so they missed the chance to force a vote in the Commons.

It’s too late for that now.

We know the Conservatives have much more moolah than any of the other parties – let’s face it, they have spent all of their period in office changing the law to make it possible for the extremely rich and big businesses to donate increasingly ludicrous amounts to Tory Party funds, and this is the reason.

For example: In the past four years, 27 per cent of the £78,010,807  the Tories have raised – £21,072,508 – has come from hedge fund donors. George Osborne’s 2013 budget abolished stamp duty reserve tax on funds, a £145m giveaway to those very same hedge funds. That’s just one example.

The Observer states: “With the Tories having amassed a £78m war chest over the past four years, they can now funnel huge amounts of cash into key seats.”

We know that the Tories won more seats than anyone else at the 2010 election by throwing ridiculous amounts of Lord Ashcroft’s money at marginal seats and by lying about their policy intentions. This undemocratic move – there was no Parliamentary debate and one can hardly say it has been announced loudly; did you even know this decision was made in the summer? – clearly states their intention to repeat the same grubby, underhanded manoeuvre next year.

And we know that David Cameron has made this decision against the advice of the Electoral Commission – meaning that it should be plain for all to see that this is yet another corrupt decision by the most corrupt government of the last century.

What else are we to think of this? Lucy Powell MP, Ed Miliband’s election strategist, had a few well-chosen ideas on that subject. Writing in The Guardian, she stated:

“With only a record of failure to run on, David Cameron’s campaign is reliant on smear, fear and fat cats’ chequebooks. This is a party flush with big money backers but without the empathy or ideas the country needs, so they are rigging the rules of our democracy in their favour.

“When he was first leader of the opposition, David Cameron said he wanted to take the big money out of politics. He promised to address the ‘big donor culture’, arguing that we should ‘cut what is spent on a general election’. Yet he has now cynically changed his tune. Desperate to hang on to power, the Tories have quietly changed the rules to allow them to spend big in the runup to the election. The changes would allow them to spend millions more than they’re presently allowed, paving the way for Tory propaganda to flood constituencies.”

Opponents of Tory tyranny cannot match the Nasty Party’s spending power. All we have are our own voices and the facts.

That’s why next year – more than ever before – we have to put the message out to protect the public against the next wave of lies and ‘spin’.

The Tory Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act means we can’t spend any appreciable amount of money doing this, but they can’t stop us talking and they can’t stop us publicising the facts.

It’s up to us – all of us – to show the Tories that money isn’t everything.

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
highlighting the comtemptible schemes of the Conservatives.

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