Tag Archives: conservatives

Theresa May asked 5 times to condemn Saudi Arabia

Theresa May was in fact asked just once. She wasn’t even asked to condemn Saudi Arabia, just instead asked a generic question on why we supply arms to them. The first answer she gave was accepted. (You can read of one of her recent responses to the question of Saudi Arabia here)

Contrast this to Jeremy Corbyn who on Sunday was asked to condemn the IRA on the Sophie Ridge show on Sky News. He was asked 5 times to condemn the IRA. The answer he gave was a cerebral, intelligent one but the likely highly paid journalist couldn’t seem to grasp the answer, instead looking for a headline to give credence to her Sunday morning TV slot and sure enough it became headline news across all the major news networks and on anticipation will have likely made the front pages of some if not all of the right wing print media today. 

If you’re for Jeremy Corbyn you may wish to share this with anyone asking the question “Why does Jeremy Corbyn support the IRA?” If you’re against Jeremy Corbyn you may wish to read what follows to get a better understanding of his stance before you go believing everything you read and hear. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the question “Do you condemn the IRA?” was thus; 

“I condemn the bombings” and when pushed again and again went on to say ‘I condemn all bombings and violence’

The very fact that his answer was not accepted five times was for the simple reason that Sophie Ridge wanted to hear Corbyn say ‘I condemn the IRA’ no matter the nuanced point he was making because asking the same emotive question again and again without getting the response you want makes a good headline. 

The question some will have is ‘why doesn’t Jeremy just condemn the IRA?’

Here’s the thing. You can absolutely, quite legitimately hate what the IRA did and how they conducted their campaign but their claim for a unified Ireland was a justified one and they represented whole communities within Ireland. To condemn the IRA as an entity implies you are for the loyalists in Northern Ireland and you would be picking a side. 

He unequivocally condemned the bombings, he does not support war and violence and did not support the IRA’s use of those tactics. It is this kind of understanding about grievances that makes the likes of Jeremy Corbyn incredibly suitable for leading the UK in international affairs. If anything it is the attitude of the UK at the time that helped prolong the violence on our shores. Our inability to listen to the other side for many years led to the deaths of countless people. Indeed, only the IRA can be blamed for the deaths of innocent people but when you’re trying to find a solution to conflict you must be willing to engage with the other side on a certain level. That is strong leadership rather than a reactionary one which seems to be always be courted by Conservative governments.

It’s also worth remembering the atrocities committed by the British Army and the treatment of the Irish in a time when they were seen as lesser people than in Northern Ireland. 

The IRA were supported in Ireland for their cause of unifying Ireland away from the UK, it was a legitimate claim and still is. No less than Scotland asking for independence. These are all the reasons Corbyn won’t outright condemn the IRA but will condemn their tactics. To condemn the IRA might be seen to condone the loyalists and condemning or condoning either side may have been, or may be, a dangerous stance to take. 

It needs to be asked why Theresa May and the Conservatives don’t get a hard time over Saudi Arabia. The troubles in Ireland ended quite some years ago now yet Saudi Arabia is in the here-and-now. 

Saudi Arabia bombs, often indiscriminately, children and adults in Yemen in a war that once again is a war over regime change, one that is backed by the West. Saudi Arabia have used old banned bombs supplied by the UK, they have bombed civilian water supplies and then when the rebels in Yemen respond by taking pot shots at Saudi Arabia the UK respond officially by stating that Saudi Arabia “has a right to defend itself” in response to Saudi Arabia throwing all its UK and American weaponary at the rebels in responseAdd to this that Saudi Arabia is well known for being an epicentre of Middle Eastern terrorism and has a terrible human rights record and you have to begin to think that by comparison the IRA were lightweights. How can you argue any different? 

Of course the response will be that Saudi Arabia isn’t bombing mainland UK. Of course, but what that says is that you’re ok with our hand in what Saudi Arabia is doing as we sell them multi million pound contracts in arms in exchange for alleged security information. You can not possibly condemn Jeremy Corbyn for taking a neutral stance on one issue and yet not condemn Theresa May for taking a biased corrupt stance towards the corrupt and human rights breaching Saudi Arabia. It’s two faced and a blot on the reputation of our nation and it’s a scandal. 

It seems Thersea May can’t see the irony of talking of humanitarian aid when the weapons that the UK sells to Saudi Arabia are the cause of the need to supply humanitarian aid in the first place. 

‘Asked about alleged human rights abuses by the country, Mrs May said it was an issue she would bring up and pledged Britain would continue supporting the people of Yemen through humanitarian aid.’ 

Source – ITV 

Yet the media seem to by-pass this issue. It’s a conundrum of epic proportions. 

You have to remember also that the centre ground Tony Blair government and the right wing Conservative governments have all had similar international policies when it comes to conflict and especially the Middle East. There is no question that the fall of Saddam Hussein led to the destabilisation of the entire Middle East and is still felt today in Syria and with ISIS. The very fact we have Extreme Islamic terrorists within Europe can be traced back to successive foreign policies that interfere with the delicate balance that is within the Middle East. 

So instead of asking why Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t condemn the IRA why aren’t you asking Theresa May why she doesn’t condemn Saudi Arabia and instead of insisting that Jeremy Corbyn is not strong on defence why aren’t you asking Thersea May why she insists on conducting a foreign policy that proliferates international terrorism, the very same terrorism that affect us today, not 20-30 years ago. 


The Left Are Oblivious To What’s Coming 

It’s a popular concensus to suggest that the likes of Trump and UKIP are a danger to us all. Described by some as either far right, right wing or just plain dangerous, the truth is that neither of these two are the real danger facing the left. 

In fact we have been facing this particular danger for many years, the only difference is that the focus has changed and we have put the real danger to the back of our minds. We are being distracted and it’s going to come and bite us all in the backside, hard.

The real danger is Neoconservatism, or Neocon for short. Neither Trump nor UKIP fit this billing. 

Trump and UKIP share a few qualities and they centre around protectionism. This will manifest in a desire to bring back industries lost to Capitalism (or progress), protect ones own country at the expense perhaps of foreigners, protect jobs and importantly keep out of foreign affairs as far as possible. The ideas often result in high levels of nationalism and that can be viewed by some as a good thing and others as bad depending on your take on things. In contrast protectionists do not usually like to interfere abroad, they tend to be militarily neutral and they have no desire to overthrow governments for whatever reason. To do so is considered expansionism or imperialism. It’s therefore extremely important to distinguish between imperialist nationalism and protectionist nationalism and both UKIP and Trump fall into the latter.

Today all the focus is on both of these political entities with UKIP constantly being labelled rightly or wrongly as racist and Trumps inauguration instigating one of the largest ever nationwide protests in US history and huge protests elsewhere around the world. Billed as perhaps the most dangerous man to ever enter the Whitehouse. In some ways that may well be true especially if your concerns are ones around the environment.

Whilst the world gazes almost hypnotically at the Whitehouse and the rise of right wing parties across Europe, the left is almost entirely taking its eye off the real danger. The Neocons. 

It’s not a great leap to suggest that Trump being elected was their plan all along. With the world seemingly turning against Imperialism and Neocons/Oligarchs and their domination under threat, what better way to scare the masses than put someone like Trump into power? 

One conspiracy too far? Perhaps, though the end result of Trumps leadership may well result in something equally as powerful to the Neocons. Cementing for many a year to come their unequivocal power and hold, on the electorate, rolling back the fear the people have of them and instead ensuring that the public embraces them.

Consider the image below; 

Taken from the Vox.com article it explains how Conservatives are trying to literally turn people away from the likes of Bernie Sanders and Socialism such is their fear of real change. In the article it states; 

“Americans needed to be reminded of life under the Soviet Union, arguing that they were insufficiently aware of the dangers of authoritarian states under communism.”

 It goes on to say 

“The panel repeatedly mentioned lessons from countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, saying that millennials had to understand that socialism is inseparable from dictatorship”

If that is not enough to convince you that the Neocons are vying to take back control listen to this recent video featuring Hillary Clinton speaking for the DNC. 

Here she takes credit for the protests against Trump and claims that the Democrats produced the most “radical” set of policies in “history” during the presidential campaign. If you believe any of that then you’re bound to be one of the ones voting for the Neocons at the next election. Heck! She even used the phrase “resistance and persistence” . This is the way it will go between now and whenever the next election is. The Neocons will be brilliantly executing their plans to convince you that Neoconservatism is ‘normal’. Chances are it will work too because the left have taken their eye off the ball. The threat is not Trump, it’s still the imperialist, expansionist neoconservatives. 

They will return to power and when they do they will have a vice like grip on the electorate like never before because, they will say, ‘we never want another Trump in power again’ and with the Conservative youth wings of politics promoting Socialism as ‘bad’ like ‘Communist’ Russia and Venezuela, what chances that people will take another gamble after Trump? 

Meanwhile the likes of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Bernie Sanders in the US continue to try to fight the establishment tide within the Labour Party and Democratic Party respectively. 

When will the real left learn? To really make it work you have to break the mould. Stop trying to swing established Neocon parties to your way of thinking. Develop your own party, swell the ranks and turn the election into a genuine three horse race. The establishment clearly won’t allow you to win using their resources. Sure, it won’t be easy in a new party but at least you’ll get the right candidate and you will live and die by your policies and hard work and not at the hands of a secretive, bias DNC or in the case of Labour in the UK, the PLP. 

Perhaps the single biggest stumbling block though is the split running right through the Left at the moment on both sides of the Atlantic between the traditional working class left and the New modern left. I am in no doubt that many working class left, voted for Trump, as are many here in the UK voting for UKIP. 

The new modern left can’t understand this and having never likely been involved in old industries where workers rights and jobs was what it was all about, which includes curtailing migration when it needs to be done, the bridge between the two is hard to gap. 

The new modern left does include what many consider the far-left which entails Open borders and non nuclear policies but getting a traditional working class man to agree with you on those points I am thinking is going to be a tough job. 

As few left wing parties subscribe to this thought process the traditional left are turning to more right wing parties that offer protectionism. 

Unless these issues can be sorted out amongst the left then it will be hard to get a leader they want. Let alone the fact that right now the left are not even focusing on the right threat. The Neocons. It’s time the left opened their eyes to what lies ahead.

This One Radical Act Will Hit The 1% Where It Hurts

One radical act could damage the 1%, but will Corbyn’s followers take the plunge and send a message or will they follow the chorus line of the Labour Party?

Since Corbyn came on the scene I kind of put all hope into the fact that here was a man who would do radical things if he is elected. That’s still my hope.

Yesterday though I realised that I had forgotten all about why I was anti-capitalist in the first place. Why I was for the 99% and against the 1%. The whole world is talking about stifling the 1% and giving more back to the people but here is the problem…

…Corbyn can only do so much within the system we have.

In fact if he is elected in 2020 he will have perhaps a maximum of 5 years to be radical. Perhaps more if he is successful. It could be 10 or 15 years. It may even be just 1. In whatever time he has he will need to navigate some EU legislation that will restrict exactly what he can do (this is not to say it can’t be done). If he can’t do it, his appointment to the role of prime minister will have been wasted. Even if he can navigate the EU he will then have to run his radical plans past the house of Lords if it doesn’t get defeated in Parliament first. Assuming he can get past all of that the Conservatives may just undo everything he created should they one day be re-elected. That is almost a given in UK politics.

So what can we hope for realistically?

We asked for responses across several forums about what exactly were at the top of the wish list of Corbyn supporters and the overwhelming feedback has been for changes such as reforming social care, protecting the NHS from privatisation, restoring the welfare system, making education free again, having a huge house building programme, reforming the voting system and many other such things.

A few suggestions touched on the radical such as giving workers the right to buy out failing companies to put business’ into the hands of the workers, nationalising the banks and other such worthy causes, but the theme was reform.

Reform is not radical. The tories reformed the welfare system. Heck every government seems to reform everything.

If we are to utilise Corbyn to best effect for the Socialist movement we need to go beyond reform and if Corbyn is elected we need to demand radical change, not reform. Reform has been done to death. Let’s change the system if we possibly can.

As we said earlier however, the system does not work that way. Corbyn will be up against everything the capitalist system can throw at him and likely the PLP will continue to also throw everything they can at him.

Corbyn’s task is huge. How do we best deal with the 1%? how do we best tackle Capitalism? Is it through the likes of Jeremy Corbyn? No. His politics will be welcome and hopefully he will surprise us and the world, but what we as people need to do is to be radical ourselves in what we ask and what we demand. Real change can only come from the people.

In our mind it starts with putting the 1% in their place by making a radical statement that will reverberate across the world. It may be tough, it may be hard it may also be scary for some, but through adversity something better can emerge from the ashes, of Europe. We need to withdraw from the EU to stifle the 1% and the corporate entities that hold too much power. Then together, the people of Europe can create a new radical Socialist Europe.

Disclaimer: If you find the following too radical for your tastes, you can always have a look at our ‘14 Reasons to Vote Lexit’ at this link.</strong>

To understand why an exit from the EU is the best way to tackle the 1% we can not urge you enough to visit the link here or below at the end of this article. There you will find a video of a trunkated interview at 14 minutes long but you will be hooked on every word. Save it for later if you have to. There is also a link to the full 60 minute interview and a link to the original Telegraph article on the subject matter. The EU is more than what is seems on the surface and you will discover how the EU Commission is influenced by high ranking CEO’s.

When I first started rooting for Corbyn I felt that people were on board, and they are, but time and again the radical left were made fun of by the PLP, they were denounced, not welcome. Everyone who supported Corbyn defended the radical left because Corbyn was radical himself. During this EU debate many Corbyn supporters have proved less than radical and quick to ridicule the truly radical left, the vast majority of whom want to vote leave in the EU referendum. How has it got to this? When did the left stop supporting radical and when did the left stop believing that there was a 1% to even fight against? Because a vote for remain will play right into the hands of the 1% and capitalism will go marching on until such point capitalism eats itself and that will not be pretty.

In the meantime also familiarise yourself with the 5 Presidents Report which was recently released by the EU. It calls for greater integration on all fronts and seeing as Cameron has gained a deal for no further integration, it’s hard to see what influence they will have over the EU to reform it. Is Cameron lying about no further integration or is it a false promise by the EU to grant us that status? Perhaps there is just simply no intention to reform the EU.

Video link to interview on why the EU is corrupt and why we should leave. Make sure to share it with everyone.


Just 10 months in power and it’s already falling apart for Cameron

The Conservatives have not been in Power since John Major and that only changed in May last year. Prior to that of course they shared the floor with the Liberal Democrats. “Come back… all is forgiven!” Sort of. It seems the Lib Dems had been keeping them in check after-all because since May 2015 the Conservatives have been running amok, bringing the house down with it and quite honestly pissing everyone right off.

In fact the downward spiral started at the end of 2015 when Cameron announced he would negotiate his new terms for the EU as part of the referendum ‘Remain’ package. Bet he wishes he hadn’t started all that now.

Since then we have just about seen it all and perhaps now we are waiting for the final few scenes before they completely implode. Below is a bullet point list of all that has happened so far in no particular order. (If we have missed anything in particular let us know in the comments – contributions added at the end of the article)

● Tories split on EU referendum
● Defeat on Working Tax Credits
Defeat on solar tax
U-Turn on PIP cuts
IDS Quits ministerial position
● J. Hunt fails on BMA negotiations
● Jr.Doctors conduct Strike action
● N. Morgan faces Teacher backlash
● NUT threatens strike action
● Osbourne 2016 budget labelled unfair
● Osbourne misses every fiscal target
Defeated on immigration ammendment to accept 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees
Corbyn leads in Polls over Cameron
● Huge decline in Industry sectors such as steel industry as steel industry collapses under Tory government
● Financial bail out of banking industry
● Contracts for infrastructure such as Nuclear power stations and HS2 offered to foreign investors such as China & France
● Cameron’s own admission that deal was done with Saudi Arabia to put them in charge of Human Rights council
● Sell off of Post office for under the value of its worth.

Not to mention multiple other goings on in the public eye such as evidence that the poorest people will be 10% worse off this parliamentunder the tories whilst the richest will be better off. Boris Johnson making a fool of himself by declaring Sadiq Khan dangerous for London. Allegations that the NHS downgraded how much they needed to survive. Government to repeal animal welfare industry standards. Disability protesters inside Houses of Parliament. The confirmation that the working poor are to face £12 Billion more in cuts this parliament. Not to mention the public & pathetic theatrical displays of childish bullying by the prime minister during Prime Ministers Questions and also the vote to frack underneath national parks. Continuation of HS2 now reaching an expected £50 Billion and won’t even be ready until 2026.. and that’s just phase 1. The complete refusal to discuss cannabis laws despite expert evidence in favour of legalising cannabis.

In 2010 they made a promise to build 250,000 homes every year, they failed. In 2015 they issued the same promise and still they are failing to build anywhere near this number of houses as the housing crisis continues.

In fact we kept a loose list of things that went wrong whilst they shared power with the Liberal Dems;

-Wages not keeping pace with inflation
-Wage freezes
-Public service cuts
-Bedroom Tax
-Support for Israel despite unofficially recognising Palestine
-Supply of Arms to Israel continues 
-War in Iraq
-Intervention in Syria
-Continued war in Afghanistan 
-Failed to enact a referendum on the EU in parliament
-Promises to reform the EU but has not shown how they can do this
-Overseen failed attempts to organise an internal review on failure to Document child abuse allegations
-Contempt of the people by calling people who believe a child abuse cover up has taken place as ‘conspiracy theorists’. 
-Contempt of the people by suggesting that fringe left are considered domestic extremists
-Altering policy to suit UKIP voters
-Privatisation of the NHS can be seen but is denied as being the case. 
– “All in it together” slogan (we’re not)
– No advancement in improving the housing crisis
– Demonisation of the poor evidenced in part by their use of pie chart on Tax forms regarding welfare spending
– Downsizing council tenants despite not making available new properties to cope with demand
– Affordable housing, not being affordable
– The unpopular universal credit scheme 
– Introduction of the Badger Cull
– Advancement of Fracking despite major opposition. 
– Negotiating a 1% compensation scheme from Fracking companies to residents despite the US government negotiating an 11% package. 
– No energy policy in place
– Advancement of the unpopular TTIP
– GCHQ/NSA debacle
– Zero hour contracts and part time work being used to manipulate unemployment figures

All we need now is for the PLP to stop derailing the Labour Party with infighting and get behind Corbyn. Thankfully it seems the public are seeing through the mess and the PLP are doomed to accept the changes or get out.

Share this to let everyone know how the Tories are messing the country up.

Additions to the above will appear below as a result of reader contributions:

– (Beverley) Promised flood defence finances not released in 2014 resulting in further flooding in 2015
– (William) Revelation that multiple Tories who voted for cuts to ESA benefits are patrons to charities whose users rely on such payments
– (Graham) 2013 Conservative government lost Britians ‘Moody AAA’ rating.
– (Graham) Called Corbyn and people voting against Syrian air strikes “terrorist sympathisers”
– (James) Forcing schools into academy status
– (Cristina) Despite over 80% of people being against a return to fox hunting the Conservatives have tried to repeal the ban.
– (Cristina) Not only did they introduce the Badger Cull as mentioned above, they extended it despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the Cull was ineffective.
– (Bob) Refusal of IDS to release evidence into suicides as a result of benefit cuts and ATOS interventions
– (Bob) Suggestions that welfare cuts don’t matter because ‘they don’t vote for us anyway’
– (Ruth) At its peak over 1 million people in the UK using food banks
– (Ruth) Sharp Increase in suicides rates amongst poorest in society
– (Ruth) Increase in homelessness under the Conservatives
– (Karen) Drastic cuts to the education budget and teacher wages have resulted in a teacher shortage crisis
– (Michael) Lack of provision for ex-servicemen as Military spending slashed by government. Angela Merkel suggests Britian looking to contribute to European Army
– (Jackie) Misleading on state pensions for women.
– (Jo) Conservatives have borrowed 4 times more money than any other Labour government in theit time in office.
– (Jo) Sold off the land registry
– (Jo) Taxpayers face £20 Billion loss on RBS sale
– (N McFarlane) Dirty tricks campaign during Scottish Referendum
– (Malcolm) The use of sanctions to manipulate employment figures let alone the hardship people face when sanctioned. Scandal of sanctions being given for frivolous breaches of ‘rules’
– (Josh) Bullying Scandal within the ‘Young Conservatives’
– (Vim) Changing trespass laws to allow Fracking companies to drill under private properties
– (Vim) Over ruling local authorities on Fracking applications or/and making decisions on Fracking applications where local authorities take too long to decide
– (Lorraine) Allowing pesticides that they know affect the bee population
– (Donna) UK government under investigation by United Nations for human rights violations against disabled.
– (Pat) Cuts to part of the NHS that takes care of the elderly, particularly social care.
– (Derek) Whilst in coalition gave the banks £200 Billion in Quantative easing to stimulate lending which failed to occur
– (Kelly) 56% cuts to local authorities meaning essential services cuts
– (Neil) Cuts to prison services leading to record level of assaults on staff.
– (Johanna) Google paying just £130 Million as back payment for 10 years worth of unpaid taxes.
– (Derek) Carbon capture project dropped.
– (Malc) Altering child poverty guidelines to artificially pull children out of poverty statistics.

We need to give IDS recognition

Iain Duncan Smith is just trying to stay afloat.

Everywhere you look you can’t help but notice that IDS is being slammed for his reasons for stepping down as Work and Pensions Secretary. From his own Tory party to the Labour Party, from past supporters to everyone in the public with an axe to grind.

Grind that axe they might and with good reason, he has presided over one of the most consistent campaigns against the working poor and disabled for many a year and his reason for quitting despite it all? Unfairness. Morality. The fact he couldn’t in good conscience go through with the latest round of cuts, this time to PIP payments. A benefit received by disabled people up and down the country.

Many are saying that his reasons for leaving are connected to his own stance on the EU referendum. He sits in the Brexit camp and it’s believed this resignation will help split the party further helping to convince the public that the right thing to do is leave.

That may or not be true. No one knows for sure. But I take a different view to most, that actually IDS is genuine..at least in part..for his reasons in wanting to leave.

IDS has had a very secure position in the cabinet. Like a good school prefect he has towed the party line and gone through with all the cuts thrown at him.

Few recall the near fallout between him and George Osborne when it was announced that working tax credits were planned to be cut before the Tories were beaten back by the House of Lords. IDS felt that he was being forced into yet more cuts which his work and Pensions budget could not accommodate as Osborne looked to use those saved funds elsewhere.

Fast forward to now (shortly after the announcement of planned cuts to ESA payments) and IDS is presented with, seemingly to him, unexpected cuts to PIP payments. Or at least he didn’t expect it to be announced in the budget. Already under fire from everywhere for his implementation of cuts to the poor it seems his back was well and truly against the wall and had a choice to make.

If you had a job where every request to not do something was thrown back at you by management and you were ignored at every opportunity..wouldn’t you pack it in…at least after some period of time? That’s exactly what’s happened here.

IDS has been the man in the spotlight for a long time and all for negative reasons whilst best buddies Cameron and Osborne laugh away on the front bench as they take the, wrongly applied, plaudits for a recovering and stabilising economy. It must have actually been a job role from hell.

To me, Cameron and Osborne look like the proverbial popular bully boy school kids in a playground of followers whilst a few sit on the periphery just trying to stay out of trouble but will even Polish the boots of the bullies if it means being popular. IDS did Polish their boots and got no recognition for it, now having been pushed to the brink IDS has had enough.


Why would he give up a secure ministerial role? Why would he risk the wrath of management and colleagues?

This isn’t a defence of what he has done. This is a recognition that he has done a good thing and boy is it good for the opposition.

Remember also that Cameron and his minions would much rather you believe his reason for quitting was Brexit rather than because their fiscal policy attack on the poor and disabled being the reason. It looks far better for them and takes the heat away. Let’s not give them the satisfaction.

IDS smacks of a lost little boy. Let loose on the vulnerable with the backing of the playground bully.. and now finds he isn’t quite like them..and on retreating.. find he himself has been cast away from the popular crowd.

Sympathy? No. Recognition? Yes.

IDS was the willing and culpable whipping boy, Cameron and Osborne the architects and they are still in power.

***Update 21/03/16 21:55****

I happened upon this article in the telegraph this evening that does point to clear evidence of a rift between IDS and Osborne giving credence to the argument that he did indeed quit because of the interference from Osborne and thus felt the announcement of cuts to PIP were a step top far and the resignation having nothing to do with Brexit.

By focusing on the reason of Brexit as the reason for the resignation what the left has done is miss a huge opportunity to focus on and attack Osborne and Cameron as the architects of the cuts. Osborne and Cameron loaded the gun and handed it to IDS but too often they interfered because in fact it was them who had their fingers on the trigger.

Instead Osborne and Co. can sit back and claim that they are the listening and caring government they always claimed to be and have now backed down on cuts to PIP. Now they look like the good guys to the gullible. The relevant part of the article we linked to above has been reproduced below.

Feuds between George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith

Early clashes over welfare reform

After a senior Treasury official described Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to reform the welfare system as “impractical”, Mr Duncan Smith told George Osborne that officials in his department must “show more respect”.

Child benefit

Mr Duncan Smith was caught off guard at the 2010 Conservative party conference when Osborne announced higher rate taxpayers would lose their child benefit.

Benefits for pensioners

Mr Duncan Smith said in his resignation letter that he thought the cuts would have been fairer if the Government had been willing to reduce “some of the benefits given to better-off pensioners”.

Child poverty

In 2014, Mr Osborne blocked Mr Duncan Smith’s attempts to redefine child poverty in a clash said to be motivated by “personalities”, not policy.

Tax credits

In November 2015 Mr Duncan Smith was reportedly ready to resign over a row with Mr Osborne over Universal Credit reforms. Mr Duncan Smith feared his flagship welfare programme would be undermined by Mr Osborne’s plan to raid Universal Credit to lessen the impact of the cuts to tax credits.

Disability benefits

Mr Duncan Smith said as he resigned that the planned changes to disability benefits were a “compromise too far” in the context of a Budget that included giveaways to the wealthy. Mr Osborne faced a backlash over his proposals to cut the benefits paid to the disabled by over £1bn.

Safe Tory MP comes under fire

How do you deal with the problem of a safe Tory seat? What happens when you find yourself in a town where the Tories have been in control since time immortal and have a huge majority?

Do you
A) Move town
B) Cry into your hanky
C) Do something about it

Well if you’re unfortunate enough to be the Tory MP of East Worthing & Shoreham in West Sussex then you know the answer is C.

A page on Facebook has appeared entitled ‘Tim Loughton Exposed‘.

The creator is tackling the forementioned problem head on despite all the odds being against them.

The page is highlighting everything that is wrong with a Tory government and specifically everything that is wrong with the local MP, Tim Loughton and sharing the content on social media locally in an attempt to change opinion.

Oddly enough Tim Loughton may have answered ‘A’ above, move town, as the post at this link explains. Tim Loughton just after being re-elected in 2015 told a local resident to ‘get out of town’ if she didn’t like the result.

'Get out of town'

It’s not the first time the local MP has got into hot water, with previous comments against the gay community where he compared gay people to child abusers and comments that implied that only a straight couples could reasonably be expected to produce well rounded children. Even single mums were implicated in the negative along with families where the parents were out of wedlock. You won’t be surprised to learn that Tim Loughton voted against gay marriage but did complain that straight couples were not treated equally to gay couples in regards to civil services. Go figure!

Marriage issues

As recently as last week Loughton referred to left wing political opponents as “scumbags” and has been reported to the parliamentary standards commity by several local residents for those comments.


As well as the usual crimes such as voting for ESA cuts to the vulnerable and disabled Tim Loughton has been highlighted for his wish to lower the duty on wines and spirits saying that high wine tax was a “burden” on people trying “to make ends meet”. Sod the disabled then Mr.Loughton? As long as you’ve got your priorities right that’s all that matters. Perhaps the fact he is the senior member of the all parliamentary wines and spirits club may have something to do with it.


One resident has started a petition to remove Tim Loughton and two other local MP’s from their positions as vice chair and pastors to ‘Coastal West Sussex MIND’ part of the well known mental health charity. A statement on their website states their positions are being reviewed in April.

Perhaps the biggest story though, certainly for locals, is the allegation that he claimed for travel expenses when attending a local memorial service shortly after the Shoreham Airshow disaster, the second most fatal aircrash in the history of airshows in the UK. Perhaps a moral question more than one of legality.

According to reports on the page Mr Loughton claims he walked from his office in Shoreham which he clearly did not claim for and then later travelled to Worthing by car, a six mile journey, for which he claimed… 12 miles. That is according to official parliamentary expenses documents.

Claim for 12 miles

The allegation is that the 12 miles is the round journey from Worthing to Shoreham for the memorial and back again. 12 miles. Although Mr Loughton denies that, there is one resident on the page that claims to have seen Mr Loughton arrive at the memorial in a car (remember he said he had walked) and then leave in his car again. Mr Loughton it seems has not addressed this part of the allegation leading to locals believing that he did indeed claim for the trip to the memorial service.

Caught out by local resident

So, is this the way to go if you live in a Tory Safe seat? Tackle the man (or woman) as well as the policies? Perhaps it’s the only way. If a Tory has managed to keep the constituency through the Thatcher years, the John Major years and three terms of Blair… it makes you wonder what would move a town to change the habit of a lifetime.

But as they say…”if you don’t try…”


Hounding Lucy Allan is right and just. 

Lucy Allan, Conservative MP, has made a comeback video on her Facebook Page that has come into criticism for failing to accept responsibility for faking a death threat. You can view the video here. (Update: This video has since been taken down by Lucy Allan but can be found here instead )

She originally suspended both her Facebook and Twitter accounts. 

The story broke after she posted what she claimed was text an email and states it was from one certain individual. At the bottom a death threat (of sorts) was made. The person who sent the email called her out on Facebook claiming the death threat was added by her and that he had proof. 

Lucy Allan later stated that the death threat had been added as part of wider content she had received from other people.. If you had seen what she posted, it’s hard to imagine that could be the case. 

Her video (here if you want to see it now) (Update: This video has since been taken down by Lucy Allan but can be found here instead) essentially says that she won’t let Labour Activists wind her up and that she will continue on as normal as if nothing has happened. No apology. No recognition. It’s the “activists” fault. 

On the comments there are a few supporters and many people venting their displeasure. The supporters accusing the displeased of bullying. That’s good coming from a Conservative party in the midst of a bullying scandal and this latest claim of racial bullying involving a video of Sadiq Khan, Mayoral candidate for London

The question though, is it right? Is it right that an MP should be hounded and made an example of? Is it right that an MP be made to feel uncomfortable? 

Yes. Up to a point. Clear actual death threats or physical threats of any kind should always be condemned but hounding, barracking, messaging in simple form should not necessarily be seen as bullying nor unacceptable and here we take a brief moment to explain why. 

An MP is almost in an untouchable position. Say too much to an MP and you can expect to have the police knocking on your door. Same the same thing to anyone else on line and you’re dealt with just as another troll whom everyone ignores or happily but stupidly argues with. 

If an MP does a wrong, makes a big mistake, or tries to deceive the public deliberately then that MP should be held to account either by way of apology, being reprimanded or in the worst cases sacked or jailed. At the very least they should be expected to give an explanation. But when there is no logic to the explanation given then surely the MP can not just be allowed to saunter off as if nothing ever happened. 

When that happens what come back is there for the electorate? If you or I did that in our jobs we would probably expect to be disciplined or sacked and we never see that same justice carried out in the role as an MP.

We have seen time and again in the right wing press moments where Labour MP’s usually alligned to Jeremy Corbyn are brought to task and hounded by the media or even other Labour MP’s and they always manage to come back with an answer where even if you don’t agree, there is always logic behind what they are saying or in the case of Ken Livingstone an actual apology. 

When is this same expectation given to Conservative MP’s? 

So, in the interests of fairness and justice, if you are an MP on either side of the house, if you mess up, the least we should expect is an apology and if we can’t even get that and there is no sense of justice for the people who expect you to lead the country without fear nor favour, then you should expect to be hounded. You should expect a verbal onslaught and you should expect to be held to account. 

As an MP you are not just another member of public. You are part of an elite group of people who run the country. Who make choices in regards to war and peace, you make decisions that effect the disabled and sick, the unemployed and the workers of the country. We trust you to do a good job even if we don’t all support you as a party. 

If you can’t be trusted to tell the truth then you should expect the public to decide your fate in politics if you are not going to be held to account by the people that should hold you to account in the first instance. 

They work for us. Not the other way around.