Andrew stripped of titles: constitutional implications of his fall from royal grace

31 Friday Oct 2025

Posted by in Royal Family, scandal

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Andrew has been formally stripped of his “Prince” title and will vacate his Windsor residence, Royal Lodge, due to his links with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Buckingham Palace confirmed on Thursday (October 30) that he will now be known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor.

This follows his voluntary relinquishment earlier this month of other royal titles, including the Duke of York.

While the move represents a significant personal and symbolic blow, it also raises broader constitutional and political questions about the limits of royal authority and accountability.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving – in ONE day!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

A symbolic but limited demotion

The removal of Andrew’s title is largely ceremonial.

Despite being known as Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, he remains eighth in line to the throne.

His place in the line of succession cannot be altered without the formal consent of the 14 Commonwealth realms where the UK monarch is also head of state.

Any changes would require agreement from parliaments spanning countries from Canada to New Zealand – and this could be problematic in (for example) Caribbean states where the continued status of the Royal Family is being questioned.

Similarly, while he may be styled “Mr” and lose associated honours, his positions in the House of Lords or any other constitutional posts cannot be revoked by the Palace alone. Changes to such roles require an Act of Parliament.

The Palace’s announcement therefore reflects the limits of royal prerogative: symbolic censure can be swift, but formal constitutional authority remains firmly constrained by law.

The Crown and government

The Palace confirmed that the government was consulted on the decision to remove Andrew’s title.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy described the step as sending a “very powerful message to victims of grooming and sex offences.”

The move illustrates the interplay between royal protocol and elected government oversight in a modern constitutional monarchy: while the King can initiate steps to strip titles, any actions with legal effect beyond courtesy titles—such as altering succession or removing peers—fall squarely within parliamentary control.

Financial and residential consequences

Andrew will also surrender the lease on Royal Lodge and move to private accommodation on the Sandringham Estate, funded by the King.

This follows renewed attention on how Andrew funded his lifestyle despite no longer being a working royal, including the £8 million upfront payments he made under a 75-year lease agreement with the Crown Estate. Where did he get the cash?

Constitutional takeaways

We’re seeing the delicate balance between public accountability, royal privilege, and constitutional law.

The King can remove styles and personal honours to distance the monarchy from scandal, but the structural realities of succession and parliamentary oversight prevent unilateral alterations to Andrew’s formal legal and constitutional status.

Titles may be stripped and public reputations tarnished, but constitutional protections for succession and legal office remain firmly intact.

It will be up to Parliament to do something about that. Will it?

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Post Office launches new restorative justice programme for sub-postmasters

31 Friday Oct 2025

Posted by in compensation, government, Post Office, scandal

≈ Comments Off on Post Office launches new restorative justice programme for sub-postmasters

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

The UK government, Post Office Ltd, and Fujitsu Services Limited have today (October 31, 2025) launched a “restorative justice programme” for sub-postmasters affected by the Horizon IT scandal.

The announcement is a response to recommendations from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, which called for a structured approach to acknowledging and repairing the harm caused.

The initiative offers postmasters the chance to participate in “Listening and Learning Circles”, facilitated by the Restorative Justice Council, where they can share experiences and contribute to the design of the programme.

A first phase has already begun in Belfast, Glasgow, Cardiff, and London, with up to six confidential supportive sessions available for participants.

Officials described the scheme as a “first step” toward recognising the suffering of those wrongfully prosecuted or otherwise harmed by Horizon system errors and Post Office failings.

While the programme focuses on dialogue and emotional redress, financial compensation for affected postmasters continues through the established Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme and Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which offer fixed and assessed payments depending on eligibility.

The Department for Business and Trade said today that the restorative justice initiative represents the government’s commitment to acknowledge past wrongs and provide meaningful support to victims of the scandal.

It joins a series of previously-announced packages.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

Here are the details of everything that is now available to victims of the scandal:

Through the Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme (HCRS) for those whose convictions were quashed, eligible individuals can choose a fixed and final offer of £600,000 instead of a detailed assessment or a detailed assessment of their losses (which could exceed £600,000) via the assessment route.

Through the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS): for those who were not part of the earlier group litigation or convictions route, but suffered losses, a fixed sum payment of £75,000 is available for many of those eligible.

Through the restorative justice initiative by the Restorative Justice Council, “Listening and Learning Circles” are to take place across the UK so that those harmed can share their experiences and help shape the programme. For some participants, the scheme will offer up to six confidential supportive listening sessions (via secure online/video or telephone) as part of a pilot.

The precise scope and schedule of the restorative justice programme has not been fully specified; although many sessions are being announced and a pilot is underway, it is not yet fully clear what the full offer will look like (whether this includes formal apologies, how compensation for emotional/psychological harm will be handled, and so on).

For many affected, “full and fair” redress is still being defined in practice. Some of the offers depend on eligibility criteria, choice (fixed offer v assessment), and the timing of applications.

It appears that while large amounts are available (like the £600,000 fixed offer), many claimants may opt for the detailed assessment route, which brings complexity and uncertainty.

And the restorative justice offer is more of a process right now – listening, pilot sessions – rather than a concrete, uniform benefit package for all.

Today’s announcement is a stopgap.

The restorative justice programme is primarily about acknowledgement, listening, and providing a structured space for victims to share their experiences.

It’s largely non-financial, with support sessions and dialogue rather than new direct payments.

The launch is symbolically significant and a practical start, but it’s not the final word on compensation, apology, or wider systemic reform.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Reeves rental licence scandal: agency takes blame but responsibility is still hers

31 Friday Oct 2025

Posted by in Corruption, government, Labour Party, People

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Rachel Reeves has tried to draw a line under her rental licence scandal by blaming her letting agent – but even that agency admits it was her responsibility to make sure the law was followed.

Harvey & Wheeler, the Dulwich firm Reeves used to rent out her four-bedroom Southwark house, said a staff member had “offered to apply for a licence” but failed to do so before leaving the company.

The firm apologised for the “oversight” and said Reeves “would have been under the impression that a licence had been applied for.”

But that does not absolve her – and her story doesn’t ring true.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

The law is clear: the owner of a rented property is responsible for ensuring it is properly licensed. And Reeves – as Chancellor and a senior member of a party that claims to stand for integrity – should have known better than to assume somebody else would handle it.

That was Boris Johnson’s excuse for failing to ensure there was a plan to see school pupils safely through the Covid-19 crisis, when he gave evidence to an inquiry two weeks ago – and we didn’t accept it from him. The buck stopped with him; he should have ensured that plans were ready.

So in this case the buck stops with Reeves, and we should expect her to have ensured that she was covered.

Furthermore: In her first letter to Keir Starmer, Reeves said she had been unaware that a licence was needed to rent out her Southwark home.

But the paper trail says otherwise. Her husband, Nicholas Joicey – a senior civil servant, no less – was told by the letting agent that a licence was required and that the agency would “sort it”. The agency later admitted that this never happened, blaming the departure of a staff member.

Are we really supposed to believe that Reeves and her husband – both highly experienced in public life – never discussed something as basic as whether they were legally allowed to rent out their home?

When ordinary people let a property, they don’t just assume everything’s fine; they check. Are we being asked to believe that Reeves and her husband did not talk about the practicalities of this, and what needed to be done?

When I was with the former Mrs Mike, we talked about everything that was likely to affect us both; let’s be honest – we talked about everything.

So the idea that two people at the very top of government wouldn’t talk about it simply doesn’t ring true.

This was not just a clerical slip — it was a failure of diligence, of responsibility, and of credibility.

Reeves can’t hide behind her letting agent.

She was the owner.

The law, and the accountability, stop with her.

Sir Keir Starmer has called the situation “regrettable” but says there will be no further action. That makes his earlier promise that “lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers” sound emptier than ever.

As I stated in the previous article, Reeves’s behaviour has been no different from that of Angela Rayner, who had to resign as Housing Secretary, Deputy PM and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

There’s a double-standard here.

The Guardian‘s coverage states that Starmer would have wanted to avoid losing his Chancellor weeks ahead of only this Labour government’s second full Budget, but it makes him look inconsistent, weak, hypocritical, and willing to bend the rules to protect his allies.

And what about the allegedly “independent” Parliamentary ethics advisor, Sir Laurie Magnus. Despite their stories being essentially the same, he said Rayner should go but has declined to suggest the same about Reeves. How can he justify that? And can Starmer really justify keeping him on if his advice is going to be inconsistent in such a blatant way?

Finally, there’s the question of whether other MPs are going to need to check their own housing arrangements.

Two senior Labour government figures have fallen into difficulties because of such matters; some might say that Reeves, being the second of them, should have reviewed her own circumstances after Rayner ran into trouble.

Some might say other MPs should take the hint and do the same now – before their own irregularities are brought to light.

Will they?

It seems the corridors of power are dripping with sleaze.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Starmer’s ‘sticking-plaster’ politics: putting some energy debts on other people’s bills

30 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by in Cost of living, Energy

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Watch the video clip:

Around 200,000 people on benefits could have their energy bill debt cancelled under a proposed Ofgem scheme – and I can’t say I’m happy about it.

Here‘s the BBC:

Nearly 200,000 people on benefits could have their debts to their energy supplier cancelled, if they make some effort to pay what is owed.

Unpaid bills and fees have soared in recent years with energy prices so high, leaving a record £4.4bn owed to suppliers.

Up to £500m could be knocked off the total under plans that regulator Ofgem wants to take effect early next year.

But that will also require the cost to be covered through an extra £5 added to everyone’s gas and electricity bill.

By recovering or cancelling up to £500m, the first phase may only reduce the rate of increase in customer debt, rather than reverse it.

I’m on Universal Credit and I’ve managed to pay my bills – sometimes by switching the heating off when I really needed to have it (the classic choice between “heating or eating”).

I don’t want to vilify other people for keeping their heating on and racking up debt instead, only to have it written off; for me, the answer is to reduce energy bills.

Why can’t the government and energy companies manage that?

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

Let’s go into the details:

Debt relief doesn’t reduce energy bills directly – the Ofgem scheme would forgive some historic debts for people on benefits, but it adds around £5 a year to everyone else’s bill to cover the cost.

That’s shifting the cost to the wider population rather than tackling the root cause: high energy prices.

The choice between heating or eating is still confronting many people – even with debt relief, bills remain high. So people who managed to pay despite hardship end up carrying more financial discipline while others’ past debts are wiped.

It doesn’t feel fair, because the structural issue—energy pricing—isn’t fixed.

Energy bills are so high because the system is complicated – part of it is wholesale energy costs, which surged after global price spikes; part is about profit margins and the regulatory framework for network companies.

While MPs want to use windfall profits to fund relief, Ofgem says renegotiating price caps could end up costing consumers more, which shows how hard it is to shift money around without unintended consequences.

Ofgem does want to bring in longer-term fixes – The BBC article mentions requiring tenants and homeowners to actively sign up to energy accounts and switching smart meters to pre-payment mode to prevent historic debt from accumulating.

These measures may prevent future debt from spiralling, but they don’t address high ongoing bills – and actively deny heat to homes in some cases.

Debt cancellation is a sticking-plaster to hide the wound; it relieves symptoms but not the disease. The intention here seems to be to:

  • Deal with past debt rather than future bills – forgiving historic arrears doesn’t reduce the astronomical £1,755 annual bills people face; and

  • Avoid tackling corporate profits or energy prices directly – MPs have called for using network companies’ windfall profits, but the regulator and government are reluctant.

Real relief comes from:

  • Energy efficiency improvements (insulation, better heating systems, smart meters)

  • Regulatory reforms that limit the cost burden on vulnerable households

  • Genuine reductions in wholesale or retail energy costs

but none of those measures are forthcoming.

This is a chance for Starmer to say he’s doing something.

But it doesn’t mean he’s doing the right thing.

The right thing is to cut fossil fuels out of UK energy consumption – starting with gas. We have no expected date for this to happen.

The right thing is to cut private profit out of energy provision by taking the greedy private energy companies back into public ownership. The government has no intention of doing that.

The right thing is to put the best interests of the people of the UK ahead of the profits of private shareholders. Keir Starmer is deaf to such pleas.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Free pass for Rachel Reeves over housing corruption

30 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by in Corruption, government, Labour Party, People

≈ Comments Off on Free pass for Rachel Reeves over housing corruption

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Rachel Reeves is getting a free pass after breaking housing rules because she is Keir Starmer’s buddy.

Angela Rayner had to go after she broke housing rules – because she isn’t?

And this isn’t Reeves’s first rule breach – she took gifts in breach of Parliamentary rules. Oh, but that’s okay because Starmer did it too. Right?

Here‘s the BBC:

Sir Keir Starmer has dismissed calls for an investigation into Chancellor Rachel Reeves after she apologised for breaking housing rules when renting out her family home.

The chancellor [said she] became aware of the problem on Wednesday when the Daily Mail, who first reported the story, approached her for a comment.

In a letter to the prime minister, Reeves admitted she did not obtain a “selective” rental licence required to rent out her London home and “sincerely” apologised for her “inadvertent error”.

In reply, the prime minister said he was happy the “matter can be drawn to a close” after consulting his independent ethics adviser, who has decided not to launch an investigation.

Reeves wrote: “This was an inadvertent mistake. As soon as it was brought to my attention, we took immediate action and have applied for the licence.”

But wasn’t Rayner’s mistake inadvertent as well?

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving – in TWO days!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

She bought a flat in Hove, East Sussex, valued at about £800,000 in May this year, paying the standard rate of stamp duty (roughly £30,000) as if it were her only residence.

But due to a prior arrangement—her home in Ashton-under-Lyne had been placed into a trust for her disabled son—she was treated under tax law as still owning another dwelling, meaning the Hove flat should have been treated as a “second home” and a higher stamp duty surcharge rate should have applied.

Rayner’s breach was also classed as “inadvertent” by the independent ethics adviser, Sir Laurie Magnus, whose investigation found that she acted in good faith, and did not intend to avoid tax or conceal anything,

But Sir Laurie concluded that she had breached the ministerial code by failing to seek specialist tax advice for her complex situation. He said she “acted with integrity” but did not meet the “highest possible standards of proper conduct”.

So she had to resign.

On the face of it, the two situations are strikingly similar – failure to follow housing rules, that was not intentional.

But while Rayner was found to have breached the ministerial code, it seems there has been no formal finding of the same against Reeves. Why not?

Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitting to breaking housing laws by renting out a property without the required selective licence — this is a breach that carries the risk of prosecution and an unlimited fine.

Yet, instead of facing investigation, Starmer waves it away with a “matter closed” letter after consulting his “independent” ethics adviser.

And this isn’t the first time Reeves has broken rules.

Earlier this year she was found to have failed to declare gifts, including luxury hospitality and tickets worth thousands of pounds — but again, that was quietly brushed aside.

Ah, but Starmer has also faced questions over similar undeclared gifts, and again, nothing happened – apart from a rule change to penalise anybody found taking such gifts in the future.

Contrast that with Rayner, who faced sustained pressure, public smearing, and ultimately resignation over her own property situation, which still hasn’t led to any formal finding of wrongdoing.

The difference seems obvious: Rayner wasn’t one of Starmer’s inner circle, while Reeves very much is.

It looks like one rule for Starmer’s favourites and another for everyone else. Reeves’ own words make the hypocrisy sharper still: she has previously praised selective licensing schemes that penalise landlords for exactly the kind of failure she committed.

She cannot say she did not know about such schemes.

It is also revealing that the breach was uncovered by the Daily Mail — not the government or regulators.

It was only after this happened that Reeves decided to “take immediate action”. That suggests her apology was damage control, not integrity.

This is a story of double standards, cronyism, and quiet impunity.

The same Labour leadership that hounded out Rayner for a supposed housing scandal has now closed ranks to protect one of its own for a proven one.

The cleaners at Downing Street must be struggling to cope with extra work of clearing up the mess and the stink of all the sleaze that Starmer and Reeves leave wherever they go.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Reform UK loudmouth lies that Citizens Advice is ‘gaming the system’ for benefit claimants

30 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by in Benefits, falsehood, Reform UK

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Reform UK’s Lee Anderson has claimed that Citizens Advice “gamed the system” to help people claim Personal Independence Payment (PIP) – but This Writer has worked in the service, and I say that’s nonsense.

Anderson made the comment during a Reform UK press conference in which he and policy chief Zia Yusuf proposed tightening eligibility for PIP, claiming it would save up to £9 billion a year.

The plan would bar people with “less serious psychological conditions” – such as anxiety – from claiming and reinstate mandatory face-to-face assessments for all applicants.

Anderson, who says he briefly worked for Citizens Advice before entering politics, said he used to “tutor” claimants to ensure their applications succeeded. He boasted:

“We used to fill the forms out for clients before that application form went in. And I can tell you now, we were gaming the system.”

He went on to say that he could take “the fittest man in Ashfield” and secure a 100 per cent success rate on disability benefit claims.

That is not the experience of those who actually know what Citizens Advice does.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving – in TWO days!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

As former vice-chair of Citizens Advice in Powys, I can confirm that the purpose of the service is not to help people cheat the system, but to help them understand what the system is asking of them.

PIP forms are notoriously complex, badly written, and — in my view — designed to trip people up.

Citizens Advice staff and volunteers help clients express their difficulties in coping with the challenges of everyday life – clearly and accurately, using evidence from doctors or carers when it is available.

That is clearly not “gaming the system”.

It is ensuring that people who need help aren’t denied it because of an opaque bureaucracy.

Anderson’s claim is especially hypocritical given his own party’s long record of attacking vulnerable people while excusing tax avoidance.

For example, Reform UK has proposed that individuals with non-UK domicile status (“non-doms”) pay a one-off fee of £250,000 to obtain a so-called “Britannia Card”, allowing them to live in the UK for ten years while enjoying exemption from UK taxes on overseas income, wealth or gains, and apparently inheritance tax benefits.

Tax experts have said the scheme “would mean a £31 billion tax cut for the wealthy” given the numbers involved.

The proposal to deny benefits to people with conditions such as anxiety and depression would throw thousands into poverty — and the mockery Anderson directed at those conditions – “I’ve had persistent sadness since July last year, this awful Labour government” – reveals just how little compassion lies behind the plan.

And it comes only days after This Site exposed how consecutive governments have imposed a policy of neglect on – particularly young – people suffering from anxiety and depression through no fault of their own.

NHS and UK government surveillance data show that up to 50 per cent of young people aged 11–22 experienced elevated symptoms of anxiety and depression due to the COVID-19 lockdowns.

The number of under-25s receiving treatment for anxiety and depression has nearly doubled since 2020.

Mental and emotional illness caused by pandemic lockdowns is now directly responsible for the surge in sickness and disability benefit claims by people aged up to 22.

They are showing up in PIP and ESA claims, often with diagnoses of long-term anxiety, PTSD-type symptoms, or neurodevelopmental issues exacerbated by social isolation and disrupted education.

These are people who are suffering the direct consequences of being abandoned by government during the pandemic, and the current Labour government’s attitude to them is that it cannot afford the cost of putting them on benefit, and the NHS cannot cope with their treatment requirements (look at the size of the waiting lists) so instead it will legislate that they cannot be ill.

I stated in that previous article that “to legislate tighter benefit conditions or ‘redefine’ sickness so fewer people qualify is therefore to re-victimise the very generation already harmed by previous government failure”.

And now Lee Anderson is promising that if a Reform UK government is elected, it will worsen the agony for these victims of serial government neglect.

This is not serious policy-making – it is cruelty by design.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Does anybody believe Israel’s new excuses for attacking Gaza?

29 Wednesday Oct 2025

Posted by in ceasefire, Gaza, Hamas, Israel

≈ Comments Off on Does anybody believe Israel’s new excuses for attacking Gaza?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

There is a saying that war is the continuation of business by other means. Israel seems to be trying to make its ceasefire with Hamas the continuation of genocide with a new excuse.

Israel launched air strikes on Gaza yesterday (October 29, 2025) that killed at least 104 Palestinians – including at least 35 children – and injured around 200 people, according to Gaza’s civil defence agency.

According to The Guardian,

Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the strikes on Tuesday evening after a firefight between Palestinian militants and Israeli troops, and amid growing anger over Hamas turning over body parts of a hostage whose remains Israeli troops had recovered two years before.

Netanyahu called an emergency meeting to discuss what he called Hamas violations of the ceasefire, as far-right figures in the Israeli government clamoured for a return to war.

It makes a good story. But is that all it is?

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving – in THREE days!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

Israel’s claims

Israel says that Hamas attacked Israeli troops in a portion of Gaza under Israeli control (sometimes referred to as the “yellow line” or a zone where Israeli forces are still active).

Israel also accuses Hamas of returning the remains of a hostage which Israel contends had already been partially recovered previously — framing this as a violation of the agreed terms regarding the return of bodies.

After its strikes, the Israeli military said it was resuming the enforcement of the ceasefire, implying that the attacks were reactive rather than a unilateral resumption of war.

Israel contends that any violations by Hamas provide it with a legal or political justification to carry out retaliatory strikes.

Hamas / Gaza / independent claims and counters

Hamas denies responsibility for the gunfire or attacks on Israeli troops that Israel cites.

Gaza media authorities (closely aligned with Hamas) say Israel has violated the ceasefire dozens of times since it came into effect, with dozens of Palestinian casualties.

Some analysts and observers say that from very early on, the ceasefire has been under strain, with “skirmishes” and retaliatory strikes from both sides.

United Nations experts have warned against continuing violations of the ceasefire and stressed that both parties must comply.

Observations and patterns in the record

Even in the first days of the ceasefire, Israel reportedly carried out strikes, which raised accusations from Gaza that the ceasefire was hollow.

There is ambiguity about what exactly constitutes a “violation” under the ceasefire terms — whether any gunfire, border skirmishes, failure to return bodies on time, or cross-line incidents count.

The Israeli published footage accusing Hamas of staging body recovery has been contested; e.g. some imagery and sequences were scrutinised by third parties (like AP) without clear verification of all the claims.

Why “who broke it first” is hard to determine — and how that ambiguity can be weaponised

States often exploit ambiguity in ceasefire agreements to frame their continued military operations as “responses” rather than offensives. There are key challenges in assessing Israel’s claims:

Asymmetry of evidence and access

Israel has far greater capture of surveillance, drone footage, and internal intelligence, which it can choose to release selectively.

Gaza is heavily devastated, communications disrupted, investigators have limited access, and many operations happen in tunnels or destroyed areas.

Independent observers (UN agencies, non-governmental organisations) may have incomplete or delayed access.

“Minor skirmishes” v major breach

Ceasefires frequently allow or tolerate limited “incidents” (shelling, sniper fire, border skirmishes) as “skirmishes,” not full rejection of the ceasefire. Israel often frames its actions as proportional responses to such skirmishes, not a wholesale abandonment.

The threshold for what triggers a full military response is often left vague or contested.

Narrative framing and legalistic interpretations

Israel frames certain actions (returning remains, burying bodies) as violations; Hamas or its backers dispute whether those fall under ceasefire rules.

The state with superior military and diplomatic weight often sets the narrative: “They attacked us first; we are only responding.”

Strategic incentives to provoke

If Israel wants a pretext to resume heavy strikes, it may be tempted to interpret or present an event as a violation.

Conversely, Hamas (or other groups) may avoid overt provocations that would justify full retaliation, but they might engage in ambiguous lower-level violence.

Ceasefire as a strategic tool

Ceasefires (or pauses) are rarely absolute; they are often tactical interludes used to regroup, reposition, rearm, or recalibrate political advantage.

The state with greater power (Israel) is better placed to violate the truce in controlled ways, while retaining the legitimacy of the ceasefire when useful (“We will resume enforcing it”).

Is there reason to believe Israel is using the ceasefire as cover for continuation?

Let’s get the answer out of the way immediately: Yes — there are several lines of reasoning (and some evidence) supporting such a suspicion:

Pre-existing pattern of violations

In the very early days of the truce, there were already reports of Israeli strikes or “violations.” Some commentators argue the ceasefire was “ostensibly” in place while Israel continued punitive operations.

High selectivity and sudden escalation

Israel tends to escalate immediately after reporting a violation (or claiming one). The speed and intensity of strikes suggest they may have been pre-planned rather than purely reactive.

Framing and discourse control

By positioning itself as morally and legally responding to Hamas violations, Israel seeks to maintain international support or at least avoid condemnation for breaking the ceasefire.

Ambiguous justification

The claims about body return and returning remains that Israel says were already known allow Israel to assert a technical violation (for example: wrong body) and thereby justify new strikes. That gives manoeuvring room.

Repeated pattern in other ceasefires

In previous ceasefire deals, there have been accusations — by both sides — of ceasefire violations, selective interpretations, and “pause” phases used for military recalibration.

Power imbalance

Israel’s dominant military capability makes it difficult for Hamas to resist heavily. Israel can calibrate attacks so that they maintain plausible deniability or legal justification while inflicting damage.

What independent organisations are saying

Amnesty International welcomed the ceasefire as a chance to stop the carnage but immediately framed the deal as only a first step — and has repeatedly warned that Israel’s policies and operations in Gaza amount to grievous rights abuses that must be addressed, not papered over by pauses.

Human Rights Watch has likewise emphasised that the ceasefire is not a substitute for serious action on humanitarian access and accountability, and it has pressed both sides to stop violations and allow independent investigations.

B’Tselem (Israeli human-rights group) has issued the strongest indictments on Israel’s conduct, accusing Israeli policy in Gaza — over the course of the campaign — of actions amounting to mass atrocities and calling for accountability. Their reports pre-date (and frame) how they view any subsequent “violations” under the ceasefire.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is documenting a high humanitarian toll, widespread displacement and repeated incidents since the truce began; their situation reports stress that the truce is functionally fragile while hostilities, civilian harm and protection needs continue.

The ICRC/Red Cross and neutral intermediaries have repeatedly warned that returning the remains of hostages and recovering bodies will be extremely difficult because of rubble and destroyed sites — a practical limit on the speed of compliance with the ceasefire exchange rules. That caveat matters when one side accuses the other of “failing to return bodies.”

What this means for the question “who broke it first?”

Verification is hard.

Independent observers broadly confirm the ceasefire has been intermittently violated and that serious infractions have occurred — but they also stress access problems and the difficulty of independently verifying fast, localized claims about specific incidents. (OCHA, ICRC).

Both the pattern and independent reports cast doubt on purely reactive justifications for heavy strikes.

NGOs (Amnesty, HRW, B’Tselem) have warned that a pattern of strikes and civilian harm continued even during the pause, and they treat large escalatory attacks — especially against civilian areas or displaced-persons camps — as problematic regardless of the formal pretext. That doesn’t legally prove intent in any single incident, but it does weaken any simple “they shot first; we only responded” narrative.

Practical limits on the hostage/body exchanges matter.

The ICRC and other neutral actors have said that recovering remains in heavily-destroyed areas can be slow or impossible; where Israel claims Hamas “failed” to return bodies, independent intermediaries say the rubble and operational realities often explain delays. That complicates claims that missed returns are deliberate violations.

The consensus

There is credible, independent evidence that the ceasefire has been repeatedly strained and that Israel has continued operations that independent groups consider unlawful or disproportionate.

Amnesty, HRW and B’Tselem are all critical of Israeli conduct since the truce, OCHA documents the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and the ICRC warns recovery of remains will be slow.

Those facts make the simple, Israeli state-issued claim that “Hamas broke it first, therefore we hit back hard” not fully convincing without independent, incident-level verification.

The verdict

Given all the uncertainty:

It is not implausible that Hamas may have carried out smaller-scale violations (gunfire toward Israeli troops, sniper fire, etc.), even if the material impact was minor.

But whether those incidents legitimately triggered a massive strike killing 100+ people and involving multiple targets is highly doubtful.

The fact that Israel reasserts it is “resuming enforcement” after its strikes suggests they were not merely reactive responses, but part of an operational posture to maintain military pressure.

In practice, the ceasefire — like many others — seems to function less as a real cessation of hostilities and more as a regulated intermission, with both sides testing limits.

This Site’s reading — that Israel may be using the ceasefire to legitimize or mask ongoing operations — is consistent with what many analysts believe is the modus operandi in asymmetric conflicts of this nature.

While one cannot categorically prove Israel “broke it first,” there is abundant reason to doubt that Israel’s claims are entirely sincere or that its actions are always purely reactive. The pattern suggests Israel sees the ceasefire as a strategic instrument, not a cessation of war.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

University silence on misconduct claims exposes watchdog weakness and secrecy culture

29 Wednesday Oct 2025

Posted by in Crime, Education, Law

≈ Comments Off on University silence on misconduct claims exposes watchdog weakness and secrecy culture

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

The University of Salford has refused to confirm or deny whether it handled an allegation of sexual misconduct, after a series of targeted legal questions between July and September 2025, according to a litigant who brought a claim against the institution.

The claimant, acting in person in Wigan County Court (claim no L00WN554), served a series of Part 18 requests on the university, asking whether non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) had been used, whether a student had reported a sexual offense, and whether internal records were withheld.

The university, represented by Hill Dickinson LLP, responded with blanket objections, citing proportionality, data-protection obligations, and victim anonymity concerns.

The letters, available publicly here, show that the claimant offered practical safeguards—including anonymised answers, redaction, or sealed court inspection—but these were reportedly declined.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

The claimant maintains that simple confirm/deny answers would not compromise anonymity and are essential for assessing whether safeguarding procedures were followed.

The dispute has arisen amid regulatory changes. Since September 1, 2024, the Office for Students (OfS) has prohibited NDAs in cases relating to harassment or sexual misconduct. Guidance published by the OfS emphasizes transparency and student protection (OfS guidance and policy note).

The claim was initially struck out on what the claimant describes as procedural gamesmanship that benefited Salford University and Greater Manchester Police, though an appeal is pending.

The case highlights tensions between institutional confidentiality, legal procedure under Practice Directions 18 and 31, and the public interest in transparent safeguarding practices.

Salford University’s published policies state that it will not use NDAs in complaints relating to harassment or sexual misconduct and that it has signed the voluntary “Can’t Buy My Silence” pledge (policy PDF).

Observers say the case underscores the challenges universities face in balancing confidentiality, regulatory obligations, and transparency, particularly when safeguarding allegations intersect with legal and procedural disputes.

You may be wondering what the above – a story This Writer was asked to run by a third party – has to do with UK politics. The answer is… quite a lot, in fact:

The Salford correspondence reads less like an isolated dispute and more like a case study in how public institutions evade scrutiny while claiming transparency. The letters exchanged between the claimant and the university’s solicitors reveal a familiar pattern: blanket objections, data-protection pretexts, and procedural manoeuvres deployed not to protect victims, but to shield the institution from embarrassment.

That pattern exposes a deeper problem across the higher-education sector — a culture of procedural secrecy born of years of deregulation and managerial self-protection. Universities that operate as corporate entities, selling reputation as much as education, have learned that the safest way to contain a scandal is to delay, deflect and deny.

Institutional accountability

Salford University’s refusal to confirm or deny simple factual questions — even when offered the option of redacted or sealed-court responses — epitomises a system where accountability is optional. Instead of engaging with the substance of safeguarding concerns, the correspondence shows lawyers reciting boilerplate about proportionality and GDPR, avoiding the kind of plain admissions that might enable oversight. For any university tasked with protecting students, this is not transparency; it is a bureaucratic barricade.

Regulatory weakness

The Office for Students (OfS), created under Conservative reforms to act as higher-education watchdog, appears nowhere in these exchanges — despite the fact that since September 2024, its own policy has banned non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in harassment or sexual-misconduct cases. The regulator’s silence on a dispute that directly tests that policy underlines how little practical power it wields. Universities know that OfS “guidance” can be ignored without immediate consequence — a weakness designed into the regulatory system itself.

Public-policy hypocrisy

Successive governments have praised “zero-tolerance” policies on harassment while allowing institutions to bury controversy under claims of confidentiality. Salford University proudly advertises its commitment to the Can’t Buy My Silence pledge, yet the documents show its lawyers refusing even to confirm whether NDAs existed. That contradiction goes to the heart of a wider public-policy failure: rules without enforcement, promises without transparency, and a rhetoric of safeguarding that collapses under legal pressure.

Legacy of deregulation

This episode also illustrates the enduring legacy of market-driven higher-education reform. Decades of Conservative and coalition policy reframed universities as competitive businesses — each guarding its brand from reputational harm. Under such a regime, disclosure becomes a liability, and secrecy a form of asset protection. The result is an accountability vacuum in which students, whistleblowers and even the courts must fight to extract basic information from taxpayer-funded institutions.

In short: the Salford case does not only raise questions about one university’s conduct.

It exposes how a system built on “transparency” and “student protection” can, in practice, operate through silence, redaction and reputational control — a political creation as much as a procedural one.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Military sites for asylum-seekers: Labour is turning human suffering into a profiteering scandal

28 Tuesday Oct 2025

Posted by in asylum, profit, scandal

≈ Comments Off on Military sites for asylum-seekers: Labour is turning human suffering into a profiteering scandal

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Why is the UK’s Labour government planning to house asylum-seekers on military sites again, considering the controversial and grim history of previous attempts?

Let’s look at this story as it is being reported by the BBC:

Hundreds of asylum seekers could be housed in two military sites in Inverness and East Sussex as the government seeks to end the use of hotels.

Discussions are under way over the use of the sites to accommodate 900 men, as first reported in the Times. There are around 32,000 asylum seekers currently being housed in hotels.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC he had told Home Office and Ministry of Defence officials to “go faster, go further” to locate appropriate military sites.

Military bases been used before – scandalously.

They were in such poor condition that people housed there caught serious illnesses and died.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

The new Labour proposal strongly echoes the former Conservative government’s failed experiment with sites such as Napier Barracks in Kent and Penally Camp in Wales (the latter of which closed in 2021).

Here’s what happened before:

Napier Barracks (in Folkestone) was first used under the Johnson government in September 2020, supposedly as a temporary, “basic but adequate” site for up to 400 single men. In reality, it quickly became a public health and human rights scandal:

  • The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration found that the Home Office had ignored public health advice about overcrowding and poor ventilation.
  • A major COVID-19 outbreak infected more than 200 residents in early 2021.
  • The High Court ruled in June 2021 that conditions at Napier were “inadequate” and that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in detaining people there without proper safeguards.
  • Reports from NGOs such as Freedom from Torture, Refugee Action, and Amnesty International documented severe mental health deterioration, with residents describing the place as “prison-like” and “worse than what we fled”.
  • There were also reports of fires, suicide attempts, and self-harm linked to despair and neglect.

Penally Camp (Pembrokeshire) was similarly condemned by inspectors for being unsanitary and unsafe.

It closed in April 2021 after intense local and national criticism.

Even Wethersfield, one of the two remaining bases still in use, has drawn fresh scrutiny under Labour:

  • Residents and aid groups have reported mould, cold, poor sanitation and isolation.

  • The Refugee Council said the conditions “retraumatise” vulnerable people who have fled conflict and torture.

The history of housing asylum seekers on military sites has not only been “tried before”; it has been proven unsafe and legally indefensible.

That is why observers like This Writer are already warning that Starmer’s plan — even if repackaged as “temporary” or “cost-saving” — risks repeating the same failures under a new badge.

The question is whether Labour will genuinely improve standards or simply rehash a failed Tory policy in the name of cost-cutting and “public appetite”.

And the following may well take us some way towards an uncomfortable answer…

Welcome to the asylum and immigration scandal you rarely hear about: the one that isn’t actually about asylum seekers, but about political failure, and the middle men turning a tidy profit on the consequences.

The Conservative-chaired home affairs select committee accused the Home Office of wasting potentially billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a 10-year contract with three providers to house asylum seekers in private rented properties and, more controversially, in hotels.

The committee found that the estimated costs for the deal signed in 2019 with three big providers – the aforementioned Serco, plus Clearsprings and Mears – have tripled from £4.5bn to an eye-watering £15.3bn. The Home Office was so focused on “high-risk, poorly planned” wheezes such as sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, the committee found, that it lost control of the basics, including the day-to-day business of managing all the asylum seekers stuck in limbo while it chased political rainbows.

So: the entire asylum accommodation system has become a profit-making racket for outsourcing companies, enabled by Home Office mismanagement and political theatre.

The previous Tory government decided to outsource the housing of asylum-seekers to three big private contractors – Serco, Mears and Clearsprings – who received long-term, badly-written deals worth billions of pounds.

They found that the most profitable way of dealing with the issue was to put migrants in hotels – so they did.

As a result, the cost to the government has ballooned from £4.5 billion originally to £15.3 billion, including millions paid for non-existent rooms and profits the government never clawed back.

This is an indictment of waste and capture, not of asylum-seekers themselves – but asylum-seekers have paid the price, with “traumatised people [spending] years cooped up in hotel rooms never designed for the purpose, increasingly fearful of the angry protesters gathering at the gates, while the far right has found itself a powerful grievance”.

The privateers have profited handsomely from the chaos, while the Home Office effectively lost control of the system.

So when ministers talk about “closing asylum hotels”, they are cleaning up a mess that was created by government.

Given this context, we can now conclude that the decision to take asylum-seekers back to military bases is a recycled political gimmick.

Quick fixes like hotels and barracks are symptoms of the government’s refusal — under both the Tories and now Labour — to rebuild a functional asylum system.

Asylum claims used to be processed within six months in nearly 90 per cent of cases (as recorded in 2014) but by 2023 that had fallen to 16 per cent.

Instead of fixing that, successive governments chased “tough” optics — deportations, sending people to Rwanda, or containment in camps — while the private sector cashed in.

The moral and political thread is the same: successive governments have turned human suffering into a business model.

Labour may believe it can do the same thing “more efficiently”, but the historical record — Napier Barracks, Wethersfield, Penally — suggests otherwise.

The asylum-accommodation saga is not a “problem of too many migrants”; it is a state-enabled profiteering scandal — with military sites merely the next stage in a long cycle of exploitation and political manipulation.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

The ‘productivity puzzle’ that’s draining £20 billion from the economy didn’t start with Rachel Reeves

28 Tuesday Oct 2025

Posted by in budget, Economy, productivity

≈ Comments Off on The ‘productivity puzzle’ that’s draining £20 billion from the economy didn’t start with Rachel Reeves

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Share this post: [addtoany]

Media bias has struck again with reports that UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves is likely to have to find an extra £20 billion to cover lost income due to low productivity.

Here’s the BBC:

A downgrade to the UK’s productivity performance from the government’s official forecaster could lead to the chancellor facing a £20bn gap in meeting her tax and spending rules, the BBC understands.

The Treasury declined to comment on “speculation” ahead of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) final forecast, which will be published on 26 November alongside the Budget.

The OBR will deliver its final draft forecast, including productivity – a measure of the output of the economy per hour worked – to the Treasury on Friday.

The forecaster had previously assumed a partial bounce back in productivity growth, but this has never materialised.

This productivity assumption is essential to long-term growth prospects and so, under the current system, even a small changecan alter how much money a Budget needs to raise by several billion pounds.

This is not a new phenomenon.

Note to readers

Vox Political is evolving – in FOUR days!

I’m opening a new home for my reporting — The Whip Line on Substack — where independent journalism will be supported directly by readers.

From November 1, you’ll still get one free article here every day, but most of my work will appear on The Whip Line, available to subscribers whose paid contribution will make this reporting possible.

Join The Whip Line today and help keep independent journalism alive:
https://thewhipline.substack.com

The so-called “productivity puzzle” has been a defining feature of the UK economy since the global financial crisis – so, from around 2008 onwards, and especially under the Conservative governments of David Cameron and George Osborne.

Economists were already describing it as a “lost decade of productivity” by the late 2010s.

The idea that the downgrade is a sudden or surprising revelation — or that it only now creates a hole for Rachel Reeves — is deeply misleading.

Here’s the reality:

UK productivity — measured as output per hour worked — flatlined after 2008.

Osborne’s austerity policies, which suppressed public investment and wages, were widely blamed for entrenching this stagnation.

The Tories then shifted to a low-wage, high-employment model that kept people in insecure, underpaid work without raising overall output.

Brexit compounded the problem, as investment fell, supply chains fractured and migration patterns changed.

In other words, this isn’t a new “downgrade” — it’s an official recognition of a long-term failure.

The OBR is simply catching up with what has been obvious for more than a decade: the UK economy has been structurally weakened by policy choices that prioritised cheap labour and low taxes over productivity growth.

It’s also striking that the BBC presentation frames the story as a challenge for Reeves, rather than as a legacy of the Conservatives.

The implication that Reeves’ “Budget hole” has just appeared out of nowhere conceals that it is really the cumulative result of Tory mismanagement and political decisions that stifled productivity for 15 years.

So let’s remember the important facts:

As this crisis didn’t start under Labour, it won’t end with a few accounting tweaks.

The OBR’s downgrade is not new information but a formal admission of long-term decline.

And most importantly: the framing of this as “bad luck for Reeves” rather than “a reckoning for Conservative policy failure” is another example of how official and media narratives shift accountability away from those who caused the damage.

Never miss a Vox Political post!

Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:

RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/

Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/

Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share

Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm

Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV

Support Vox Political!

With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.

You can help by making a donation:

https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical

Share this post: [addtoany]

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started