Affected by the Housing Crisis? Here’s why you must vote Labour

Social housing tenants need to vote Labour on Thursday, that’s ALL circa six million or so social tenants, and because it is in their best interests to do so.  No need for any political bias as its a no brainer in every possible way as I detail here

It is also in the best interests of every privately renting tenant and in the best interests of anyone saving for a mortgage deposit and in the best interest of every social landlord to vote Labour.  Again the facts clearly show this.

Labour housing policy in its manifesto makes all the above statements a no brainer for any tenant. Among many other housing and housing-related policies in the manifesto Labour promise:

  • The bedroom tax is gone and will be ended by July.
  • The LHA maxima cap is history and thus hostels, refuges and sheltered will not close as they will under Conservative plans
  • More new housing is promised than the Conservatives in overall numbers
  • Much more social housing makes it cheaper to rent and easier and quicker to save for a mortgage deposit and more can move away from much higher private rents and no letting agent fees too.
  • Labour promise social housing at social rent levels while the Tories reneged and did a U-turn on this which sees £4000 more in rent for ‘affordable (sic) rent’ on average in London and £4000 less per year of saving for a mortgage deposit.

As always I evidence my analysis with facts and the facts are there in the manifesto and the Conservatives and Theresa May herself duped the electorate, the Financial Times, the President of the Chartered Institute of Housing and Inside Housing and others and then did a U-turn by first promising ‘social rent’ which has a London average of £112 per week and then said they meant ‘affordable rent’ which averages £187 per week and £4000 more in rent and /or Housing Benefit ‘welfare’ per year.

The Details

Bedroom Tax – is a longstanding commitment to abandon (p58) and can be done by issuing a Statutory Instrument (SI) to repeal it that gives 28 days notice. This is what the Tories did to repeal the pre 1996 loophole and cock-up in early 2014 and needs no further comment.

LHA Maxima Cap – is abandoned on page 64 and very surprisingly has been missed by the entire housing sector.  All of the policy analysts, policy officers, and commentators have simply NOT read Labour’s manifesto which makes it clear when it says:

“We will also take action to tackle the root causes of homelessness, including safeguarding homeless hostels and other supported housing from crude Conservative cuts to housing benefit.”

More housing units – I detailed this here and we see the Conservatives promising over 25,000 fewer new housing numbers than Labour promises.

Type of housing – Labour policy has been very clear that of the 200,000 new homes per year that there will be half -100,000 – being social housing.  They also state significantly that they will allow local councils to borrow against their assets to build in the manifesto and that policy is exactly the same as the Daily Telegraph wanted!

Strange bedfellows indeed yet more importantly it means:

  • more chance of existing and new private renters getting social housing,and
  • saving more and more quickly for a deposit, and
  • no payments of letting fees and …

… All the many more benefits social housing provides which the social housing sector have never sold to the public in their collective idiocy for at least thirty five years!  Paying less in rent also of course means a much greater incentive to take up employment as you have to earn less to afford, just another obvious factor social housing has never sold to the public and especially the electorate.

Tory U-turn on ‘social rent’ to ‘affordable rent’

The Conservatives and Theresa May personally said in an announcement in early May they will have many more houses at “social rent” as she did here 

“That’s why we will fix the broken housing market and support local authorities and housing associations to build a new generation of council homes right across the country. Giving tenants a new right to buy these homes when they go on the market will help thousands of people get on the first rung of the housing ladder, and fixed terms will make sure money is re-invested so we have a constant supply of new homes for social rent.”

Even the Financial Times were duped into believing the policy would be for social rent and indeed so was the President of the Chartered Institute of Housing Gavin Smart in this article from 15 May

The Conservatives also promise new “fixed-term social houses”, which would be sold on after 10 to 15 years of being leased out at social rents, with tenants having the first option to buy. Mr Smart said that proceeds of these sales should be fully committed back into new housing, unlike those of the existing Right to Buy programme.

Yet a few days ago on 2 June and two weeks after the Conservatives has promised “social rent” Gavin Barwell the last Housing Minister said this:

A “new generation of homes for social rent” promised by the Conservatives will be at affordable rent levels which can be up to 80% of the market rate, the housing minister has admitted. …. Asked if the new homes would be let at “low level council rents”, he replied: “No, I think the idea is that they are what you’d call affordable rents in housing terminology, but they are social housing.

The difference is staggering in rent terms between “social rent” and “affordable rent” as the official DCLG figures show:

The average social rent in London is £112 per week yet the average affordable rent is £187 per week and £75 per week higher.  This is almsost £4000 per year more in rent and either £4000 more paid by the tenant or £4000 per year more paid in Housing Benefit.

The average social rent in the regions is £83 compare with £114 per week in affordable (sic) rent and 38% more which again is more for the tenant or the Housing Benefit bill to pay.

The difference when extrapolated to the promised numbers of new housing is around £400 million more paid in rent per year and around £340 million of that paid by Housing Benefit.

Over a parliament that is a £2 billion hike in rents and a further £1.7 billion on the ‘welfare’ bill through increased Housing Benefit which means the Conservatives need to either tax £1.7 billion more or have an additional £1.7 billion of cuts to pay for the increased Housing Benefit bill.  These are significant amounts!

Social landlords would also benefit significantly from the removal of the bedroom tax and the abandonment of the LHA Maxima policy as they would from the reinstatement of the £30 per week cut to ESA WRAG recipients and from their tenants no longer having to go through the fundamentally flawed assessment process for disability benefits which not only is a premeditated sham, it costs around £160 million more per year to administer than from the ‘savings’ it creates.

Social landlords and social tenants would also benefit from the £10 per hour minimum wage pledge which reduces Working Tax Credit yet increases Housing Benefit and overall leaves the tenant better off and the Treasury better off and the taxpayer better off too – I did a detailed example of it here to prove the point with those pesky facts called numbers!

Conclusion

The benefits for all tenants in both sectors involved and affected by the Housing Crisis (in reality many housing crises that impact differently inter and intra-regionally and in many case vary even within any local authority.

There are 4.3 million or so social rented households which means at a cautiously low figure some 6 million eligible voters in social housing alone. Those 6 million will include adult children who can’t get on in life due to high private rents and the removal of Housing Benefit for the under 22s is just another Tory policy that Labour will remove.

Existing social tenants, their children and grandchildren too, will be better off with Labour.  The existing private tenant will have more choice and at a greatly reduced cost and therefore all will be able to save for a deposit more and mire quickly.

Those who rent will be so much better off with Labour’s housing policy and if we do vote for what is in our own best interests, which is entirely reasonable and logical, then at least 6 million renters should vote Labour as they would be a fool not to.  Housing costs are typically the highest expenditure item we have and if they are going to fall (through increased supply and moving from PRS to SRS) and enable those who rent to save a deposit a quicker route up the housing ladder then it is madness for the renter not to vote Labour.

If renters voted for Labour and/or against the Conservatives in their area then 6 million or votes for Labour either directly or indirectly would happen … and every renter existing and prospective and every aspiring home owner saving for a deposit would benefit and we would much much quicker take home ownership rates back up to their peak of 71% (under Labour in 2004) and up from their now 64% under the Conservatives … a policy of greater home ownership (rightly or wrongly) is what both Labour and the Conservatives seek and the best way for that to happen is to vote Labour this Thursday.

_____________________________

The Labour manifesto has its faults and scandalous omissions for example it says absolutely nothing on the overall benefit cap policy and if they do get into power (which they can with 276 seats and if the SNP retain their 50 in Scotland so not far-fetched at all) then rest assured I will be as critical of them as I have been with the hopefully last Tory lot!

 

Vote Labour for Housing – You know it makes sense!

The Labour Party manifesto will abandon the bedroom tax and will restore housing benefit for those under 22 (page 54) and will abandon the LHA Maxima Cap policy (page 64) which seriously threatens the closure of existing supported housing and all new homeless hostels, refuges, disabled housing projects and sheltered housing.

If you are a social landlord or social tenant then there is no doubt that voting Labour is in your best financial interests in terms of Housing Benefit.

Additionally the increase in the national minimum wage will see a significant Housing Benefit cut to the 1.1 million HB recipients who are in-work and thus reducing the massive £5.8 billion per year subsidy that HB is for low paying UK employers and noting it was £2.8 billion in May 2010 and had 0.65 million recipients.

This means those who are able to work will benefit as I pointed out here as you will have more net income and the government will also be paying out less in welfare and get more in the tax and NI take.

The abolition of the work capability assessment and the restoring of the £30 per week ESA cut will also help those tenants who are unable to work too and by extension help social and private landlords as tenants will have more money to pay the rent.

There are around 4.3 million social tenant households containing circa 6 million eligible voters and all of them are better off financially if they vote Labour.

Labour also promise to ensure that all rented properties are fit for human habitation as the manifesto states on page 62:

Renters are spending 9􀀜.6 billion a year on homes that the government classes
as ‘non-decent’. Around a quarter of this is paid by housing benefit. A Labour government would introduce new legal minimum standards to ensure properties are fit for human habitation’ and empower tenants to take action if their rented homes are sub-standard.

That is beneficial to private rented sector tenants as well as social tenants, working or not, and it is a f*cking outrage that the last Conservative government voted down by talking out a Bill to ensure all homes are fit for human habitation.

It is natural for those who vote to say what is in it for me, all voters, and there is no doubt that all renters would be better off voting for Labour … and that is 36% of the entire population!

It begs the question why the Labour Party itself makes so little to date of the clear advantages for all renters that the Labour manifesto gives for existing renters.

 

Theresa May – Her police record means a bad Brexit deal is inevitable

Theresa May when asked on the “Battle for Number 10” last night how many more police officers she would provide only confirmed she would provide fewer police officers and less money for the police service!

She said we will protect the overall police budget and that more of it would be spent on cyber police and counter terrorist police thus there will be no new money and the existing police budget is nearly £2 billion per year (£1.915 billion) less than in 2010 and has resulted in 20,000 fewer police officers now than then.

Tories always say that throwing money at an issue is not the way to solve it yet when that comes to the safety and security of the nation they can NEVER get away with that ideological excuse as the electorate simply wont have it.  We now have 20,000 fewer police officers (and 20,000 fewer armed forces personnel) and the safety and security of the UK is much greater at risk as even the Tories acknowledge.

Theresa May should have been asked how many fewer police officers we will have!

Theresa May also issued a barefaced lie when she said she had protected police budgets as they have fallen dramatically under her as the second longest Home Secretary in recent political history.  What’s more she must know she lied as she has been the Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016 and the second longest serving Home Secretary in political history.

The IFS report from 2015 reveals that the country spends £2bn per year less on the police for ‘normal’ activities and spends £3.4bn over 5 years more on counter terrorism policing which is an average of £680 million a year more meaning a net cut of £1.3 billion per year.

The extra money on police counter terrorism was announced by George Osborne and reported here in his Autumn Statement in November 2015:

George Osborne has promised to spend £3.4bn extra on the country’s counter-terrorism efforts over the next five years – a rise of 30 per cent – ahead of the Autumn Statement, as the government seeks support for military action to fight the rise of Islamic State (IS)”

In isolation this additional £680 million per year looks like the Tories are spending more yet as the IFS figures show the Tories are spending an overall £2 billion per year less on normal policing to make a net cut on the police spend of a whopping £1.32 billion per year.

As you can see the IFS table is well sourced and has the figures in real terms to enable a like-for-like comparison all of which reveals the context to be a cut of £1.915 billion cut from £13.617 billion down to £11.702 billion which sees this cut reduced by £680 million or £0.68 billion with the increase in police counter terrorism budget to give an overall police budget cut of £1.235 billion per year in real terms.

The Tories since 2010 have cut the overall police budget by £23.7 million per week and have cut almost 20,000 police officers.

As I said above the traditional Tory line of we will not throw (more) money at an issue we will get better value from the amount we fund does not sit at all well with the public when it comes to safety and security.  Give our police the money they need is the mantra of the voter when it comes to the police – and the Tories have cut the police budget by £23.7 million per week and £1.235 billion per year.

The police and police budgets are the responsibility of the Home Secretary and this cut from 2010 in real terms shows that Theresa May as Home Secretary cannot even win an argument against her own Chancellor when it comes to spending and budgets for the so-called party of law and order!

The Conservative Home Secretary position is a licence to promote the string em up and hang em views of the most reactionary politician.  The Conservatives proudly and repeated boast THEY are the party of law and order and always have done yet Theresa May can’t even get more money for the police in an internal budget battle with George Osborne as Chancellor!

What hope Theresa May has of negotiating against 27 European leaders in the Brexit negotiations must be seen in that light and we all need to judge Theresa May on her record and not on her rhetoric and weak and wobbly is far too high a compliment for that record.

 

 

Strong and stable Tory CUTS make us all less safe and secure

Did you know the Tories have cut the police budget in real terms by £2 billion per year since 2010?  It was £13.62 billion in 2010 and now it is £11.7 billion which is a £37 million per week cut and over £5 million per day.

Did you know the Tories have cut the UK armed forces by 20,000 since 2010 too?

This is the fabled party of law and order who have made you, me and everyone else in the UK much less safe and secure by these strong and stable cuts.

Did you know that the Tories have let in far more immigrants and especially immigrant workers than the last Labour lot ever did?  Yes the same Tories who say Labour are the party of uncontrolled immigration which is what both Theresa May and Philip Hammond the Chancellor have said in the last week.

You are being lied to by the Tories and deliberately and knowingly lied to by them as all the above are that pesky thing called irrefutable fact.

Let me be clear I am not associating terrorist acts with immigrants or seeking to say that the Manchester atrocity was directed caused by either immigrants or the massive cuts to the security services – I am merely saying that the Tories have deliberately lied to you the electorate and they have committed strong cuts to those services that protect every one of us.

These cuts have been savage and deliberate and we are being fed the line that the UK is somehow less safe with Corbyn than May yet Corbyn has stated he will have 10,000 more police officers and he will fully fund the armed forces and security services.

The line is not less safe with Labour than with the Tories but less safe with Corbyn than May and Theresa May has chosen to personalise this election campaign as one between her and Corbyn, between the strong and stable May against the bogey man of Corbyn.  In doing so Theresa May has only exposed Corbyn to be a decent man who has policies that the electorate like and have been costed and exposed herself to be robotic and arrogant and has policies such as the Dementia Tax that are incredibly ill-conceived, that the public do not like one bit and which have not been costed.

The strategy of you must elect me as you could not possibly elect Corbyn so I can say and do anything I like as you will never elect the ‘unelectable’ Corbyn; this strategy has seen a 24% point lead dwindle to just 5% in the latest You Gov poll.

Trust me to get the best Brexit deal for Britain as you can’t trust Corbyn said Theresa May that is what the election is all about she said and even refused to debate with Corbyn such was her supreme arrogance on a personal and political level which is also an affront to democracy and an insult to the electorate who would just have to vote for her and not for him, the bogey man Corbyn.

Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters  – Albert Einstein

May when having to defend her policies and herself as the electorate have seen Corbyn to be principled and decent and not the bogey an as the Tories portrayed has been found wanting, she has not engendered any trust in her abilities … which is probably why she dogmatically refused to debate in the first place!

This is not a U-Turn she asserted while everyone else said it was a U-Turn on Dementia Tax even the Tory friendly media.   The cap on this is in the manifesto she said but it isn’t. Her refusal to answer any questions at all in the powderpuff Andrew Neil interview and instead falling back on extremely vague slogans of strong and secure to any question looked extremely weak and also deceitful.

Now Theresa May has been hidden away from the public glare and it is said Amber Rudd will deputise for her in a leaders debate suggesting the electorate don’t deserve her time and Theresa May is far too (self?) important for such trivial matters as debating her policies!  She is aloof and distant and showing no leadership qualities at all – and in stark contrast to Corbyn who has been grilled far more intensely from the media and come out of this unscathed and showing he is not afraid to answer tough questions unlike May. There’s no duck and dive with Corbyn as there is with May.

Trust is what we all have to give when we vote.  It is not something you can simply say you don’t have to trust me because the other chap is not to be trusted and other vague assertions.

In Theresa May’s case this personal trust issue and the scrutiny of her policies is what she wanted to avoid more than anything with the Jeremy Corbyn in the bogey man strategy, which has spectacularly failed.  We now have to judge her in the same personal terms as we have always judged every potential prime minister we elect and in that and her proposed policies she has been found extremely wanting.

We also have the right and ability to judge her on her past policies as both a Tory minister and especially when it comes to her resign as the second longest Home Secretary in modern political history and specifically the police and security services and immigration.

Here are those facts I started this with and they read very very poorly indeed for Theresa May.

Theresa May’s Police Record

A near £2 billion per year cut to the police service in real terms too! Strong and stable cuts

 

Theresa May’s immigrant record

 

These show how May personally as Home Secretary has chosen to let into the UK far more migrant workers and also show she has let in far more immigrants than the last Labour ‘lot’ she and her party say who have uncontrolled immigration too!

Theresa May’s armed forces record

Everything the Tories do is said to be done ‘more efficiently’ including the cutting of 20,000 armed forces personnel from 2010 to 2018 … which they achieved by 2015 and 3 years ahead of schedule. Below is how the BBC reported this in 2015:

We are less safe and less secure as a country under the Tories.  Our armed forces and our police services require and deserve the correct level of funding they need and which has, like it or not, increased due to foreign policy such as invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and a point made by Corbyn in 2003 and by Cameron and Boris Johnson in 2006 and also made by two former heads of M15 with the greatest of all gravitas and credibility.

Corbyn this week in a very brave and honest speech said his policy will have 10,000 more police and will ensure the armed forces get the resources they need and deserve.  He did not shy away from difficult questions at an incredibly sensitive time after the atrocity in Manchester, which he could have done. He stood up and led on the issue in the full knowledge that the right wing media had analysed his speech for 24 hours before he said what he said and had their daggers drawn.

His speech it seems has the backing of 65% of the electorate in the only opinion polls and so does what he said and how he said it in such a very fraught set of circumstances so soon after Manchester.  He said it forcefully and diplomatically and that is real leadership unlike May on this issue who has largely been hiding and content to have a clear run of 72 hours of TV and media coverage yet said nothing of any note.

In fact the public have been saying how have you left s so insecure with the Police Federation especially critical of her significantly funding cuts to them which as the above shows is almost £2 billion per year in real terms and a 15% cut in funding.

Do an increased job police forces, a job with an increased threat and do it with 15% less money is what Theresa May’s record as Home Secretary has said ..

Twitchy bum time for Theresa May

Imagine winning the first leg 24 nil and in the second leg you are 19 nil down with 21 minutes to go … severely twitchy bum time!

That is a direct analogy for the 2017 general election polls which saw Theresa May have a 24 point lead at the start of the election and now has a 5 point lead as of the latest You Gov poll yesterday.

 

 

 

£10 per hour minimum wage reduces ‘welfare’

Increasing the minimum wage means the worker gets more in net wages, the taxman gets more in tax and NI, and it reduces the welfare bill.

The more you increase the minimum wage the greater the increase to the worker and to the taxman and the greater the saving to the welfare bill.

 

Take the example of a couple with three children and one wage earner working 35 hours per week at the £7.50 minimum wage and increase to £10 per hour and these are the impacts – all in weekly terms

  1. The worker gets a gross wage increase of £87.50
  2. The worker pays £17.50 more in income tax
  3. The worker pays £11.50 more in national insurance
  4. The worker has a net wage increase of £58.50
  5. The worker receives £36 less in working tax credit
  6. The worker receives £23.38 more in housing benefit
  7. Thus the welfare bill reduces by £12.62 per week (£36 less £23.38)

In overall terms:

The worker is £45.88 per week better off (£58.50 less £12.62)

The state is £41.62 per week better off [£12.62 + £17.50 + £11.50]

Thus the worker gets an overall increase of £2,390 per year and the state saves £2,170 per worker per year due to increased tax take and reduced welfare payments.

In this election Labour has promised to raise the minimum wage from £7.50 to £10.00 per hour while the Tories have reneged on their previous commitment to raise it to £9 per hour and instead now promise £8.20 per hour by 2020.

UPDATE

It is difficult to ascertain the precise figure but a cautious estimate would be 2 million families at least affected by the above. IF the state reduces its welfare spend by £2,170 per household the that is a significant saving of £4.34 billion per year which is more than the entire cost of Job Seekers Allowance for example.

As I have detailed in earlier posts as far back as 2014 Housing Benefit is in essence an employer subsidy of £5.8 billion per year as 1.1 million people in work receive it and up massively since May 2010 when there were just 650,000 in-work recipients of HB.

Housing Benefit and Working Tax Credit subsidise low-paying UK employers and if everyone took the government route incentivised by Universal Credit and numerous HB policies such as the overall benefit cap of a lone parent family working 16 hours per week and a two parent family 30 hours at today’s minimum wage it would see the welfare bill increase by around £3 billion per year.

Think on that.  If everybody worked which is government policy then the welfare bill would INCREASE.  That is perverse yet it is the welfare system which incentivises employers to offer minimum wage jobs in the full knowledge that the government pays out more in welfare.  The system is wrong and the UC system brought in with so much fanfare as the panacea to replace the complex legacy system is so much worse.

Under UC everyone would get every penny they are entitled to yet we know from the governments own figures that some £33 billion per year or £90 million every day is entitled to yet goes unclaimed and so under UC the welfare spend increases by £33 billion per year.

It is not hyperbole to say Iain Duncan Smith’s ‘welfare reforms’ are an ill-conceived mess and a shambles… that would be far too complimentary, as would calling UC a dog’s breakfast or pig’s ear.

The underlying and central problem is the subsidy the taxpayer gives to low paying UK employers through HB and WTC that only a significant rise in the minimum wage can deal with and such an increase saves the ‘hardworking family’ to use that too often used political term.  Your taxes whether income tax, vat and all other direct and indirect taxation is not subsidising layabouts as poverty porn TV bombards us with, it is subsidising unscrupulous low paying employers.

Working Tax Credit is ONLY paid to those in low paid employment and at around £29 billion per year it is a extremely costly employer subsidy to go along the £5.8 billion per year of Housing Benefit that is paid to those in-work.

The UK central government spends just over £35 billion per year on Education and the same on subsidising low wage paying employers is a correct analogy yet an argument we never read or hear or discuss.  That subsidy out of ideology and right should be removed and the saving to the UK taxpayer is merely a bonus from the increase in the minimum wage to £10 per hour which is still too low.

 

Strong and stable

Adorable isn’t it and no apologies for its use here as we have one in the cabinet and the rest of the cabinet want to tear him to pieces with hounds.

The second day of not talking about politics and the general election because everything must go on as before!

Theresa May’s strong and stable government that has cut 20,000 police officers and that has seen a 14% cut in funding for the armed forces we really shouldn’t talk about we are told.  Nor should we mention that yesterday’s Metro newspaper (owned by the Daily Mail) had a lead story of Police Officers needing to use food banks in order to get by.  So much for strong and stable in security terms Theresa May … and let’s not even bother discussing that Trident runs on Windows XP and massively exposed to the cyber attack that hit the NHS because parts of its IT system still run, like Trident, on the 10 year old Windows XP operating system that a 3 year-old could hack!

Strong and stable my arse.

The general election as much as Theresa May only wants it to focus on Brexit has now seen security matters at least rival Brexit in terms of what it is about and more likely overtake the Brexit issues.

When I heard that Theresa May was putting the army on the streets my first thought was at least they will have something in common with rough sleepers as over 30% of those are ex forces – and rough sleeping has increased 234% with the Tories – but then the army is needed to supplement the 20,000 fewer Police Officers we have under the Tories since 2010.

48 hours for Theresa May to regroup after her Dementia Tax U-Turn in which she lied to the electorate that it wasn’t a U-Turn and said a cap was in the Tory manifesto which it wasn’t. She can’t even lie effectively she is so weak.

48 hours in which Theresa May hopes we forget her pathetic and weak interview with Andrew Neil, a powder puff interview which despite constant interruptions from him, he never got Theresa May to answer any questions.

48 hours in which Theresa May is praying the Manchester atrocity makes us all forget how weak she is in terms of policy and leadership … and exposing the real reason why she took the decision not to debate her leadership and policies and also her abysmal record of failure as Home Secretary in which she ‘let in’ far more immigrants as a matter of her policy than the last Labour lot ever did!

The above shows how many MORE immigrant workers Theresa May allowed in. The graph below shows the overall impact

Theresa May as the Home Secretary since 2010 and directly responsible for immigration not only failed, she has constantly lied since over her own immigration target being below 100,000.  She is a failure which her record on immigration, police numbers and 14% cuts to the armed forces show as irrefutable fact.

If the security risk escalates and we see tanks on the streets then will she drive one down the street adorned like Thatcher in a Union Jack headscarf? It wouldn’t surprise me.

48 hours in which the Tory right-wing press use this free time to call Corbyn an IRA sympathiser and of course say nothing about two former IRA active’terrorists’ who are councillors for the Tories.

48 hours in which Theresa May aided and abetted by the TV media can regroup and portray herself as a strong leader. There’s nothing like a conflict to sell politicians and all of the human rights regressive breaches that entails.

Any takers on the little discussed part of the Tory manifesto which seeks to control free speech on the internet now coming to the fore as the internet is used by ‘terrorists’ we will be told and this is necessary?

Theresa May is a very lucky politician. The Manchester atrocity came at a time of her being seen as extremely weak and wobbly, incompetent in policy terms, condescending and autocratic rather than a strong leader and unable to even fend off a powder puff interrogation from the Tory friendly Andrew Neil.

She will milk and is milking the Manchester atrocity for all its political worth as any incumbent Prime Minister of any party would and be stupid not to do so.

ltra left wing well before they were released and the polices are not only NOT left-wing ones, the public likes them and they are costed unlike the Tory policies.  The policies also bear scrutiny again unlike the Tory policies yet that is of little consequence when the electorate is bombarded by the Tory press in this supposed 48 hours of non election issues.

Today sees a scurrilous front page of the Sun and an equally scurrilous cartoon in the Daily Mail about Corbyn being an IRA sympathiser yet both rags conveniently forget to say that two former IRA active members are elected TORY councillors.

Oh sorry I missed the memo which said no one can say a word about Theresa May’s extreme incompetence and give free rein to the Tory media to slag off her opponents while they can do nothing in response as Theresa May manipulates the free speech of all other politicians because of the atrocity!

Clever and very nasty manipulative politics indeed!