Good news workers, you're poorer than you were 8 years ago!

Somehow millions of people still believe the ludicrous fairy story that the Tories are the party of economic competence despite the overwhelming evidence that they're nothing of the sort.

Take this Tweet from Dominic Raab. It clearly shows that UK workers' wages have collapsed in real terms, and that they're only just crawling back towards the level they were at when the Tories came to power in 2010.

The huge dip we can see in the graph that happened between 2010 and 2014 was the longest sustained collapse in workers' wages since records began, and it all came from the economically illiterate Tory assumption that the poorer the workers, the richer the bosses, and the richer the bosses the richer the nation.

This assumption is obvious bollocks because if workers' wages collapse they have less disposable income, and if they have less disposable income the economy flat lines because of the lack of demand (this stuff is so obvious it should barely need stating).

 As a result of this sustained ideologically driven Tory assault on our wages and living standards, British workers are getting one of the worst deals in Europe. The only country where workers have had it worse over the last 10 years is crisis-stricken Greece, while workers in other basket-case economies like Italy, Spain, and Serbia are the only other ones to have endure an entire decade of negative wage growth like the Brits have.

Just look at France, where the gilets jaunes protesters are boiling with rage over falling living standards. In reality they've had a 6% increase in workers wages over the last decade in comparison to the 5% collapse the Tories have inflicted on British workers!

Not only are Brits not out on the streets protesting against conditions that are far worse than in France, they've actually twice re-elected the Tories who did this to them!

The extraordinary subservience of the Brits still isn't even the most incredible thing about this.

Just look at what Dominic Raab has written about the graph he shared.

Not only has he blatantly failed to understand the graph by claiming it shows real wages are "rising at fastest rate in 10 years" when it shows absolutely nothing of the sort*, he also tries to present evidence of 8 ruinous years of Tory wage collapse as "good news for working Britain".

With the Tories there's always the suspicion that they actually understand the truth that wage repression and austerity dogma are appalling economic policies for ordinary people and the economy as a whole, but that they continually spew demeaning economic idiot fodder about how great they are because they arrogantly assume the British public to be a bunch of economically illiterate pisswits.

This Tweet from Dominic Raab demonstrates something even more worrying.

Remember that this was the guy who was until recently entrusted by the Tory government to do the extraordinarily complex and important job of leading Britain's Brexit negotiations. Yet here's absolute proof that he can't even understand a very simple average weekly wage chart.

His ridiculously clueless Tweet is clear cut evidence that he can look at damning proof of the truly appalling consequences of his party's 8 year campaign of austerity and wage repression, and then conclude that his party are doing a fantastic job, and British workers should be thanking them!

The guy just simply doesn't have a clue what's been going on for the last 8 years.

He's so insulated by privilege, so unwilling to think outside the Tory echo chamber, and so economically illiterate that he clearly can't even read a simple chart.

Yet Theresa May and her Tory inner circle actually decided to give this unbelievably useless charlatan responsibility for heading by far the most complex and risky set of negotiations of the entire post-war era!

And even now millions of mainstream media rote-learning dupes still believe the Tories to be the party of economic competence!

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

* = The fastest rise in the last 10 years was when the Tories eased wage repression just before the 2015 General Election in the hope that British workers would relieved to be able to breathe again that they'd totally forget whose boot had been standing on their necks for the previous four years.

Dominic Raab is a liar

The new Tory housing minister Dominic Raab is a liar. He appeared on BBC Question Time on January 11th 2018 and told a glaring lie to the British people.

His lie was an absurd claim that the NHS has more beds than ever.

Anyone who has paid the remotest attention to the Tory vandalism of the NHS that has been going on since 2010 will have been aware of the dozens of NHS facilities that have been shut down and downgraded under their so-called cost-cutting measures.

How could there be more beds than ever as Raab claimed when the Tories have been closing and stripping back so many NHS services you may well ask.

The answer is that Dominic Raab was lying through his teeth, and that there are actually 17,000 fewer hospital beds than when the Tories came to power in 2010.

In fact the current collapse in the number of NHS is the second Tory wave of bed closures following their previous funding assault on the NHS between 1979 and 1997. In reality the number of available NHS beds has almost halved in the last 30 years.

So at a time of rising demand for NHS services as a result of our ageing population, the Tory government has overseen a dramatic decline in the number of NHS hospital beds. But rather than apologise for it, Raab decided to reverse reality and lie that there are more hospital beds than ever.

Ever since Raab's (brazen and obvious) lie was exposed, he's been refusing to apologise or offer any attempt to clarify the truth that the number of NHS beds has actually plummeted by 17,000 on his party's watch.

One of the big problems here is the attitude of the mainstream press who repeatedly allow government ministers to get away with endlessly spewing this type of easily disprovable lie.

If government ministers were faced by a barrage of demands that they admit the truth and apologise for lying, they'd pretty soon learn to be more careful about what they say.

But the next time Raab is interviewed or appears on the television you can be almost certain that the interviewer won't remind him of the lie he told to the British people or demand that he apologises for it.

If throwaway lies like this costed politicians and their party more in negative publicity than they could ever gain by using them, they'd soon stop lying of their own volition, or be pressurised into avoiding such brazen lies by their political parties.

The problem of course is that the mainstream media is rammed full of wealthy privileged toffs from the same elitist backgrounds, private fee-paying schools, and Oxbridge colleges as the politicians they pretend to be holding to account.

Mainstream media hacks know that forcing politicians to apologise for their provable lies would make great telly in the short-term, but they also know that they'd get soon blacklisted and denied special access to the Westminster elitists if they behaved like that.

If mainstream media hacks want easy access to politicians, and strategic leaks, and the latest word on rumours in the Westminster village, then they know they have to act with the deference and subservience demanded of them by the political elitists.

The subservience of the mainstream media is one of the main reasons government ministers like Dominic Raab feel so at ease lying to the British public, and the main reason you're highly unlikely to see any mainstream media interviewer forcing him to admit that he lied and suggesting that he apologise for it and set the record straight by admitting the truth.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

Theresa May is so out of step with public opinion she promoted Dominic Raab!

Theresa May is so spectacularly out of step with public opinion that she's promoted Dominic Raab, who notoriously described a desperate appeal to treat disabled people with dignity as a "childish wish list".

Quite aside from the fact that he was willing to casually dismiss the suffering and death of tens of thousands of disabled people with such a glib platitude, there's also the outrageous fact that the Tory Work Capacity Assessment regime actually costs far more in corporate outsourcing fees to administer than it saves in reduced benefits payments.

The fact that this degrading, dehumanising and discriminatory process costs far more to administer than it will ever actually save the taxpayer is absolute evidence of Tory barbarity.

This fact also means that Raab's "childish wish list" defence doesn't even make sense.

If Raab actually cared about saving money then he'd obviously argue to scrap the WCA regime and end the public subsidisation of this appalling treatment of disabled people.

There are only two conclusions to draw from Raab's backwards rhetoric.

Either he doesn't even know that the ongoing systematic abuse of disabled people costs the taxpayer huge amounts of money (in which case he's incompetent) or he does know this appalling fact, but he deliberately tried to mislead a clearly distraught woman, and the British public, by constructing an Orwellian thrift narrative to excuse it (in which case "evil" doesn't seem too strong a word to use).

Another way in which Raab's "childish wish list" excuse falls down is that the Tories intent to lavish £70 billion in handouts on corporations and the mega-rich. Surely it's the corporate executives and the mega-rich with the "childish wish list" for wanting all those handouts when tens of thousands of sick and disabled people are literally dying from lack of social care, and thousands more are dying within weeks of being declared "fit for work" in the corporate administered WCA disability denial factories that Raab's party wants to keep operating, and Labour (and almost all the other opposition parties) want to shut down.

Just watch the video clip and make up your own mind about whether Theresa May's decision to give this guy a significant post-election promotion demonstrates that she's in touch with the public mood.

Just watch Dominic Raab's cruel indifference to suffering & ask yourself whether this guy deserved the promotion Theresa May just handed him pic.twitter.com/405ocrxZMe

— Another Angry Voice (@Angry_Voice) June 13, 2017

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.

OR

An open letter to David Cameron

This is an open letter to David Cameron from a coalition of 70 of the leading human rights organisations in the world. I don't often appropriate other people's words, but in this case I'll make an exception and quote the letter and the signatories in full before adding my own comment at the end.

                

Dear Prime Minister,

We have joined together as an international coalition of free speech, media freedom and human rights organisations because we believe that the United Kingdom government's response to the revelations of mass surveillance of digital communications is eroding fundamental human rights in the country. The government's response has been to condemn, rather than celebrate, investigative journalism, which plays a crucial role in a healthy democratic society.

We are alarmed at the way in which the UK government has reacted, using national security legislation against those who have helped bring this public interest information to global attention. We are concerned about:

• The use of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain the Brazilian media worker, David Miranda on 18 August 2013 at London Heathrow Airport. Miranda was carrying journalistic material on behalf of the UK's Guardian newspaper and is the partner of the journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of mass surveillance of digital communications by the UK and USA
• The sustained pressure against the UK's Guardian newspaper for reporting the disclosures of whistleblower, Edward Snowden, including sending officials to force the Guardian to destroy hard drives allegedly containing information from Snowden
• Your call on 16 October 2013 for a House of Commons Select Committee to review whether the Guardian has damaged national security by publishing material provided by Edward Snowden, and a subsequent announcement that the review will be conducted by the Home Affairs Select Committee as part of their inquiry into anti-terrorism.

We believe these actions clearly violate the right to freedom of expression, which is protected under British, European and international law. Under such laws, the right to freedom of expression includes the protection of both journalists, and those that assist them in the course of their vital work.

The right to freedom of expression and media freedom enable the free flow of information in order for the public to hold their governments to account. While the protection of national security can be a legitimate ground for restricting the right under international law, such restrictions are narrowly defined. Governments must show that a restriction is necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose and must be proportionate to the aim pursued. The presumption in favour of freedom of expression requires governments to demonstrate that the expression will actually harm national security; it is not sufficient to simply say that it will.

National security should never be used to justify preventing disclosures of illegalities or wrongdoing, no matter how embarrassing such disclosures may be to the UK or other governments. In the case of Snowden and the Guardian, the disclosures have facilitated a much-needed public debate about mass surveillance in a democracy, and exposed the possible violation of the fundamental human rights of millions of people worldwide. As such, no liability should be incurred as the benefit to the public outweighs the demonstrable harm to national security.

We also believe that this use of national security will have dangerous consequences for the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in the UK and beyond, creating a hostile and intimidating environment and discouraging those who could reveal uncomfortable truths and hold those in power to account. We are concerned that this will further create negative consequences for the reputation of the UK as an advocate for the protection and realisation of the right to freedom of expression and media freedom worldwide. States with little regard for the human rights of their people will seek to use the UK's example to legitimise their own repressive practices.

The UK has a strong history of democracy, and while targeted surveillance may play an important role in protecting national security, in doing so it should not erode the very values it seeks to protect. We call on you to honour the UK's international obligations to defend and protect the right to freedom of expression and media freedom, and to end the UK government's pressure on the Guardian and those who assist them.

Yours Sincerely,

Gergana Jouleva, Access to Information Programme, Bulgaria
Mircea Toma, ActiveWatch, Romania
Ahmad Quraishi, Afghanistan Journalists Center
Remzi Lani, Albanian Media Institute
Thomas Hughes, ARTICLE 19, international
Zuliana Lainez, Asociacion Nacional de Periodistas del Peru (ANP)
Khaled Amami, Association of Citizenship and Digital Culture (ACCUN), Tunisia
Jasna Milanovic, Association of Independent Electronic Media, Serbia

Hans de Zwart, Bits for Freedom, Netherlands

Guilherme Alpendre, Brazilian Association for Investigative Journalism
Yuri Dzhibladze, Center for the Development of Democracy and Human Rights, Russia
Ramana Sorn, Cambodian Center for Human Rights
Laura Tribe, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Olexandra Matviichuk, Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine
Ioana Avadani, Center for Independent Journalism, Romania
Masjaliza Hamzah, Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia
Paul Dawnson Formaran, Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Philippines
Dr Leila Alieva, Center for National and International Studies, Azerbaijan
Edison Lanza, Centro de Archivos y Acceso a la Información Pública (CAinfo), Uruguay
Cristian Horchert, Chaos Computer Club, Germany

Kate Watters, Crude Accountability, USA

Jillian York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, international
Jo Glanville, English PEN
Shiva Gaunle, Federation of Nepali Journalists
Karim Lahidji, FIDH / International Federation for Human Rights
Andres D'Alessandro, Foro de Periodismo Argentino, Argentina
Chiranuch Jiew, Foundation for Community Educational Media (Prachatai), Thailand
Trevor Timm, Freedom of the Press Foundation, USA
Ayushjav Tumurbaatar, Globe International Center, Mongolia
Eka Popkhadze, GYLA, Georgia
Artus Sakunts, Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Armenia
Avetik Ishkhanyan, Helsinki Committee of Armenia

Danuta Przywara, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Poland

Eldar Zeynalov, Human Rights Center of Azerbaijan
Rasul Jafarov, Human Rights Club, Azerbaijan
Robert Ssempala, Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda
Sanar Yurdatapan, Initiative for Freedom of Expression, Turkey
Emin Huseynov, Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety (IRFS), Azerbaijan
Mayumi Ortecho, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad, Latin America
Elizabeth Ballantine, Inter American Press Association
Ann-Sofie Nyman, International Partnership for Human Rights, Belgium
Alison Bethel McKenzie, International Press Institute
Yevgeniy Zhovtis, Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law
Mariya Yasenovska, Kharkiv Regional Foundation 'Public Alternative', Ukraine

Alban Muriqi, Kosova Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty, UK
Prof. Amal Jamal, Media Center for Arab Palestinians, Israel
Meri Bekeshova, Media Workers' Trade Union of Kyrgyz Republic
Nani Jansen, Media Legal Defence Initiative, UK
Soe Myint, Mizzima, Myanmar
Ludmilla Alexeeva, Moscow Helsinki Group
Omar Faruk Osman, National Union of Somali Journalists (NUSOJ)
Andre Loconte, Net Users' Rights Protection Association (NURPA), Belgium
Gunnar M. Ekelove-Slydal, Norwegian Helsinki Committee
Alberto Cerda, ONG Derechos Digitales, Chile
Makereta Komai, Pacific Islands News Association

Owais Aslam Ali, Pakistan Press Foundation

Mousa Rimawi, Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms
Larry Siems, PEN American Center
Tasleem Thawar, PEN Canada
Laura McVeigh and Anders Heger, PEN International
Gus Hosein, Privacy International
Natalia Taubina, Public Verdict, Russia
Christophe Deloire, Reporters Without Borders, international
Oleksandra Sverdlova, No Borders Project, Social Action Center, Ukraine
Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Southeast Asian Press Alliance
Nalini Elumalai, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Alison Meston, WAN-IFRA, international

Maria Pia Matta Cerna, World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC)

Arthur Gwagwa, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum

This letter makes a number of hugely important points, including the fact that investigative journalism is a vital part of democracy and that it is not sufficient for a government to simply claim that national security has been harmed, it is necessary for them to actually demonstrate it with empirical evidence (something that Cameron and his bully boys have abjectly failed to do). These are very important points, but for me the most important point of all is the assertion that "states with little regard for the human rights of their people will seek to use the UK's example to legitimise their own repressive practices". It is utterly appalling that human rights advocacy groups representing citizens suffering under horrific repressive regimes (such as Tunisia, Nepal, Palestine, Myanmar, Zimbabwe) are now pleading for David Cameron to stop his repressive practices because by doing so he's furnishing human rights abusers across the globe with the excuse that "if the UK can do it, then so can we".

I made a number of similar points in reaction to Cameron's efforts to punish the Guardian for daring to reveal the true scale of the NSA / GCHQ mass surveillance operation. You can read those here: David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and openness.

It is also worth noting that this is not the first time a huge international coalition has damned David Cameron's government. In February 2013 an international coalition of civil liberties groups wrote a letter of protest against the introduction of Secret Courts in which they stated that "If the UK Parliament passes this proposal into law it will be a huge setback for those of us fighting to secure truth and fairness from our own governments and within our own justice systems across the world". Not only were the international community appalled by the introduction of secret courts, the UK legal profession was too. More than 700 legal professionals signed this letter which damned Secret Courts as a dangerous attack on fair and open justice.

David Cameron and his revolting allies in the Illiberal Democrats ignored all of these concerns and legislated secret courts into existence regardless. Perhaps the most appalling thing of all is that just a few months after voting secret courts into existence, Nick Clegg and the Illiberal Democrats have decided that they are now going to campaign against the totalitarian measures they themselves voted into existence.

One positive development is that there are a few members of the Tory party that seem to be waking up to the fact that David Cameron is a totalitarian with no regard for justice or human rights. Hopefully when Cameron is ejected as Tory leader, he will be replaced by someone from the (tiny) libertarian faction of the party such as David Davis, Dominic Raab or even Boris Johnson. They may still be Tories, but at least they have more respect for human rights, freedom of the press and individual liberties than the current leader of their party.

I fully endorse the contents of the letter to David Cameron. If you support it too, feel free to add your name in the comments section below and forward a link to this article to your local MP to request that they explain their stance on the issues of mass surveillance and secret courts. Your local MP has a statutory obligation to reply to you as long as you include your full name and address in the correspondence.

Use this link to Find Your MP


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
           
Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
                        
David Cameron's witch hunt against truth and opennness
                     
The Tory "war on justice"
                      
The warped Tory definition of rights
                          
George Osborne's economic extremism
                

David Cameron's petulant reaction to defeat
          
What is... Neoliberalism?
           

David Cameron's debt reduction lie

          
How David Cameron's internet firewall would change the Internet
                 
Libeling the evidence, the Iain Duncan Smith fallacy
  

Dominic Raab and the Internet Snoopers' Charter

I've written extensively about attacks on civil liberties by the Tory led government, especially their use of retroactive legislation, their introduction of secret courts and Theresa May's Internet Snoopers' Charter.

If the Tories were in opposition and New Labour were trying to push through these kinds of absurdly illiberal half-baked and totalitarian powers for the state, the Tories would surely be gleefully berating them as a bunch of Stalinists awarding themselves powers that the East German Stasi would have been proud of. Yet, as the government they are busy completely trashing any claims they might have of being a libertarian party. There are a few Tory rebels though.

One of these Tory rebels is the young MP for Esher and Walton in Surrey, Dominic Raab. He can see through Theresa May's scaremongering rhetoric that her £1.8 billion Internet Snoopers' Charter (Communications Data Bill) is necessary in order to fight terrorism. Like me, Raab is aware that these new powers to spy on the internet activity (emails, Skype calls, internet browsing history, social media activity...) are not just for the exclusive use of the security agencies (as would be the case if the Tory rhetoric was to be believed) but that dozens of other public sector bodies have applied to use these new spying powers when they come into force. Some of the bodies desperate for the ability to pry into the private lives of ordinary citizens include the Health and Safety Executive, local governments, nine Whitehall departments, NHS trusts, the Environment Agency, fire authorities, the Gambling Commission, the Charity Commission, the Food Standards Agency and the Pensions Regulator. If the stated purpose of the legislation is to combat terrorism, then allowing all of these bodies the same rights to spy on people fatally undermines the Tory justification narrative that it is all about combating terrorism and would represent an absolutely cast-iron example of function creep.

Here's what Dominic Raab was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying about Theresa May's Internet Snoopers' Charter:

“This scheme is Orwellian. Intrusive surveillance powers should be limited to pursuing terrorists, paedophiles and villains – not enabling jobsworth inspectors at the Health and Safety Executive or council busybodies to snoop into the private lives of ordinary citizens.”

Now I am not a big fan of Dominic Raab. In August 2012 he contributed to a book called Britannia Unchained, where a number of younger Tory MPs derided British Workers as "among the worst idlers in the world" despite the fact that British workers work longer hours than any other national workforce in Europe aside from the Austrians and the Greeks. For me his political career will always be tainted by the fact that he was involved in a book which made such inaccurate (and downright unpatriotic) claims about British workers. Surely the job of British MPs discussing the future of the British economy should be to try to emphasise the skills and attributes of the British workforce, rather than writing outright lies about how lazy British workers are (in order to justify their favoured policy of further undermining labour rights) which just provides yet another reason for investors to avoid Britain and concentrate their corporate strategies on lower cost economies like China or Eastern Europe instead.

What is much worse, is the fact that Raab has openly supported other draconian legislation. In December 2012 he did not join the 4 libertarian Tory rebels (David Davis, Edward Leigh, Simon Reevell and Andrew Tyrie) who voted against the Justice and Security Bill (legislation which creates secret courts, where defendants can be found guilty without them or their lawyer even being present, being told what the evidence against them is or even with what offence they have been charged!). If he was any kind of libertarian he would have noted the opposition of 700 legal professionals, that the legislation would "fatally undermine" the fairness of the British legal system and the concerns of civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and similar bodies from Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Egypt and Hungary who stated that the passing of secret court legislation in the UK would be "a huge setback for those of us fighting to secure truth and fairness from our own governments and within our own justice systems across the world".

That the UK is now in the position of taking criticism for civil liberties infringements from countries such as Argentina (The Dirty War and the disappeared), South Africa (Apartheid), Hungary (Soviet occupation), Egypt (Mubarak dictatorship) and the USA (Guantanamo Bay and rendition flights) is an utterly shameful situation and Dominic Raab played his part in bringing it about.

Another example of Raab abandoning the libertarian stance to toe the Tory party line came in March 2013 when he voted in favour of the imposition of retroactive legislation in order to cover up the £130 million cost of reimbursing the victims of Iain Duncan Smith's blundering incompetence.

Given his authorial contributions and his appalling voting record when it comes to illiberal legislation, sadly it is impossible to conclude that he is any kind of true libertarian. Which is a sad conclusion to draw, because the lack of political diversity in the United Kingdom isn't just limited to the fact that all three of the Establishment political parties present minor variations on the right-wing orthodox neoliberal socioeconomic model, they all occupy the same illiberal authoritarian territory too.

As someone that occupies the left-libertarian quadrant of the 2D political spectrum, I find the Secret Courts and Internet Snooping legislation of the Tory-Illiberal Democrat coalition as offensive as I found New Labour's Detention Without Trial, National Identity Register and Digital Economy legislation.

Still. As it is such an exceptional occurrence, any Tory talking some kind of sense must be congratulated. Raab's statement shows that he is capable of at least grasping some of the libertarian ideas that supposedly underpin the orthodox neoliberal agenda of his party, even though he seemed to forget all about them when he chose to vote in favour of the Secret Courts Bill and against the amendments that would have put an obligation on the courts to consider the public interest before initiating "secret court" proceedings. Lets hope that Raab continues to think along libertarian lines, recognises the errors of his way and begins offering some genuine representation for those of us that are opposed to the totalitarianisation of the state. One can assume however, that his political future within the Tory party depends quite strongly on the fact that he won't. 

Another Angry Voice is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE   
   
Secret Courts and the very Illiberal Democrats
         
 The Tory contempt for labour rights

More Tory attacks on labour rights

What is ... a justification narrative?

The Workfare ship is sinking

Mark Hoban's totalitarian tendencies
   
A warped Tory redefinition of rights
  
The "unpatriotic left" fallacy 
         
Lord Freud: risks, corpses and slums 
    
Iain Duncan Smith's lame workfare propaganda