Labour NHS Leak Validated By Tory Spin

This morning, the Labour Party declared that they would be making a major announcement on the NHS at 1000 hours. To show how important this was, the gathering would be attended by Jeremy Corbyn, backed up by Barry Gardiner. And so it came to pass that a completely unredacted version of a Government dossier which showed that talks on the future of NHS drug prices had been taking place.

But even before Jezza had begun to address the meeting, and pitch the revelations, the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog had initiated a defensive spin operation. Think about that: Jezza spoke just after 1010 hours, and took a few minutes to spill his beans. The Fawkes folks published their post at 1012 hours. Unless they had a functioning crystal ball, they had the rebuttal ready to go beforehand.

Under the pretentious title “Exclusive … Guido Investigation”, it proclaimed “Corbyn’s Redacted Negotiation Document Lies”, and told “The unredacted documents Corbyn is branding have been seen by Guido and turns out it’s not the bombshell Corbyn was hoping for … With document 1 not even mentioning the NHS, document 2 even shows the NHS is heading for cheaper drugs under a US-UK trade deal”.

Six documents were then presented for the perusal of those who had not already received their copy from the Labour event. Fawkes teaboy Tom Harwood told anyone who would listen “Guido has obtained the documents Corbyn is talking about. Read them in full here”.

Hard on Harwood’s heels was Christopher “No” Hope of the increasingly desperate and downmarket Telegraph: “Jeremy Corbyn is giving out a 100-plus page unredacted document marked ‘OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE (UK eyes only)’ to journalists. Civil Servants will have marked it like this for a reason. And he wants to be Prime Minister in just over a fortnight's time”. What were Kim Darroch’s cables marked, O Tory cheerleading one?

Tory chairman James Cleverly claimed the leak meant Corbyn was “a threat to our country”, to which Aaron Bastani countered “Guido uploaded the documents with civil servants names attached (Labour obviously didn’t public these). So what about them?” And on that claim that the documents meant cheaper drugs, one observer mused “this says exactly the opposite - that NHS access to generic drugs is an issue for the US”.

And Steve Peers laid out why the Fawkes spin was wrong. “This is either ignorant or dishonest about Trump's trade policy on drug pricing. It's the other way around - Trump's policy is to *increase* the prices paid for drugs outside the US … Here's Trump's policy on drug pricing in his own words, objecting to ‘unreasonably low prices’ outside the US - from the House of Lords library briefing on ‘the NHS and future trade deals’, 4 July 2019”.

There was more. “Some have objected to Corbyn saying that Trump seeks ‘full market access’ for medical products. But this phrase is found in the Trump administration's own public document setting out its objectives in the US/UK talks … this falls short of the claim that "the NHS is for sale" in the trade talks with Trump. But we do know: a) patents/NHS drug pricing is under discussion (although we can't be certain what final FTA would say on this) … b) Trump's objective is NHS paying *more*, not less”.

Labour’s revelation has cut through. The Tory boot boys have confirmed it. Game changer.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Brillo’s Bozo Dilemma

While many in the right-leaning part of our free and fearless press are in a state of ecstasy over yesterday evening’s interview of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn by Andrew Neil, others are looking forward to next week’s Brillo encounter with alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson and wondering if The Great Man will be equally tough on someone with whom he goes back rather a long way.

Bozo The Clown has been a regular at the Spectator magazine’s summer parties; as a former editor of the magazine, this should be no surprise. Also a regular at those parties is Neil, which is also no surprise, as the Gordon Poole Agency has told: “Andrew Neil is Chairman of Press Holdings Media Group (owners of The Spectator, Spectator Life, Spectator Australia, Spectator USA and Apollo)”. Thus the problem.

Moreover, as Peter Jukes has told this morning, “Andrew Neil is conflicted. Dismissed the Cambridge Analytica scandal as ‘hearsay’ (his Barclay brothers bosses met them). He dismissed Vote Leave lawbreaking as ‘conspiracist’. (His editor is married to campaign director Cummings). He invited Arron Banks to his club to fundraise”. The “editor” mentioned is Mary Wakefield, Spectator commissioning editor.

Neil is one of many players in the right-leaning and interconnected part of the Westminster bubble. He has been seen rubbing shoulders with current and former minions who work in the service of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines at the Guido Fawkes blog - which veteran journalist Peter Oborne recently dubbed “the provisional wing of Conservative HQ”. The Spectator peddles rank Islamophobia. It has an anti-Semite on the books.

And talking of anti-Semitism, Neil used the services of infamous Holocaust denier David Irving during his tenure as editor of the Murdoch Sunday Times. Hence the potential problem. But perhaps his most significant recent mis-step is over the Vote Leave and Cambridge Analytica scandal - Bozo was involved with VL, which broke electoral law.

To this end, Carole Cadwalladr laid out her concerns. “Will Neil ask Boris Johnson about his role in Vote Leave fraud? And why he’s stonewalled MPs? Neil dismissed [Shahmir Sanni]’s now proven allegations, [The Observer]’s investigation & has been abusive to me. He also employs Cummings’ wife. I trust he will not omit these crucial qs”.

There was more. “Neil has systematically minimised the now substantial body of evidence of illegalities in EUref. His [Spectator] has published multiple pieces on ‘conspiracy theories’ now proven. To hold Johnson to account for his role in these crimes, Neil first needs to acknowledge them himself … I trust Neil will put also aside his personal feelings & ask Johnson about his meeting with ex-KGB agent Lebedev in middle of Skripal crisis? Both he & his [Spectator] magazine have again systematically minimised allegations & evidence  of Russian interference in UK politics”. Well, quite.

With the BBC under scrutiny more than ever - not least after the Corporation admitted it made a mistake editing a clip from last Friday’s Question Time leaders’ special which made Bozo look less ridiculed - Andrew Neil will need to overcome his prejudices.

Bozo was involved with an act of lawbreaking. He must be held to account for it.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Labour’s Self Employed Vote Winner

While the right-leaning part of our free and fearless press brings its jeering and unsubtle attack on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to its final peroration, The Red Team has once more been showing that it is on the side of those real working people whom the press and their hangers-on claim to champion, but usually ignore.

Bill Esterson

Back in the days of the New Labour Project, many self-employed workers used Limited companies - the then Inland Revenue had been a prime mover in guiding them in that direction - to manage their earnings and taxes. This enabled them to pay themselves an amount as salary - attracting both Income Tax and National Insurance contributions - and an amount as a dividend, which did not attract NI.

The unspoken but implicit quid pro quo was that these self-employed workers enjoyed an insecure tenure, and no holiday or sick pay. They received no pension entitlement. They dealt with all that pesky tax malarkey themselves. But someone in the Treasury got it in their heads that many were “Friday to Monday” contractors - they left salaried employment at the end of one week, and reappeared as freelance workers the next. Most did not.

Thus arrived IR35, which closed the dividend loophole, and is now causing significant worry to many minor slebs. A job that can be equated to full time employment is held to be “caught” by IR35. All payments to that self-employed person must be classed as salary and subject to NI contributions. It was not Gordon Brown’s finest hour.

And now, the Tories are looking to tighten up IR35 yet further. Not Labour. As Politics Home has reported, “Bill Esterson, Labour’s Shadow Small Business Minister, confirmed at an IPSE and small business debate last night that if elected, the party would halt the roll-out of the changes to IR35 into the private sector next April … [he] said: ‘We absolutely can’t see it rolled out into the private sector the way things are at the moment.’” 

There was more. “Asked later to confirm it was Labour Party policy to review IR35 and not roll the changes out to the private sector in April 2020, he tweeted: ‘absolutely’”. He also said “We need to support the self-employed in this country. We need to make sure that our tax system is diverse so that it matches the needs of being self-employed and is also consistent with the risk that is taken.” Also, “Mr Esterson also directly cited IPSE’s manifesto when explaining Labour’s commitment to clamp down on late payments”.

What are those changes to IR35 that are slated to come in next year? Contractor UK spelt it out. “The changes to IR35 are that rather than set their own status, limited company workers will lose the right to the large or mid-sized companies that hire them, who will set status for them. But to avoid having to decide status for every contractor they hire, and follow the associated procedures, more and more engagers say they will simply not take on such workers anymore”. Thus alienating freelance workers even more.

Labour has now committed to halt those changes. The cost to the Exchequer would be minimal. It would hardly register. Yet that one gesture has brought a more sympathetic view of The Red Team from another significantly-sized group of workers. Meanwhile, the Tories and their cheerleaders are Looking Over There at Corbyn’s Brillo interview.

So you will not read about this in the papers this morning. I’ll just leave that one there.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Tracy Ann Oberman’s Anti-Semitism Slip

If ever those opposing Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party needed not to be distracted by one of their number slipping up in their attacks on him, that day was today, in the aftermath of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mervis voicing his concerns about the prospect of a Labour Government next month. Sadly, that was what they got, first with Michael “Oiky” Gove Tweeting what appeared to be mockery of a black entertainer’s speech.

And if that were not enough, along has come minor Sleb Tracy Ann Oberman to once more do her best to attack Jezza, while ending up putting her foot in it. She saw Rabbi Mervis’ article and decided that the time was right to kick Labour. The problem was that, as so often, the thrust of her attack was gratuitous and wayward.

“#ChiefRabbi Mervis is an educated kind mild man very aware that his role is spiritual not political. That he has felt  moved to speak for a frightened community  is shameful to you [Labour Party]  … And the responses by Corbyns [sic] voters [is] even worse. SHAME ON YOU”. He also congratulated alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson on being elected Tory leader, so perhaps there is some political with the spiritual.

This outburst also prompted someone to wind up Ms Oberman, in the process setting the most elephantine of elephant traps. Others might have seen it coming; she apparently did not. Someone responded to her with a Times of Israel headline telling “New Labour manifesto calls to ban arms sales to Israel”. She was tagged in on the Tweet that said simply “Would love to hear your thoughts about this Tracy”.

She wouldn’t fall straight into that elephant trap, would she? It’s Panto season, folks: Oh Yes She Would. “These are my thoughts F- OFF YOU DISGUSTING RACIST CORBYNITE. I should have said this a long time ago. When Chief Rabbi Mervis writes as he does today the games up. We see you for what you are [Jeremy Corbyn] and all your supporters”. What is racist about calling to ban arms sales to Israel?

Conflating “Israel” and “Jews” is clearly defined in the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as an anti-Semitic trope. But criticism of the state of Israel, in the same way that criticisms of other states are made, is not. Including whether or not to sell arms to them. Could it get worse? Sadly it could. A lot worse for someone who claims to be against intolerance.

After the Tory prospective candidate for Leeds North East was suspended for allegations of past anti-Semitic comments - the second Tory candidate to be lost during the campaign, following the suspension of the party’s hopeful in Aberdeen North - she doubled down.

“Luckily I’ve never voted Tory so he’s THEIR problem. The labour racists are mine!” The same faux pas as her pal David Collier made recently - an admission of selective anti-racism. Any form of racism, and especially anti-Semitism, must be called out whichever political party, other public body, or individual, indulges in it.

The Labour Party has devised an education programme on anti-Semitism (alone, it seems, of major parties). Perhaps Tracy Ann Oberman might find it useful to her.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Labour And The Chief Rabbi

While the irony may not be lost on many pundits, with the Murdoch Times, whose ultimate owner had a most unfortunate recent rant at the “Jewish owned press”, and the Daily Mail, whose record in the 1930s, and indeed recently with its “Disloyal Jew” attacks on the memory of Ed Miliband’s father, running the story, the intervention in the General Election campaign of the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, is significant and not to be taken lightly.

Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis ((c) BBC)

As the BBC has reported, “In his article, the Orthodox chief rabbi of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - who is the spiritual leader of the United Synagogue, the largest umbrella group of Jewish communities in the country - says raising his concerns 'ranks among the most painful moments I have experienced since taking office’ … But he claims ‘the overwhelming majority of British Jews are gripped by anxiety’ at the prospect of a Labour victory in 12 December's general election”. And there is more.

He has told “The way in which the leadership of the Labour Party has dealt with anti-Jewish racism is incompatible with the British values of which we are so proud - of dignity and respect for all people … It has left many decent Labour members and parliamentarians, both Jewish and non-Jewish, ashamed of what has transpired”.

It is possible to disagree with the Chief Rabbi. But it is totally out of order to dismiss his concerns. Yes, the Jewish Labour Movement has called Rabbi Mirvis “absolutely right”, and they are consistently hostile to Labour’s current leadership, but that does not invalidate the feeling among some Jewish voices that Labour still has a problem.

Yes, Labour has been suspending and indeed expelling members accused of anti-Semitism. The party has adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism throughout, something that other parties - hello Tories - have been ambiguous about recently. Labour alone among the major parties has put in place an education programme on anti-Semitism. And we know other parties have crossed the anti-Semitism line recently.

It was the Tories who lost a candidate over anti-Semitism accusations (Aberdeen North), and the same party has had some serious recent lapses, notably Suella Braverman and her “Cultural Marxism” attack, Michael Gove conflating Jews and Israel, Priti Patel talking about a “North London Metropolitan Elite”, and Jacob Rees Mogg dragging up an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to attack Oliver Letwin and John Bercow.

All that is true. But it is no reason to be defensive or dismissive of the Chief Rabbi. His concerns should be the concerns of all Labour members. As Sunny Hundal has observed, “I think Labour should have done far more to assuage concerns of Jewish leaders than dismiss them … Labour activists who are responding by attacking the Chief Rabbi are not helping their cause. Empathy wins people over, not vindictiveness”.

And Owen Jones was on the same page. “The correct response isn't to attack the Chief Rabbi, it's to acknowledge the hurt of many Jews, to say Labour handled the issue badly, that it's improved but there's more to do, and to urge consistent anti-racism, including opposing the gratuitous racism of our government”. Quite.

Labour must take the concerns of the Chief Rabbi on board. That is all.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Dominic Raab’s Harry Dunn Mis-Step

Hustings events are, for many political hopefuls, a necessary evil in the quest for election or re-election. For most of those hopefuls, there is hardly any point in their turning up, so slim are the chances of swaying the audience sufficiently to get themselves returned to Parliament. For others, there is the constant peril of one of those pesky voters tripping them up on the journey to that all too minor fame and fortune.

The encounters with those pesky voters can occur even in the safest seats. And if an opponent scents a weakness, events can get more than a little tasty. One place where matters got tasty last night was in the constituency of Dominic “cash flow problem” Raab, who claims to be the Foreign Secretary, such is the paucity of talent available to alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

Donald, where's yer hairspray?

Raab represents Esher and Walton. His majority in 2017 was over 23,000. The seat is in the ultra-safe category. But that does not guarantee that hustings events will be an easy thing to do, and so it proved at East Molesey last night, when the family of Harry Dunn, killed in a road accident involving Anne Sacoolas, a US citizen who claimed diplomatic immunity she may not have merited, before being allowed to return to the States.

The hustings event was open to the public. Tim Dunn and Charlotte Charles presented themselves at the door, and were refused entry. That the event was standing room only appeared to be the problem: one of those already in the hall volunteered to leave, so Harry Dunn’s parents could come in. But despite it being open to the public, they were refused entry. So others in the hall spoke up for them.

One of those offering to leave told “We have offered to leave to allow Harry Dunn’s parents into the hustings but security has refused … CONFIRMED: It is [Dominic Raab]’s security that will not allow Harry Dunn’s family into the hustings. Nobody coming in even in exchange for volunteers coming out. Why is [Dominic Raab]’s security controlling hustings attendance at a 4-party hustings event?”. Why indeed?

Lewis Goodall of Sky News appeared to confirm that view. “No room in the church for the hustings event. Dozens still outside. Changing: ‘LET US IN!’, including the family of Harry Dunn who want to speak to Dominic Raab … Someone has left to allow Harry Dunn’s father into the event but apparently security aren’t allowing him in”.

The Guardian has now reported that “Raab was heckled during his final address at a hustings in East Molesey, Surrey, on Monday evening, with one woman standing up to ask him about Dunn, whose family and friends were kept outside for the duration of the event due to purported concerns about overcrowding. Raab was later confronted by Tim Dunn, Harry’s father, and friends of the late 19-year-old as he left the building and was ushered into his official car”. He appeared to ignore protesters as he was driven away.

Raab’s excuse will no doubt be security concerns; he is, after all, a senior Government minister. But the impression given to Harry Dunn’s parents and friends, and all others of a non-partisan nature, is of a politician aloof and uncaring in a family’s moment of grief.

Sadly for the protesters, Raab need not worry about being re-elected. Not a good look.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Uber In London - LICENCE REFUSED

As Zelo Street regulars will know, driver and rider matching service Uber has recently encountered significant resistance to its operations around the UK, and not least in London, where the company’s checks on drivers have been shown to have fallen short on several occasions. Worse, some of those drivers who passed their checks were found to have behaved improperly. And then there was the road safety problem.

The litany of bent and mangled Toyota Prius vehicles may be a good laugh for those not involved, but it was anything but for the unfortunate punters, and the emergency services who have to clear up after all the accidents. The thought occurs that having one eye on the Uber app has distracted many of those who have ended up crashing their cars.

All of this came to a head last year when Uber was given a mere two month extension to its licence by TfL. But for London’s regulators, matters have not improved sufficiently, and so it was no surprise when the BBC’s Tom Edwards told this morning “Being reported Uber will get London licence revoked. Nothing official yet but everything seems to be pointing that way ... Uber will no doubt appeal & presumably be allowed to operate. Initial concerns over reporting crimes & driver background checks”. That was almost right.

The licence expired yesterday, and so it was not a revocation. But it was a refusal, as Sky News confirmed. “Transport for London says Uber has not been granted a new licence to operate in London after ‘several breaches that placed passengers and their safety at risk’ were identified”. Predictably, though, “Uber has confirmed it will appeal against TFL's decision to strip it of its licence describing the action as ‘extraordinary and wrong’”.

Why that should be has been hinted at by the BBC’s report, with TfL’s Helen Chapman telling “While we recognise Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured”. The scale of this minor inconvenience was then laid bare by the Mayor.

Sadiq Khan has let it be known that “Only in the last few months it has been established that 14,000 Uber journeys have involved fraudulent drivers uploading their photos to other driver accounts - with passengers' safety potentially put at risk getting into cars with unlicensed and suspended drivers”. 14,000 journeys. That’s totally out of order.

Also, “Uber's use of secret software, called ‘Greyball’, which could be used to block regulators from monitoring the app, was another factor, according to TfL”. And although Uber has claimed “We have fundamentally changed our business over the last two years and are setting the standard on safety”, Zelo Street readers will know the reality.

The Metropolitan Police expressed serious concerns about the use of Uber vehicles by the criminally inclined back in 2017. Potential problems with the booking process have been known about since the start. TfL tried to bring Uber to heel in 2014, but their initiative was overridden, allegedly by central Government intervention.

Uber keeps saying it will up its game. But it never does manage to address the problems. So it should surprise no-one that it may now have come to the end of the London road.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4 

Tories’ 50,000 New Nurses AREN’T

The last of the major party manifestos, launched at the weekend and so close to the General Election as to give that much less time for detailed examination, the Tories’ offering yesterday was deliberately low-key and safety first. There would be none of the howlers that befell Theresa May, no so-called “dementia tax”, just a few scraps to please the party’s press cheerleaders amid an assumption that winning was in the bag.

But into every manifesto refuge a little rain must fall, and so it has come to pass with one of The Blue Team’s promises. Worse, this promise is on the NHS, which the Tories are still pretending will be safe in their hands, despite winter health emergencies being already with us. The manifesto has claimed that, under the premiership of alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, the NHS will recruit 50,000 more nurses.

As the Independent has reported, “Launching the document in Telford, the prime minister said that Conservatives would deliver 50,000 more nurses, 6,000 more doctors and 50 million more GP surgery appointments each year as part of ‘the biggest cash boost for the NHS for a generation’, worth an extra £34bn by the end of the next parliament”.

There was more. "Backed by £725m of new government money, the recruitment plan also includes 14,000 new nursing training places supported by bursaries of up to £8,000, as well as 5,000 more nursing apprentices and 12,500 recruits from abroad”. But then came the first part of a doubly embarrassing whammy.

“But party sources later confirmed that the 50,000 figure includes an estimated 18,500 existing nurses who will be encouraged to remain within the NHS or attracted back after leaving by new measures to improve career development opportunities”. So the 50,000 is actually 31,500. And then there were those recruits from abroad.

They “will be required to pay a £464 visa and £400 annual surcharge branded a ‘nurse tax’ by critics”. Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth was on to it like a shot. “First we had Johnson’s fake 40 new hospitals, now we have his fake 50,000 extra nurses”. Then came another problem with the nurse bursaries. It was the Tories who cut them in the first place.

So up stepped Luciana Berger, now speaking for the Lib Dems on health. “It is insulting to the public and all those who work in the NHS for Boris Johnson to celebrate the return of nurse bursaries”. And a potential recruitment problem: “By extending the immigration health surcharge and immigration visa fee to EU health professionals, more and more EU nurses will see little reason to stay here in the UK”. Oh dear, Tories!

The Guardian added its ninepence worth. “The plans to recruit 50,000 nurses quickly unravelled”. On those 18,500 “retained” nurses, there was “little detail as to exactly how the government would persuade these nurses to stay”. Also, “The government hopes to recruit 12,000 of the target from overseas”, but “The Conservative party said it was going to increase the surcharge from £400 to £625 a year for all non-EU migrant workers and extend it to all EU citizens who migrate to the UK after Brexit”.

The Tories can’t say how 40% of those nurses will be retained, they run the risk of pricing overseas recruits out of the system, and will make EU nurses second class citizens. But all of that will be either ignored or cheered by their press pals, so that’s all right, then.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet4