Was Jeffrey Epstein and Intelligence Operation?

I gather from glancing at some of the right wing videos on YouTube this morning that Kath Viner’s mighty organ, the Groaniad, has declared that the stories and speculation circulating about Jeffrey Epstein’s private island are ‘conspiracies theories’. Presumably this is meant in the pejorative sense of unfounded paranoid myth-making. But conspiracies and parapolitics are real, as Robin Ramsey and Lobster magazine have been showing for donkey’s years. GB News’ Leo Kearse was ranting against the Groan’s dismissal, and from what I’ve seen, the speculation about Epstein and his death in prison is very much a right-wing phenomenon. But I really do believe there are good reasons for thinking that Epstein and his foul paedophile operation were some kind of intelligence operation.

I came across a couple of videos of the American physicist Eric Weinstein talking about how he met Epstein in 2002, and how at the time he thought things were wrong. Epstein’s behaviour simply didn’t make sense, to the point that Weinstein told his missus afterwards that he thought Epstein was a construct. He came across as someone playing a role.

Epstein was a currency trader, although he started out from a much less impressive background as a maths teacher in a private school. And then something happened to transform him into a currency trader with a fortune of $600 million. Weinstein met him when he was doing some work for hedge funds, and Epstein had asked him to do some work for him. So he went round Epstein’s mansion, and found the man weird and frightening. They talked over a long table shaped like a coffin and which was draped with the American flag. Weinstein, as an ordinary patriotic American, naturally didn’t want to drip his coffee over Old Glory. And the way Epstein introduced himself when he came into the room was peculiar. He walked in and said that he’d been doing some currency trading. This didn’t seem right to Weinstein. It reminded him of the scene in a comedy movie in which Steve Buscemi, with a skateboard slung over his shoulder, tries to introduce himself to a load of high school children with the words: ‘What’s up, fellow kids?’ Although in Epstein’s case, it’d be ‘What’s up, fellow currency traders?’

And Epstein’s very conspicuous consumption and lavish lifestyle doesn’t match his income bracket. Weinstein said that when you’ve been around the super-rich, you find that they behave very definitely according to how massively wealthy they are. Epstein bought private islands, had a fleet of private jets, a mansion in New York and property all over the US. That’s how someone with an eleven-digit income spends their cash, not someone with a nine-digit income. And as for Epstein’s currency trading, Weinstein wonders why no-one has actually tried to check out the paperwork to see if he did. And he connects this to Robert Maxwell and his wife, Ghislaine. Maxwell appeared out of nowhere, well, Czechoslovakia actually, with a fortune nobody really knows how he acquired. Then he died falling off his yacht. Then Epstein appears out of nowhere with a fortune, and the common denominator is Ghislaine Maxwell.

Weinstein compares Epstein’s persona and paedophile activities to that of a known Mossad agent, Eli Cohen. Cohen was an Egyptian Jew, but was given a cover by Mossad as an ethnic Arab playboy from Argentina. He then went to Damascus, where he became friends with Hafiz al-Assad and started holding orgies to collect information on the Syrian rich, powerful and perverted. And yes, it does look like Epstein was something similar. The intelligence agencies have been using their targets’ sexual indiscretions to blackmail them since forever and a day. The Nazis did it with the only brothel in Germany under their rule, Salon Kitty, run by the Gestapo, and the KGB did it in the Soviet Union. Weinstein is, understandably, disturbed that if it was such an intelligence operation, it was using underage girls. But my impression of the intelligence services is that they’re completely amoral, or at least, some are. Sexually exploiting underage girls wouldn’t bother some of them.

As for no journalists actually checking the Epstein story of currency trading, it wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve been warned off. It has happened. Years ago, Ramsey in Lobster told the story of how a producer for World In Action, ITV’s documentary programme, started to think there might be something fishy with the World Wide Fund for Nature because of the number of very top people, like Prince Philip, who were involved in it. But he got a warning not to pursue it any further. It wouldn’t surprise me if something like that had happened with Epstein too.

Weinstein and his interviewer also discuss Prince Andrew’s interview with the Beeb, in which he made the absurd claim that at the time of his alleged molestation of a girl at Epstein’s he was in Woking Pizza Express with his daughter. As an alibi, it’s not really credible. And that’s the point. Andrew was making fun of the whole interview by deliberating spinning a yarn he knew was unbelievable. And now Randy Andy’s come back and wants his security unit re-instated, which costs us, the British taxpayer, £3 million a year. A lot of people are upset at that. There’s already been an e-petition, and this morning a very right-wing YouTuber posted a video of a computer-generated Enoch Powell criticising Andrew for it in very forthright terms. My view is that Andrew now should be kept well away from the rest of the royal family as possible, as whether Epstein was an intelligence agent or not, Andrew’s a security risk. Quite apart as someone who should plausibly be in prison for his crimes against children.

38 Degrees Petition for Keir Starmer to Renationalise the NHS

I just got this latest e-petition through an hour or so ago. It notes that 78 per cent of the truly great British people want the NHS renationalised and that Keef’s shadow cabinet is divided on the issue. Five out of six of them do not agree with its privatisation. Labour is 40 points ahead of the Tories, and so will be in a position to renationalise the health service if it gets elect at the next election. I’ve signed it, and am putting it up here in the hope that others reading this blog will too.

But I am not confident Stalin will ever renationalise the health service. He’s too much of a New Labour corporatist, just like his wretched hero, Tony Blair. And I’m afraid it won’t matter to him what percentage of the British public demand the renationalisation of the health service and other public utilities. He’s already shown he has absolute contempt for democracy and majority opinion. All that matters to him is the support of the corrupt, media-industrial complex. But I hope I’m wrong.

‘Dear David,

What would you most like to see politicians delivering after the next election?

How about reinstating our NHS as the fully public service it was always intended to be?

That’s top of our list here at We Own It.

Sign our new petition

We want to see our NHS reinstated as a fully public service. As it was intended to be when it was set up back in 1948. A service that everyone can be proud of. The best thing this country ever created.

Because it’s what we believe in. And because we know that whether you’re old or young, rich or poor, whatever your background, the NHS is something that brings people together.

And the only way you can win campaigns and make change happen is by bringing people together.

So if you want to see our NHS run for patients not profit, you’re not alone. In fact 78% of the public agree with you.

The question is, how can you get what you want? And the answer is – support our new campaign!

Let’s reinstate the NHS as a fully public service

The British public is very clear and very united about the NHS and the fact that it should be there to care for people in our hour of need, not make a profit.

But the Labour Party, the main opposition party in Westminster, is not clear at all.

They are divided.

In fact, the Express recently reported that Labour’s shadow health team of ministers is ‘split from top to bottom’ over privatisation. 5 out of 6 of them have gone on the record saying they disagree with private sector involvement in our NHS.

That’s why Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party, needs to hear from YOU.

He needs to know that you unequivocally want profit-making private companies out of our NHS. You want him to fund #OnlyTheNHS and fund it PROPERLY, instead of wasting money on privatisation.

Send a message to Keir Starmer

Do politicians break promises? Of course. But our job as campaigners is to push them to MAKE promises and then hold their feet to the fire if and when they have the chance to deliver what people want.Labour is nearly 40 points ahead of the Conservatives so there’s a very good chance that they’ll win the next election. They’re holding their last party conference before the next election in just over a month.We Own It is independent of any political party. We want every single party and every politician to recognise that public services should be run for people not profit. That our NHS is NOT FOR SALE.As it stands, Sir Keir Starmer is the most likely next Prime Minister of the UK. That’s why it makes sense to target him.Whatever party you are in, whether you are Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP or Green, whether you’re involved in party politics or not in any party – please, send him a message by signing this petition:

Now is the time

You’ve got time before the next election to put reinstating our NHS at the top of Starmer’s list.

THANK YOU for standing up for our NHS as it was supposed to be.

Cat, Johnbosco, Matthew, Kate, Imogen and John – the We Own It team;

Reading from My Pamphlet about Standing’s Plan to Restore Rights to Workers in Precarious Employment

This is another video of myself reading yet another of my pamphlets, Empowering the Precariat: Guy Standing’s ‘A Precariat Charter and Its Programme for the Poor and Borderline Unemployed. Guy Standing’s a political scientist, and the author of two books, The Precariat and A Precariat Charter. The precariat is the term he applies to those in precarious employment, such as failed asylum seekers barred from finding work, people on zero hours contracts, workers in low paid and insecure work who suffer periodic bouts of unemployment, including university graduates forced to find work flipping burgers. And also benefit claimants abused and humiliated by the current welfare system and exploited through workfare. He argues that this sector of the population have been stripped of their rights as citizens, and so are denizens – residents in the state who do not have full civil rights. The charter he gives in his book is intended to restore them to full citizenship.

This policy includes giving immigrants the right to work, better employment rights for insecure workers, ending the humiliation of benefit claimants and workfare, introducing Basic Universal Income, restoring public amenities, making university education about developing well-rounded, truly educated people rather than just preparing workers with the skills demanded by industry, and stimulating political discussion by ordinary people.

These arguments are extremely current, even though I think Standing’s book may have been published nine years ago in 2014. The status and legal position of immigrants is, or should be, part of the debate about the channel migrants. And those in precarious employment were given some hope last week when Angela Rayner gave a speech in Scotland saying that Labour were going to introduce legislation granting them more employment rights. Well, that is until Keef announced that Labour wouldn’t, in case it alienated business. And then he and she got tied up in knots claiming that this wasn’t another U-turn. Oh, yes, it is! Starmer’s leadership really is like some awful, horrendous pantomime, just one pretence at true Labour values after another. Anyway, here’s the video:

Starmer’s Broken Promises: A Provisional List

Some of the great commenters on this blog has suggested to me that someone should make a pamphlet detailing all the pledges and promises Keef Stalin has made and broken. The Big Issue published an article on this very topic, ‘A list of Keir Starmer’s u-turns and abandoned policy pledges, from the two-child benefit limit to tuition fees’, by Greg Barradale and Isabella Mcrae, published 18th July 2023. The article began:

‘Labour leader Keir Starmer is serious about becoming prime minister. He’s open about the fact he’ll do whatever needs to be done to get Labour into government. That includes u-turns and broken promises on some of his most notable policy pledges when the political winds change.

Keen to project an image of financial sensibility, Starmer and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves have been pointing to recent economic chaos – soaring prices and  painful interest rates – as reasons to tweak their plans.

Most recently he has confirmed Labour would not scrap the two-child limit on benefits, a policy which is believed to have inflicted cruelty on families and pushed many children into poverty. This goes against a commitment he made when running to be Labour leader in 2020. 

Such willingness to change direction has attracted its critics, with Starmer branded an untrustworthy breaker of promises.

Whether you think it’s sensible or slippery, here’s a recap of Keir Starmer’s abandoned pledges, from tuition fees to green investment.’

I’ve called this list ‘provisional’ as I’m sure that in the next year, he’ll break a few more before the election. Here they are:

• Refusing to end the two-child benefit cap.
• Scrapping tuition fees.
• Increasing income tax for the top 5 per cent earners.
• Nationalisation of public services.
• International freedom of movement.
• No new North Sea oil and gas.
• and the £28 billion Green Prosperity Plan.

For further information, see: https://bigissue.com/news/politics/keir-starmer-broken-promises-tuition-fees-nationalisation-u-turn/

If Hitler Was a Socialist, Why Was He So Keen on Privatisation?

One of the arguments you regularly hear from the right against socialism is that the Fascists were socialists. One of the most obvious examples cited is Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, because the full name of their wretched party was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Hitler also called himself a socialist, but declared that kind of socialism he was establishing in Germany wasn’t the ‘Marxist’ socialism of the Communist or Social Democrat Parties. He was particularly hostile to them, and they were banned along with the other German political parties and their members sent to concentration camps.

This accusation, that Hitler was a socialist because that was how he described himself, is awkward for those rightwingers who considers themselves nationalists, but obviously don’t want to be associated with the Nazis’ brutal policies of genocide and mass murder. A few years ago Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro of the American right-wing organisation, Turning Point, rocked up in Britain to launch its British subsidiary. Owens, a young Black woman, then put her foot in it over the question of Hitler and nationalism. She declared that Hitler’s actions would have been perfectly fine, if he’d confined himself to Germany, and that he wasn’t a nationalist because he wanted everyone to be German. Of course, the answer to both statements is a profound and resounding ‘No’. No, Hitler’s outlawing of rival political parties and his persecution of their members, along with the race laws against supposed inferior races, like Slavs, Jews and Gypsies, the mass murder of the disabled and the genocide of Jews and Gypsies, certainly wouldn’t be acceptable even if he had stuck to Germany. And Hitler was a nationalist. He called himself a nationalist, he demanded living space in eastern Europe for Germans to colonise. And no, he did not want everyone to be German. That was partly what the race laws were about – to prevent German racial purity being contaminated through mixing with that of racial inferiors. So the right-wing who make the arguments that Hitler was a socialist, because he said so, then have to deny he was also a nationalist, which was also an explicit claim that the farting fuehrer made about himself.

Now let’s go into some specifics. The early Nazi programme certainly did include socialist elements in its 24 points. They declared they wanted profit-sharing in industry and for the nationalisation of department stores. This last represents the social origins of many of the Nazis’ members and supporters – small businessmen threatened by big business. Mussolini and his Fascists also started out on the radical left. But after Missalooni (as the non-French-speaking policeman on ‘Allo, ‘Allo dubbed him) got only 2 per cent in the 1919 elections, he decided to throw in his lot with the aristocracy and big business against the left. Thus, Communists, socialists and trade unionists were attacked, along with the peasant activists and their parties in the countryside. They also attacked and smashed the Roman Catholic Popular Party, because it, too, was a bit too radical and because the Church hated it because it wasn’t under the control of the bishops. Musso’s corporate state, which established vast overarching industrial organisations including both trade unionists and managers was partly based on revolutionary syndicalism, in which power would be seized by the workers and industry managed through trade unions. But it was also influenced by the corporatist ideas of the Italian National Party, whose members were very much connected to Italian big business and heavy industry. Left-wing writers on Fascism have pointed out that Fascist parties like Musso’s start on the left, but there comes a break when they move rightward. And far from demanding the nationalisation of industry and resources, Mussolini declared private industry to be the economic and social foundation of the state. Once in power, he began his rule with a campaign of privatisation which was only reversed after the Depression to prevent bankruptcies.

The same is true of Hitler and the Nazis. The 24 point programme was declared to be immutable and represented the aspirations of the Nazi party. But it was never honoured. The only ‘socialist’ part of the programme Hitler tried to put into practice was a half-hearted attempt to nationalise the department stores. The Nazis were keen to solicit the support of German industry, and so the year before Hitler took power he gave a speech to the German equivalent of the CBI stating that private industry could only survive under a dictatorship. He also told those members of his party, who took the socialism aspect seriously, that he would not nationalise anything unless the firm was so badly run it needed to be taken over by the state. And once in power, like the Italian Fascists, he initiated a massive campaign of privatisation.

Here, I think, the right-wingers invoke the centrally-planned, command economy constructed by the Fascists in Italy and Nazis in Germany. The corporations set up by Mussolini didn’t really run the economy, but merely acted as a rubber stamp for Musso’s decisions. In Germany, industry was ‘coordinated’ into a series of industrial associations under state control. The heads of these organisations, however, tended to be drawn from private industry and industry itself remained capitalist but subject to state control. Some of Himmler’s SS may have been socialist, but I have a feeling that after they established the Heinrich Himmler Steelworks they may have started selling shares in it. And the law the Nazis used to establish their control of industry defined a kind of private property subject to public use, in contrast to purely private property and property owned by the state.

The Italian Fascists themselves stated that their ideology included conservative and socialist elements. One of the Fascist apologists for the corporate state claimed that the Fascist seizure of power and destruction of democracy represented the conservative elements of fascism, while the corporate state was its socialist phase. There were also claims that it represented a further revision of socialism, just as Edouard Bernstein’s reformism was a previous revision of Marxism. But they also claimed that Fascism was neither left nor right, but had transcended both socialism and capitalism and constituted a political ‘third way.’

It’s also doubtful whether the Nazis were ever really socialist. There have been claims that it started off, or had its roots in an ethnic German socialist party in the former Czechoslovakia, which gradually ditched its socialism. It was also connected to a ‘yellow’ trade union – that is, one formed by and on behalf of the company. These unions are not recognised by the International Labour Organisation. Anton Drexler, who founded the Nazi party, was anti-socialist and fought against Hitler adding ‘socialist’ to the party’s name. They also drew much of their ideology from a group of right-wing writers, like Moeller van den Bruck, who styled themselves Conservative Revolutionaries. It was from van den Bruck that Hitler got the phrase ‘Third Reich’. But they made it very clear that when they talked about socialism, they meant the socialisation of people to serve the state. They did not mean the socialisation of industry. And throughout history there have been ot

Also, some of the people making the claim that the Nazis and Fascists were socialists are libertarians, who seem to see any kind of state involvement in the economy as terrible communism. The accusations that Barack Obama was a Maoist because of Obamacare, actually a Republican policy devised by Newt Gingrich, is an example of this. But to everyone else, Barack Obama was very much a standard, American politician. He has even said himself that he saw himself as a moderate Republican.

Back to the Nazis and the Fascists, it’s highly questionable whether they were a form of socialism. Their programmes and ideologies contained socialist elements, or elements derived from socialism, like the corporate state from syndicalism. But it’s questionable how seriously these elements were taken.

And in power they always aligned themselves with the right, in defence of property, the social hierarchy and private industry against the left.

A Warning from New Zealand: Outsourcing Medicine to the Private Sector Was Intended to Lead to Health Service Privatisation

I just read this tonight flipping through John Quiggin’s book attacking right-wing, ‘Thatcherite’ doctrines, Zombie Economics. It’s in the chapter on privatisation. This should concern us on our side of the world, as I gather from reading elsewhere that our government took the idea of using private hospitals to clear the patient backlog from New Zealand. This seems to confirm what everyone on the left – the real left, not the imposters of the New Labour right – that this is a pretext for the privatisation of the health service. Starmer’s also said he’s in favour of using private medicine to clear the patient backlog. And, tellingly, he’s surrounded by advisors from American private medical firms. But won’t answer questions on them.

And I’ve also noticed that he’s come up with his own radical idea for tinkering with the NHS: doctors are to be paid for recommending other doctors. Or something. I can remember the Tories similarly bleating that their NHS reforms would give patients greater choice. I also think that was also one of the claims being made by Tory Tony. But the opposite was true. In the name of greater efficiency and keeping costs under control, patient choice was removed and they were sent to the most inexpensive hospital by the bureaucracy set up to administer this policy. So, I have grave doubts whether Starmer’s scheme will ever happen.

At least if the NHS remains nationalised.

Open Democracy: Starmer Has Accepted More Gifts Than Any Other Labour Leader

I found an article by Open Democracy a few days ago reporting that Starmer has received more gifts – which almost certainly means freebies from business – than any other leader of the Labour party. I can’t remember what the exact number was. It was in the hundreds, and may have been as high as 300, but I might be mistaken. The article compared him to Jezza, who only accepted one when he was head of the party. Mind you, he may not have been offered any, as he was the evil Trotskyite Commie who was going to end capitalism and make us all slaves of the Stalinist state.

Starmer’s greed, however, is entirely in keeping with New Labour principles. Peter Mandelson said that the party was extremely relaxed about the rich, and when Blair was in power there were a number of scandals over sleaze and ministerial corruption. As there were under John Major, and now under Rishi Sunak. But Starmer’s acceptance of these gifts is also a warning. He’s getting them now from firms that will expect a return in the future, which means more corporativism and more sleaze. As for what it says about Starmer personally, I’m reminded of the sneer the late comedian Bill Hicks made about a pop star, now deceased, who, Hicks believed, had thrown away his personal integrity in order to sell diet Coke in adverts: ‘If money had a dick, he’d be a flaming faggot’. It’s coarse, homophobic and probably unfair to the pop star, who was merely doing what a number of other pop stars were doing, and who were also condemned for it by Hicks. But it does describe the apparent lack of any moral integrity and sheer, mercenary greed in New Labour.

And it looks like the venality’s all going to come back with Starmer.

Two Satirical Songs Against Prince Andrew

Earlier today I put up a petition from 38 Degrees against Prince Andrew getting his security detail back, paid for by us taxpayers, despite the credible allegations against him of sexually abusing underage girls at Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion. I’m also putting up these two satirical songs by the Iain Duncan Smiths and the Kunts calling Andrew what many people think he is: a nonce. The Iain Duncan Smiths’ song, ‘Nonce In a Lifetime’, sends him up with a parody of Talking Heads’ ‘Once In a Lifetime’, explicitly referring to Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Andrew’s alibi that he was at Woking Pizza Express at the time. The Kunts’ song simply calls him a sweaty nonce and asks why he was perspiring if he was innocent. This song was popular enough to be scrawled on a wall in Bristol, as shown in a video by a Black Bristolian YouTuber.

The previous times I’ve tried to put a Kunts video, it’s been blocked because of its vile, obscene and scatological nature. So I’m not going to try. Here’s the address for it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDBLIRPHPzc

38 Degrees Petition Against Prince Andrew Getting His Security Team Back

I’ve also received this petition from 38 Degrees against Prince Andrew getting his security team back. This is the prince, who’s been credibly accused of abusing underage girls with Jeffrey Epstein, although he claims that on the day it’s supposed to happen he was at Pizza Express in Woking. I’ve signed it, as I definitely do not believe that someone with those allegations over his head should be in receipt of public funding, no matter how high up in the social hierarchy they are.

‘Content warning: This email contains mentions of sexual assault.

Dear David,

It’s been reported that disgraced former royal Prince Andrew is lobbying behind the scenes to get his £3 million taxpayer funded security team back, with the help of disgraced former Home Secretary Priti Patel. [1] Andrew lost his security detail after he forked out millions settling a sexual assault case. [2]

Spending £3 million on Prince Andrew would be disgusting. This money should be used to help fund our NHS and schools, rather than on a Prince who had to step back from Royal duties in disgrace. [3] The fact that he is reported to have recruited Priti Patel to help his cause, shows just how out of touch the both of them are on what we, the British public, are going through.

The story has just broken, and those in charge don’t know what the public think. If hundreds and thousands of people demand that Prince Andrew’s request is rejected, it will show the Home Office and Buckingham Palace they need to act quickly and turn Andrew and Priti down.

So David, can you sign the petition today?

SIGN THE PETITION

I’M NOT SIGNING BECAUSE…

“Why should the public pay £3 million a year to protect a man who rarely leaves his home?” [4]Royal expert Ingrid Seward
From subsidised alcohol in Parliament to tax breaks for private schools, 38 Degrees supporters up and down the country have been campaigning for tax money to be used wisely in recent weeks. [5] Spending £3 million on security for Prince Andrew would be yet another example of tax money being spent in ways that do not benefit the British public.

So David, can you sign the petition today?

SIGN THE PETITION

I’M NOT SIGNING BECAUSE…

Thanks for being involved,

David, Grace, Jonathan and the 38 Degrees team

NOTES
[1] The Sun: ANDY’S GUARD BID Prince Andrew launches shock bid to win back £3m a year armed security after Priti Patel backs his demand
[2] Daily Mail: Prince Andrew ‘is furious with ministers over decision to axe his £3m-a-year taxpayer-funded police bodyguard’ after he was stripped of his official duties in wake of Epstein scandal
BBC News: Prince Andrew pays settlement ending sex assault case
[3] BBC News: Prince Andrew stepping back from royal duties
[4] See note 1
[5] 38 Degrees: Stop taxpayer money being spent on booze!
38 Degrees: All UK political parties: Start taxing private schools‘

38 Degrees Petition for Social Tariff and Discounts on Energy Bills

‘David, Ofgem just announced the energy price cap will go down in October BUT this crisis is far from over…

• Prices this winter will still be almost DOUBLE what they were before the energy crisis. [1]
• Bills will be MORE expensive for 1 in 3 households as support schemes end and daily standing charges increase. [2]
• 13 million British homes didn’t turn on the heating during the cold last winter because they were worried about costs. [3]

We can’t let people face another cold winter being swallowed by debt and unable to heat their home. The answer? A social tariff giving vulnerable households discounts on their bills – paid for by taxing energy giants! Ministers have long said they’ll consider one, but these vital plans seem to have been quietly dropped. [4] This is simply unacceptable.

But we can change that. With energy bills all over the news, NOW is the time to hold ministers to account. If hundreds of thousands of us come together to demand a social tariff, we’ll make a huge splash just as politicians head back to Parliament. Together, we can put it top of the agenda.

No one should be left in the cold this winter – not families, pensioners, people with disabilities, no one – so will you sign our petition asking the Government to bring in a social tariff now? It takes 30 seconds to sign and could mean a warm winter for someone in need!

I’LL SIGN

I’M NOT SIGNING BECAUSE…

Social tariffs already exist for broadband and phone bills, and no-one gets cut-off from water if they fall behind on payments. [5] But somehow, this Government thinks energy – the ability to keep your home warm and powered shouldn’t be included? That’s something we can’t stand for.

David, thousands of people like you have been fighting with 38 Degrees for what’s right over the last year – and we’ve made a real difference. Whether forcing ministers to increase Universal Credit as prices skyrocketed, or 20,000 of us telling Ofgem’s consultation to keep energy customers safe, 38 Degrees supporters keep issues top of the agenda. [6]

So will you sign now to demand the Government brings in a social tariff for energy, so no one goes cold or gets into debt this winter? If we stand together we can make life better for those who need it most.

I’LL SIGN

I’M NOT SIGNING BECAUSE…

Thanks for your support,

Flo, Amoke, Matt and the 38 Degrees team

NOTES:
[1] The Guardian: Energy bills: 13m British homes ‘did not turn on heating when cold last winter’
[2] Sky News: Bills will be more expensive for one in three households with poorest most affected, Resolution Foundation says
[3] See note 1
[4] The Guardian: A social tariff could bring a warm glow to UK energy policy
[5] Ofcom: Social tariffs: Cheaper broadband and phone packages
[6] 38 Degrees: Sign the petition: We need an emergency budget that boosts Universal Credit now.
The Times: Crackdown on prepayment meters: Ofgem ‘must do more to protect vulnerable’‘