Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
I hate how the old 'they're all as bad as each other' argument has come this close to being accurate. I honestly can't see a single positive in this version of the Labour Party.
Feck me, that’s a close call?
If I had the time (and I.T ability), I’d photoshop their photos onto a Dumb and Dumber poster. But change it to Dull and Duller
They're really cheap to bribe in comparison to the Tories.
Turns out the protester joined in 2022
The right wing press is always going to savage any Labour Government. With that said, here was a deliberate political choice to postpone the budget until October to set out a longer-term strategy.
There have been some legislative announcements that look positive, but these are few compared to what needs to be done. More importantly, given all these mistakes, that budget is going to have to do a huge amount to win back the narrative.
Considering Blair made a massive error in 1997 with the £1m donation from Ecclestone, which dragged on for months and months, it still surprises me how little this administration seems to have learned from New Labour's self-inflicted errors.
Seven things Starmer did in his speech, from Politico:
https://www.politico.eu/article/bri...labour-conference-speech-policy-left-defense/
The Labour leader confirmed that he would, as promised last year, bring in a so-called Hillsborough law — forcing public bodies to cooperate with investigations into major incidents like the 1989 football stadium disaster — before the disaster’s next anniversary in April. He also revealed that the headquarters of GB Energy, Labour’s national energy company, will be in Aberdeen in Scotland, a bid to temper criticism that Labour is denting the oil and gas industry there with its climate policies.
He also promised housing for veterans, care leavers and victims of domestic abuse, and new “foundation apprenticeships” to eradicate youth unemployment.
https://www.politico.eu/article/bri...labour-conference-speech-policy-left-defense/
1) Starmer’s still contrasting himself with the left
2) The Starmy’s not for turning
3) Some sunlight amid the doom and gloom
A number of references to the sunlit uplands in Starmer’s speech — and to a few policy treats for the party faithful — helped offset the stoic talk of fiscal restraint.The Labour leader confirmed that he would, as promised last year, bring in a so-called Hillsborough law — forcing public bodies to cooperate with investigations into major incidents like the 1989 football stadium disaster — before the disaster’s next anniversary in April. He also revealed that the headquarters of GB Energy, Labour’s national energy company, will be in Aberdeen in Scotland, a bid to temper criticism that Labour is denting the oil and gas industry there with its climate policies.
He also promised housing for veterans, care leavers and victims of domestic abuse, and new “foundation apprenticeships” to eradicate youth unemployment.
4) A robust defense of the first 100 days
The Labour leader reeled off planning reforms, ending public-sector strikes, launching new solar and offshore wind projects, a shake-up of school inspections, a new Border Security Command and a National Wealth Fund as among the government’s early achievements.5) There was one big elephant in the room
Starmer didn’t engage with the multiple rows over donations and ethics that had soured the lead-in to Labour’s conference. Nor was there any word on Labour’s promised ethics and integrity commission to shake up how the conduct of politicians is policed, and only a brief reference to the government’s move to ban MPs from taking second jobs.6) Starmer took on the rioters
7) Even straitlaced politicians can gaffe
We should have a caf whip-round and see if a few hundred quid would entice any of them to even briefly consider a vaguely socialist policy for a change.
I take it you missed the part where I spoke about Arsenal's billionaire owner?
Bacon sarnies to face fecking a pig to pork markets to freeing sausages. Two decades of these swine telling porkies, and gammon politics.
US/UK/Turkey run hundreds of Sorties with recon assets over that region per year, every year, for decades.
If the insinuation is that the UK assisted Israel in their attacks, the answer is....no.
I saw this clip of Reeves being challenged over her £7,500 clothing gift. It absolutely sums up the fact that there is zero difference in politicians and the hypocrisy will always be strong.
Also, I cannot believe how badly Reeves comes across in this interview – if you told me she was ai generated I think I would have believed you.
Honestly if you cant tackle the difference between being scrutinized for a £7.5k of clothing and the sheer level of corruption from the Conservatives and still claim there is "zero difference" there is a wider problem.
Politicians will always have an element of freebies or quid pro quo's and this happens in literally every country in history. It's about scrutinizing it at the right tolerance levels and ensuring they aren't taking a material piss on handling the welfare of the country.
What makes you believe these Labour politicians aren't going to engage in the same level of corruption as the Tories? The last few weeks have already shown they've got the same level of integrity, it's not a stretch to imagine they'll start handing out dodgy contracts during the 5 years they're in power.
Reeves take £7.5k over a period of years for clothes - MASSIVE MELTDOWN
Farage takes a £30k flight and hotel package as a gift to go see is bezzie Trump - nadda
Boris gets £112k for decoration, lies about it, results in his ethics advisor quitting, lying to Parliament about losing his phone - oh it's just Boris
But yeah, they're all the same.
For some reason I can't quote you in my last post so I'll do it here. Where have Labour shown 'the same level of integrity'?
They've accepted gifts -> within the ministerial guidance
They've declared them -> adhering to the rules
How is that in any way comparable to what's gone on before?
Now, as I mentioned to Sweet Square previously, if you want an open discussion about if the rules should be changed about gifts, I'm all for it! But within the framework of rules that exist, they've done nothing wrong.
It is - any role of major influence will involve freebies. One of the posters in this thread spoke about the hypocrisy of Journalists to grill the PMs when they get freebies themselves.
What's hard to grasp is why anyone should expect freebies to be completely dropped all of a sudden
It's happened for years and years and years. It's about the magnitude at which it happens. Honestly these conversations are such a trivial matter when time could be spent putting government to account on actual problems.
Same level of integrity
feck me I just give up. It feels like you just don't remember the conservative party that run this shitshow.
Great set of interviews this morning!
I was more raising an eyebrow at certain journos getting very moralistic about freebies when they've been total freeloaders themselves.
I'm all for MPs facing scrutiny, it's just one journo in particular wrote a particularly disdainful piece on MPs taking freebies a while back, despite having scooped up every press trip going over the years. It amused other journos.
Stephen Flynn mentioned an £18bn 'black hole' in the re-election debates and said that the Tories and Labour both knew about it. It's really disingenuous to pretend that they only found out about it after winning the election and now they have to 'make difficult decisions'.
It's the thin end of the wedge. You can expect a massive fall on your arse if you've been pontificating from your high horse.
Everyone called it out when Johnson was doing it, rightly, and everyone is doing it now. You can't promise new politics whilst taking backhanders.
It's indefensible. Two months into a new Labour government and you're cheering on low level corruption? This party really has changed.
Labour politicians take slightly less in bribes isn’t the strongest argument.
You don’t get to say “we’re not afraid to make the tough choices” and then go on TV to claim it’s actually perfectly fine you took all those free clothes or Taylor swift tickets because you’re only on 170k/your kids wanted them/the bigger boys did it too whilst your cutting benefits and fuel allowances. You just don’t. Sorry.
I’ve no idea what can possibly be achieved by complaining the Tories were worse. Of course they were. They’re the Tories. That’s why people voted them out and the single biggest reason Labour are even IN power. But so what?
Also I remember when it was the left of the party making gafs and being destroyed by the tabloids, and the attitude was far more of a “well they shouldn’t have given them the ammunition, they clearly can’t play the game like the serious grown ups” variety… so, eh, suck it up you cnuts.
I’ve no idea what can possibly be achieved by complaining the Tories were worse. Of course they were. They’re the Tories. That’s why people voted them out and the single biggest reason Labour are even IN power. But so what?
Also I remember when it was the left of the party making gafs and being destroyed by the tabloids, and the attitude was far more of a “well they shouldn’t have given them the ammunition, they clearly can’t play the game like the serious grown ups” variety… so, eh, suck it up you cnuts.
But almost every line of what you said is wrong, with all due respect.
"Everyone called it out when Johnson was doing it, rightly, and everyone is doing it now."
'Everyone' called out Boris because barely any of it was declared, and then when it got squeezed out of him he lied and lied about where / who it came from, didn't cooperate with people trying to find out why and, again, led his own ethics advisor to quit in progress
"You can't promise new politics whilst taking backhanders."
They're not backhanders, they're publicly declared gifts as allowed in the MP code of conduct
I don't know the ins-and-outs of it but there is in fact that case where whatshisface got tickets to Glastonbury and then policy changed a week later, and that absolutely should be investigated for a conflict of interest, but without evidence of a (potential) conflict, compary people acting with the rules to those who made a career out of breaking them is a symbol of how bent this country is.
Last edited:
The reason they are pubiically declared is so us, the public, can see if we think they’re dodgy. And enough of us clearly do. It’s not a magic book that disappears them like wizard shit.
Last edited:
Good fecking grief.
Labour literally campaigned on a platform of cleaning up British politics and highlighting Tory sleaze. They're utter hypocrites.
What do you think is going to happen? Labour politicians are going to accept all of these donations and are then going to turn around and implement policies that go against the interests of those donating?
It's astonishing how naive some of the posters in this thread are. Either that or they're being wilfully disingenuous.
Yeah that's fair enough.
I'm all for MPs facing scrutiny but there's an element of mud slinging going on just because its easy to see them fall. You look at all the shit theyre doing in stalk contrast to the Conservatives and it's clear they aren't the same in terms of integrity or caring for the masses.
Where's the evidence of sleaze, corruption or conflicts of interests? I've already said that the one where it looks like it influenced them needs investigating.
The one @Sweet Square just raised is fecking bonkers and I won't try to defend that one.
What you're talking about is removing gifting from the MP code of conduct, which I'm 100% behind.
So why have they not mentioned anything about that? Given that the entire electorate, pretty much, would like to see an end to legalised corruption. There's one very obvious conclusion to make but you seem to be stumbling around in the dark with your arms out in front of you utterly blind to the massive fecking elephant stood right next to you.
@Jericholyte2 at some point you’re going to get very tired of blindly defending Starmer’s Labour and start asking yourself “why exactly am I having to defend their actions so frequently” and at that point the penny might just drop.
Do yourself a favour and trying raising your bar a little higher than a direct comparison with the previous government.
Do yourself a favour and trying raising your bar a little higher than a direct comparison with the previous government.
Absolute car crash of an interview
This line of thinking is ridiculous to me. Forget the code of conduct. As an MP , you know what it looks like to the public. You've just campaigned on the anti sleaze and it doesn't work to arrogantly go "oh, my sleaze was the correct, within policy type of sleaze so the public need to get their facts straight on this and learn the policy". Just because it's in the code of conduct that you can accept the gift doesn't mean you have to do it.
Insane. I did listen to the interview and it’s terrible.
Insane.
The first GCSE exam was on 9th May 2024 and the final GCSE exam was on Wednesday 19th June 2024.
Seriously, I'm tired of going around in the same circles with you.
I demand far better than the previous government.
We're getting considerably better than the previous government (where are the Labour VIP lanes, ex-ethics advisors, illegal prorogations of Parliament, has Rayner or any member of the Cabinet lied to the Monarch) but this isn't enough for some, especially on here.
As I've said repeatedly ad nauseum, I'm 100% in favour or restricting or wiping out gifting from donors but, and this is where most fail to provide a valid answer, what are you angry about?
- is it the rules they've broken? Because they haven't
- is it that they've lied to Parliament? Because they haven't
- is it because they've lied about declarations? Because they haven't
You and the likes of @Bobade can whine about 'the optics' or public opinion, but (a) perception is objectively useless (look at when the former Culture said the main issue with the BBC was the 'perception' of bias but then couldn't cite any actual bias) and (b) this is a greater indication of the bent influence of the media than it does about the performance of the actual MPs.
I think Attlee said "A Tory minister can sleep in ten different women's beds in a week. A Labour minister gets it in the neck if he looks at his neighbour's wife over the garden fence.” in relation to this.
When acting within the rules isn't enough, what is there?
Perception is why the NHS is currently very nervous and why the economy has a very negative outlook, it's absolutely not objectively useless. Particularly when it comes to money which is largely based on fairytales. They're currently making a massive cock up of perception in multiple areas, not the least of which is not organising their donations to look less cretinous.
Also being a Tory minister sounds a bit too rock n roll according to that quote!