Haha that’s amazing. Sadly I’m not expecting journalists to ask about this.
Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
We’re not getting considerably better than the last government and your listing of the last government’s actions in comparison is case in point that you continue to use that as the bar to which Labour must be held.
You seem to be blissfully or at least wilfully ignorant to what these freebies are. The framing of them as “freebies” itself is disingenuous, they’re actually the currency lobbyists use to effect policy.
Take this for example:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/p...ee-pass-to-glasto-courtesy-of-youtube-383200/
This is why MPs receive freebies and this is why it’s wrong for MPs to be allowed to receive them.
Can you explain to me any other reason these MPs are given these freebies? Pure altruism from huge corporations is not an answer.
I cited that exact example! I said that is clearly a potential conflict of interests and should be investigated!
Where are the other cases of conflicts involving Reeves, Rayner, Starmer?
Even if you think it's OK for your politicians to be openly bribed because they put it in a book for posterity, I'm not sure how you let "£20,000 so my kid could study for his exams" pass.
He either thinks everyone listening is an imbecile or is openly laughing at you. Take your pick.
He either thinks everyone listening is an imbecile or is openly laughing at you. Take your pick.
.
The undeclared gift of designer clothing for Mrs Starmer?
The cnuts being shown up for taking freebies, reminds me of this clip.
When they sought advice on if it should be declare or not, and were advised that it didn't have to be. And then when they were declaring other items, went back and voluntarily declared them in retrospect, because it looked like if one was being declared than the other should have been too.
(I'll try to find the source for that)
***UPDATE***
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgeyy0dlp24o
"The gifts, from Labour donor Lord Alli, included clothes and alterations for Sir Keir’s wife Victoria, given before and after Labour's election victory in July. MPs are required to declare gifts within 28 days.
The Sunday Times reported that the prime minister approached the parliamentary authorities on Tuesday to make a late declaration after being given updated advice on what needed to be registered.
Sir Keir said it was important that "we have transparency".
"And that's why, shortly after the election, my team reached out for advice on what declaration should be made, so it's in accordance with the rules," he said.
"They then sought out for further advice more recently, as a result of which they made the relevant declarations."
...you've read the last 10-20 pages of this thread right?
1. Break no rules -> media try to crucify you
2. Say you're going to stop doing the thing that wasn't breaking the rules -> media go after you
It's like if NASA did another moon landing mission just to appease the conspiracy theorists - they'd then all be out going "Well why are you doing it now if it wasn't faked before?"
Last edited:
Last edited:
It's so fascinating to see people adopt a "everything is fine as long as it's legal" worldview when it's politically convenient.
The way you're trying to spin this is so funny, you should be getting paid.
Feels like something quite important was happening for the June-July period, no?
Decamping to alternative accomodation to avoid disruption to your kids is now seen as a bad thing?
Am I right in saying it was declared in kind, not a financial transaction? Rich bloke says ‘Stay at my gaff if you like’ and other bloke says ‘cheers’?
Getting pissy about optics is so Fcuking boring.
Games gone.
Which would be a fine 'attack line' if I wasn't also say I'm 100% in favour of restricting / banning outright these kinds of gifts.
We've just moved 700 troops to Cyprus in case they're needed for civilian evacuation in Lebanon. It would be pretty stupid not to do what reconnaissance we could.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cyprus-ready-to-evacuate-britons-from-lebanon
It is a bit funny seeing the right wing press getting after Labour for this stuff while also celebrating Prince William's dad dancing at a concert he no doubt didn't buy a ticket for either.
Yet you're still playing the Valiant Defender, and acting like you don't understand.
Take the comment just above: when Starmer and Labour announce that they'll stop taking some of the gifts, while still steadfastly claiming that there's nothing wrong with receiving those gifts, then asking why they're going to stop is the most obvious question of all. It would be downright negligent of a journalist not to ask it. Obviously the real answer is "we want to continue using our influence to attract these economic benefits for ourselves, but it has started to hurt us too much politically so we have to reign it in for a bit", but you still have to ask. What do you do? You start rambling about moon landings and conspiracy theorists, trying to frame it as they've somehow gotten themselves into a situation by accident and the media are now unfairly targeting them.
If the last GCSE was on 19 June why did he need to stay until 13 July? What disruption was he avoiding there?
Why is the rich bloke letting Starmer stay at his gaff? Why is the rich bloke kitting Starmer and his wife out in expensive clothes?
I refuse to believe you're this dumb.
2019 members are at it again
Good.
On the plus side all the publicity might have persuaded a few more poor pensioners to claim pension credits. Not the intention at all but not a bad side-effect for a totally wrong policy, tax change was always the right way to go about it.
Final two weeks of the election, no? If you’ve set up a base in one location, you’re not going to move a home office from one location to another in that period.
Rich bloke is letting him stay there as he wants a Labour PM. That is entirely ok. If. It’s. Declared.
Quit with the dumb chat too. It’s very silly.
Even the language you're using is attempting to play it down, as if there's nothing wrong with someone reportedly worth around £200m giving the Prime Minister of the country money, clothes and accommodation. They're not just two 'blokes' and an £18m penthouse is not a 'gaff'. They're not two brickies, one of whom has split up with his missus and is kipping on the other one's sofa until he sorts something out. It's an incredibly rich man and a considerably less well off Prime Minister. And if you don't think that political favours don't work exactly like this, then I think you're going to be surprised further down the line.
Yes and the property was used for the election campaign. Journalists knew about it.
Here's a piece from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-starmers-pm-biographer-4-july-starmer-family
Here is the reference by the author on election night:
"Starmer and his wife, Vic, along with their two teenage children, were lined up on the sofa watching the television almost like they were recreating the opening of the cartoon series The Simpsons. They tried to show they were relaxed in this upmarket house Starmer had borrowed from a friend."
So it was common knowledge this was the arrangement.
Upmarket house being an £18m Covent Garden mansion, but that's by the by.
Why now is it being justified as used as solely for the son's education?
This whole media strategy screams of amateur hour to be honest. I've met Matthew Doyle. He is excellent at what he does. I cannot believe it is him directing the government responses which are making everyone involved seem both greedy and stupid.
He was leader of the opposition.
Best believe if I was a millionaire I’d be moving heaven and earth to get rid of the Tories. Letting someone use my house, buying them some clothes and glasses is light work.
The Tories have ruined everyone’s perception or normal.
Half the people here would still bleat on if he borrowed the fellas lawnmower.
They didn’t say solely.
Honestly, it’s nothing. It was written about at the time. It made sense.
That you wish a father to publicly say ‘I’m doing this for my son’ and heap additional pressure on the lad is just daft.
More to the point, the genuine reason might have been “The right wing gutter press do my Fcuking head in and I’m sick of the sight of them, and want to punch them when they stand on my doorstep every morning when my kids go to school”.
It’s so boring. So utterly boring. All these column inches. None of them dedicated to actual change. Eyes on the prize people.
If the budget is disgusting, I’ll tear him and the party to pieces along with everyone else. For now, I just don’t care.
I agree with you for the most part but this isn't just an "it looks bad", it is wrong whatever the rules say.
At the least worst case, it undermines policy by encouraging the narrative that policy is made by millionaires and gives the impression access is for sale if you are rich enough.
Worst case, they are in fact bought and paid for before they get in power, like in the US.
We all have to make sacrifices in these trying times, whether that is choosing between eating and heating or having to be dragged kicking and screaming to spend a month at your mate's £18m penthouse.
Writing numerous extensive comments on the matter is always the best way of showing you don't care after all.
I'm sorry but this is insane.
You can't genuinely believe this? You have to be trolling.What an unfortunate coincidence.
I'm sorry but this is insane.
Why not? Did you want to get rid of the Tories? If you had money, would you use it to increase those chances?
I’m literally describing the thing you say Starmers guilty of? So giggle on Brutha.
But this isn’t illegal
I’m using ChatGPT. It takes seconds.
You do come across as a bit of a bot in fairness, nice to have my suspicions confirmed.
The winter fuel payment cut has been voted down at the Labour conference, let's see if Starver actually gives a feck about democracy (he doesn't).
It'll join support for PR, nationalisation of water & energy, private interests to be removed from the NHS and sanctions placed on brutal regimes from the last few conferences in the bin.
But none of that is illegal so it's good actually.
But there's a conflict so it should be investigated.
Its probably worth reminding ourselves, especially those who think that this looking bad isn't really a problem, is that if the 'they are all the same' sticks, and it will, then the electorate, most of whom pay no attention to politics outside of what appears on BBC news headlines, will look for something else next election.
That won't be the greens, it won't be whatever corbyn creates, it will be farage. Because his is the only party the media itself presents as an outsider (even when they are no such thing).
I said before the election, starmer presenting himself under the banner of the left, doing awful stuff that the tories would be proud of, leads to farage as PM in 2029.
It will likely be a reform/tory coalition, but I'm more sure than ever its coming now.
That won't be the greens, it won't be whatever corbyn creates, it will be farage. Because his is the only party the media itself presents as an outsider (even when they are no such thing).
I said before the election, starmer presenting himself under the banner of the left, doing awful stuff that the tories would be proud of, leads to farage as PM in 2029.
It will likely be a reform/tory coalition, but I'm more sure than ever its coming now.
I don't have a problem with a family friend (and longstanding Labour insider/peer) letting Starmer's son stay in his house during GCSEs and a nominal £20k being put on the value of that for parliamentary accounting purposes. Presumably it was the 13th July because if the election was on the 4th July, it'd take a couple of weeks to move into Downing Street, so might as well stay there.
The above feels different to gifts being handed out that could lead to a conflict of interest, and I think broadly the same rules that apply to the rest of us in work under the Bribery Act, should also apply to MPs. (I also think the PM should be paid a lot more, all things being equal.)