Keir Starmer

[RonnieI]

It is the overtly partisan views that annoy me. Triton goes to town on Cleverly for accepting hospitality at Wimbledon, quite rightly so. The question as to what this could possibly have to do with his official duties is also a fair point, the answer being nothing whatsoever.
But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How did Starmer's attendance at a Taylor Swift concert have anything to do with his official duties?
So what's the difference?
There isn't any. In both cases high value gratuities offered purely on the basis of the positions people hold.
Have Wimbledon ever called you up offering you free tickets and a nice lunch? No, me neither, anymore than football organisations have offered me tickets, arguably the hottest in town at the time, to see Ms Swift strut her stuff.
Would these offers have been made to plain old Mr Cleverly or Mr Starmer?
The very fact that these things are targeted primarily at those in high positions in government has a distinct whiff of impropriety.
You clearly think so in the case of Mr Cleverly, so I just cannot fathom the logic that allows you to excuse similar behaviour on the part of Starmer.
They should all be condemned equally.
The only answer is a total ban.
If that means that her local MP has to politely decline Mrs Mighins perfectly innocent offer of a pot of her home made jam, then so be it.

Equally, second jobs should not be allowed. How an MP can deliver service for his/her constituents (their prime reason for existence) whilst holding down several other posts with various companies is beyond me.
Then, we've got the issue of employing multiple family members in 'constituency office' roles for large salaries. I think Neil Kinnock was the one who had that sewn up.
I think nowadays there are very few people who go into politics for purely altruistic reasons.

 

[niemeyjt]

I think nowadays there are very few people who go into politics for purely altruistic reasons.

As they say, people used to go into politics to do good - now they go in to do well.

 

[selectortone]

I used to frequent a US-based musicians forum of old guys my age. I'm a lifelong guitar player and sometime luthier and repairer. We discussed music from the 50s and 60s, guitars and amps etc., and over the 15 years or so I was on there regularly I made some really good friends, so much so that I attended a couple of gatherings over there.

There was a no politics rule but a couple of posters couldn't help themselves and after a few suspensions the moderators were persuaded to create a no-holds-barred off topic forum.

This was around the time that politics and society in general over there was becoming more and more polarised and within a couple of years that off-topic forum became a microcosm of the country with such acrimony and mean spirit that there was a massive exodus of the more left-leaning types. Crazy really, because anyone who has spent any time in the USA knows that politics as we know it is really either right of centre or a bit more right of centre there.

Nowadays that board is just a bunch of old Trump MAGA types shouting into a void. Really sad to see.

It worries me that this country is going the same way. I don't do social media but my partner does and some of the things she shows me on Facebook scare the cr*p out of me. Being shared by family and friends. And what the hell is happening to YouTube? It used to be a place where you went to watch funny cat videos, or stuff about motors and aeroplanes. Now it's full of the weirdest conspiracy theories.

I can understand the Daily Mail pushing all their right wing stuff, it sells papers, but where is all this deluge of divisive cr*p coming from on social media. In whose interests is a totally divided and demoralised country?

My partner said something the other day. We're walking her dog in the park, by Poole harbour on a lovely sunny morning. I'm my usual curmudgeonly, ennui-filled, grumpy-old-man self. She's smiling and saying "Morning!" to all the other dog walkers as we're walking round, like she does every morning. I remark on this and she says "Well, if you smile at someone they might be having a hard time and it might brighten their day. And if they then smile at someone, and so on, that smile might go all around the world."

If you got this far thanks for listening.

 

[cerro]

I have always said the UK is the most corrupt country in the world it’s so well hidden not like Russia or Africa ect which is out in the open for all to see

 

[Jacob]

Funny how Corbyn gets left out of these conversations!
In spite of the intensive brain-washing campaign against him, he still was the most popular Labour leader this century. We could have been 5 years into an honest Labour government.
This was the turnout;
2001 Blair 10.7 million
2005 Blair 9.5
2010 Brown 8.6
2015 miliband 9.3
2017 Corbyn 12.9
2019 Corbyn 10.3
2024 Starmer 9.7
How can this be?

 

[cerro]

When I lived in Scotland (25 years) we went to the hospital for hearing aids and I had four or five different ones over a three year period as they got better and better I was able to connect my phone via Bluetooth which was fantastic. Then we had to returned to Yorkshire for personal reasons and no hospital it was Novus Health owned by I don’t know who One cheap basic hearing aid take it or leave it no bluetooth you had to buy a devise £199 to use the phone from Novus Health of course Getting back to the post could a few MPs have got together and set up Novus Health like they did with corvic masks Just a thought

 

[Yorkieguy]

First, it was 'Passes for Glasses' - the latest stunt is 'Cash for Croissants'!

Quote:

Labour were engulfed in a 'cash for croissants' row after it emerged that the party was selling £30,000 tickets for breakfast with the Business Secretary. Business leaders were offered the 'rare chance to gain insights, network and exchange ideas' among peers and Jonathan Reynolds at an exclusive event at the Ivy restaurant in Manchester.

The Scottish National Party have demanded a probe into what they called the 'growing stench of sleaze' in Sir Kier’s government amid his party's freebie row. SNP Cabinet Office spokesman Brendan O'Hara said: 'People expect transparency and accountability — and that is why a full inquiry into the Labour government cash for access scandal is required.'

Labour's pitch — first reported by The Sun — offered bosses a photograph with Mr Reynolds at a cost of £15,000, or £30,000 for a 'dynamic meeting of business minds'. The invitation was circulated to businesses by Liam Didsbury, who until recently was the Labour's North-West director.

But party officials now say the breakfast is no longer going ahead.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband claimed Mr Reynolds was 'unaware' of the event, but warned his colleagues that 'paying to have access' was 'not what we are about'. 'Don't do it again, is my message,' he said. 'Jonathan Reynolds was completely unaware of this. It shouldn't have happened. It won't happen again. You know, I'm sure lessons will be learned.'

Mr Reynolds has accepted tickets from Google worth more than £3,000 for Glastonbury last year, when the party was in opposition. Shadow minister Andrew Griffiths warned: 'This is a clear offer to bend the Business Secretary's ear over government policy.' He added: 'There are proper channels through which businesses can engage with the government on policy matters, but this is something completely different and won't appear in any public record.

'Labour has been in office for less than 100 days but we can already add "cash for croissants" to "passes for glasses" in the growing list of scandals engulfing this government.'

End quote.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/oth...1&cvid=6706fd9947454898a5f1dbc33dc21717&ei=99

To draw an analogy: think of the goodwill and trust placed in Labour by the electorate at the general election as competent honourable people to lead the country, as rather like 'a tube of toothpaste'. Each time these revelations of, (at best), ill-judged ineptitude arise, its like another squeeze of the tube. Once each blob of 'trust and goodwill' is squeezed out of the tube, it can't be put back in. It remains to be seen how many more squeezes are left in the tube. Best to screw the cap on the tube and conserve what's left in it.

A lesson that the Tories failed to learn to their cost.

This was supposed to be a much different 'brand' of whiter than white 'toothpaste'.

 

[Croolis]

It is the overtly partisan views that annoy me. Triton goes to town on Cleverly for accepting hospitality at Wimbledon, quite rightly so. The question as to what this could possibly have to do with his official duties is also a fair point, the answer being nothing whatsoever.
But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How did Starmer's attendance at a Taylor Swift concert have anything to do with his official duties?
So what's the difference?
There isn't any. In both cases high value gratuities offered purely on the basis of the positions people hold.
Have Wimbledon ever called you up offering you free tickets and a nice lunch? No, me neither, anymore than football organisations have offered me tickets, arguably the hottest in town at the time, to see Ms Swift strut her stuff.
Would these offers have been made to plain old Mr Cleverly or Mr Starmer?
The very fact that these things are targeted primarily at those in high positions in government has a distinct whiff of impropriety.
You clearly think so in the case of Mr Cleverly, so I just cannot fathom the logic that allows you to excuse similar behaviour on the part of Starmer.
They should all be condemned equally.
The only answer is a total ban.
If that means that her local MP has to politely decline Mrs Mighins perfectly innocent offer of a pot of her home made jam, then so be it.

Yes. But I will say - in the real world total bans are not going to happen and even if they did, they would be sleazed around. But what did any of them do in return for the favour? It's not about them just getting nice gifts from people because of who they are and ohhh I can't get any of those things because I'm Croolis Nobody so it's not fair - this is the line most mainstream journalists are taking. And they take that line because it's easy and they play the politician/journo game and it won't rock the boat too much. The real question that nobody will ask is - what did he/she/them actually do in return for the favour? They won't really go after that answer, and in six months they'll be laying into whoever for a different reason, and maybe some insistent investigative journo will uncover a thing or two that will be swiftly forgotten about as usual. It's all about the continued production of a story for clicks, subscriptions and sales. Reveal enough for a headline and a titillation, but don't actually do anything that will disrupt that gravy train.

On the point of "smear campaign" - as has been seen, many politicians take greasy treats for favours like this all the time, or any other scandal. They do it all the time. But sometimes you have this media spike like what's going on now, and the reason these spikes happen is because some press strategist from whatever party has weaponised his/her pet journos from whatever sh**ty rag or TV channel and is getting it out there. I would have thought most of the Tory scandals in last couple years were kicked off by Labour influence, and picked up by editors because they could see the end coming for the Tory administration. They're doing it now to Labour because the Tories are already so damaged by all this that any comparison to them, such as with Cleverly, doesn't matter now.

In other periods between elections you won't see much of this corruption stuff, because they'll all of them, whatever party, wanting to keep it quiet and won't risk waking the beast by prodding journos into it.

Mainstream media makes me sick. Utter betrayal of what it should be, and has always been that way too. And what do we get for a replacement? Crazy pineappled internet stuff that anyone makes, with zero publication standards or controls, that feed right wing nonsense at best and utter lunatics at worst. How could people with such obviously idiotic personas and such dreadful communication skills like Trump and Musk or any other of the pineapples you see these days thrive in the way they do?

Bah, I'm going to go and cut up some wood just for the sake of it. See some chips fly.

 

[Fergie 307]

Funny how Corbyn gets left out of these conversations!
In spite of the intensive brain-washing campaign against him, he still was the most popular Labour leader this century. We could have been 5 years into an honest Labour government.
This was the turnout;
2001 Blair 10.7 million
2005 Blair 9.5
2010 Brown 8.6
2015 miliband 9.3
2017 Corbyn 12.9
2019 Corbyn 10.3
2024 Starmer 9.7
How can this be?

Don't agree with many of his views, but I will say this for Corbyn, I very much doubt you would see him topping the leaderboard for gratuities, whatever his position.

 

[Fergie 307]

Yes. But I will say - in the real world total bans are not going to happen and even if they did, they would be sleazed around. But what did any of them do in return for the favour? It's not about them just getting nice gifts from people because of who they are and ohhh I can't get any of those things because I'm Croolis Nobody so it's not fair - this is the line most mainstream journalists are taking. And they take that line because it's easy and they play the politician/journo game and it won't rock the boat too much. The real question that nobody will ask is - what did he/she/them actually do in return for the favour? They won't really go after that answer, and in six months they'll be laying into whoever for a different reason, and maybe some insistent investigative journo will uncover a thing or two that will be swiftly forgotten about as usual. It's all about the continued production of a story for clicks, subscriptions and sales. Reveal enough for a headline and a titillation, but don't actually do anything that will disrupt that gravy train.

On the point of "smear campaign" - as has been seen, many politicians take greasy treats for favours like this all the time, or any other scandal. They do it all the time. But sometimes you have this media spike like what's going on now, and the reason these spikes happen is because some press strategist from whatever party has weaponised his/her pet journos from whatever sh**ty rag or TV channel and is getting it out there. I would have thought most of the Tory scandals in last couple years were kicked off by Labour influence, and picked up by editors because they could see the end coming for the Tory administration. They're doing it now to Labour because the Tories are already so damaged by all this that any comparison to them, such as with Cleverly, doesn't matter now.

In other periods between elections you won't see much of this corruption stuff, because they'll all of them, whatever party, wanting to keep it quiet and won't risk waking the beast by prodding journos into it.

Mainstream media makes me sick. Utter betrayal of what it should be, and has always been that way too. And what do we get for a replacement? Crazy pineappled internet stuff that anyone makes, with zero publication standards or controls, that feed right wing nonsense at best and utter lunatics at worst. How could people with such obviously idiotic personas and such dreadful communication skills like Trump and Musk or any other of the pineapples you see these days thrive in the way they do?

Bah, I'm going to go and cut up some wood just for the sake of it. See some chips fly.

Couldn't agree more regarding social media in general. God help the current generation who it seems are glued to it constantly. Some seriously weird stuff out there, and seriously unpleasant individuals who somehow attract a massive following.
Worrying to think that it is this sort of thing that seems to be shaping the views of so many nowadays.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

How could people with such obviously idiotic personas and such dreadful communication skills like Trump and Musk or any other of the pineapples you see these days thrive in the way they do?

No different from Lammy, Rayner ...
Idiocy isn't confined to the right.

 

[Amplidyne]

People apparently, "Wanted a change" because "It was time for a change" they were sick of the Tories "Sleaze and maladministration"

And now we have Labour doing the same.

No real change at all.

Great stuff.

The whole setup with it's two horse race needs sorting. It's too comfortable for them.

I used to think FPTP was the way to vote, but after this latest fiasco, we should have PR, stop any of them getting in on such low numbers of votes.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Don't agree with many of his views, but I will say this for Corbyn, I very much doubt you would see him topping the leaderboard for gratuities, whatever his position.

No, he's a good socialist with a wife worth half a billion. (Not that having money stopped TTK.)

 

[niemeyjt]

Funny how Corbyn gets left out of these conversations!
In spite of the intensive brain-washing campaign against him, he still was the most popular Labour leader this century. We could have been 5 years into an honest Labour government.
This was the turnout;
Here are the figures
2001 Blair 10.7 million
2005 Blair 9.5
2010 Brown 8.6
2015 miliband 9.3
2017 Corbyn 12.9
2019 Corbyn 10.3
2024 Starmer 9.7
How can this be?

Maybe that is why the disillusionment has set in so rapidly with Starmer?

 

[Fergie 307]

I would think the reason a total ban will never happen is because as long as is left to MP's to decide, then they are about as likely to vote for it as turkeys for Christmas.
They are looking at it now apparently. Great opportunity for them all to take notice of public opinion and just stop it altogether.

 

[Spectric]

If your pot only contains a given set of ingredients then no matter how much you stir it you will always only get out some combination of those ingredients which is british politics yet people continue to vote knowing change cannot happen because for change you need new ingredients so we just keep going round in circles getting no where. To get real change we must place emphassis on changing the political system and accepting that what we have always done is not working, place importance on education starting young and providing it for nothing if it is a serious pathway, this can be academic but also hands on skills which are just as important as education is the future of everything moving on. We need to break this materialist attachment to wealth as a motivator and get back to just accepting achievement for what it is, make the quest for knowledge a good alternative.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The practice of lobbying in order to influence political decisions is a legitimate and necessary part of the democratic process. Individuals and organisations reasonably want to influence decisions that may affect them, those around them, and their environment.

The question is differentiating acceptable from unacceptable. That from which a politicians family benefits - clothing, tickets, holidays etc - IMHO are towards the unacceptable. Also need to differentiate between the personal and party.

A ban on donations (££ or in kind) is not feasible or sensible:

• political parties are supported by donations, not the public purse
• those seeking influence will often be those who are both informed and potentially impacted
• they are likely to be either personally wealthy, have significant personal influence, or both

That the size of a "donation" is likely to "influence" the "influence" is no surprise - a £25 contribution to the local party will have less impact that £25,000. The views of Mr or Mrs Average are of no consequence - only with an election approaching do opinion polls matter.

All personal donations save those which are incidental to the purpose of a meeting should be banned - eg: lunch and drinkies at Wimbledon finals would be unacceptable, lunch at a decent restaurant for a meeting would be OK.

Senior politicians inevitably interact mainly with the wealthy and influential. Whilst £170k pa may seem a lot, the Michelin standard lifestyle enjoyed by the wealthy is unaffordable. The PM salary should be increased to (say) £500k pa so that he/she has absolutely no need for donation largesse.

 

[NorthernSteve]

MPs were not paid a salary until 1911. The salary was introduced to enable those without sufficient funds to live on to become MPs. The issue we now have is that the salaries paid to 'decent' MPs, especially those in the Cabinet are far less than they would earn in the private sector. The disparity in capability between MPs is vast. At the other end of the scale, many are not even worth the salary they draw. So, what can be done to fix this? Set minimum standards for candidates. In 2012 43% of British MPs had a criminal record Vs 9.2% for the general population, this speak volumes. And also set some performance based compensation. Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of taking gifts that compromise them, Labour are getting hammered because they have previously taken the moral high ground on this, when all along they were at it. So they are also guilty of hypocrisy. It shall be interesting to see where we are in a couple of weeks from now. I somehow think that a few things may have changed somewhat...

 

[Amplidyne]

MPs were not paid a salary until 1911. The salary was introduced to enable those without sufficient funds to live on to become MPs. The issue we now have is that the salaries paid to 'decent' MPs, especially those in the Cabinet are far less than they would earn in the private sector. The disparity in capability between MPs is vast. At the other end of the scale, many are not even worth the salary they draw. So, what can be done to fix this? Set minimum standards for candidates. In 2012 43% of British MPs had a criminal record Vs 9.2% for the general population, this speak volumes. And also set some performance based compensation. Both Labour and Conservatives are guilty of taking gifts that compromise them, Labour are getting hammered because they have previously taken the moral high ground on this, when all along they were at it. So they are also guilty of hypocrisy. It shall be interesting to see where we are in a couple of weeks from now. I somehow think that a few things may have changed somewhat...

But then if they're worth more salary in some cases, they must also obviously be aware of the salary for the job they're taking on.
I've said many times that it should be a job that's not available to people who want it. . .
Surely a criminal record should bar them from the post, as should having other jobs, or taking gratuities in any form.
Quite seriously, when I see some of the things they say, I think an IQ test might not be a bad idea either. And not some memory test to pass exams either.

 

[AJB Temple]

And it goes on. The duplicitous Sue Gray, who also took freebies from people who have no desire to influence labour at all, has taken another high paid and pensioned job in kneelers gift, to avoid being the story.