Keir Starmer

[RobinBHM]

Corruption, by any other name, is still corruption

How is it corruption?

Robert Jenrick taking £75,0000 from a company with no employees and no assets which is registered in the Cayman Islands. That’s corruption.

Oddly I’ve not seen you get upset about that.

Taking clothes which are given free, is an act of getting free publicity for the brand, there’s no evidence of wanting anything in exchange.

Lord Ali as far as I can tell has donated to,Labour for years.l..if you can provide any evidence that he has gained anything via way of policy influence, please let me know. The guy seems to do a lot for charity as far as I can tell.

 

[RobinBHM]

Interesting EU development re 'migrants':

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...1&cvid=0279df0158ad4f1095230ea3bf7c0b89&ei=17

I’m not sure why you’ve put the word migrants in inverted commas.

It seems she is talking about migrants not asylum seekers.

I can’t find anything mentioned about breaking international laws.

 

[Yorkieguy]

The right wing media have been screaming that Labour (who have followed the expenses rules) are far worse than the Tories (who didn’t follow the rules).


Keir Starmer getting a free pair of glasses has had way more media coverage than Robert Jenrick mysteriously getting a donation of £75,000 from a company that has no employees and is £300k in debt.

The false equivalence is staggering

This isn't about 'equivalence' It's because of the antics by the like of Jenrick Boris et all that the Tories are out of office.

When they were in office, Starmer pontificated about how Labour would put an end to sleaze.

The fact that he, and his ministers are mired in it, accepting largesse worth many thousands of pounds from vested interests (betting and gaming, Sports etc) in my view is a seriously aggravating factor. Snouts in the trough comes to mind. Whether it's legal or not is by the by. If anyone can point a finger and say: "fancy that, and him the Prime Minster", or "her the Home Secretary/ Minister for Education' or whoever, if they don't want to see their reputations in tatters, they'd best not do it.

Their pre election 'unique offering' was to be no more sleaze.

Suppose that the Tories had been elected and had carried on like this - all the Labour freeloaders would be moralising from the rooftops.

Now there's all the fuss about Taylor Swift being give a 'blue light escort' at the taxpayers expense, for no good operation reason (the level of security that the Duke of Sussex has been firmly told he's not entitled to) is now in the news. If the Home Secretary, PM (and SAdiq Khan in charge of the Met) hadn't had free tickets to the Taylor Swift concert, no-one could point a finger and say 'no smoke without fire'. Each time they try to gloss over such things and try to 'normalise it' they di a bigger hole for themselves.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...1&cvid=cd10f0e86ade4bf8a591861bfa7bcc87&ei=93

Truth is, that they're turning out to be a bunch of 'champagne socialists'.

All just so seedy.

 

[Spectric]

The fact that he, and his ministers are mired in it, accepting largesse worth many thousands of pounds from vested interests

Yes, you give the PM some free tickets to your concert and in exchange you get a police escort.

 

[Blackswanwood]

"Iffy" on the way you paid taxes? You either pay what you owe or don't. There's nothing "iffy" about it.

In principle yes but in practice it’s not quite so straightforward.

 

[RobinBHM]

This isn't about 'equivalence' It's because of the antics by the like of Jenrick Boris et all that the Tories are out of office

it is al about equivalence

the right wing media is busy claiming Labour are the same as the Tories.........they arent theres no equivalence

The fact that he, and his ministers are mired in it, accepting largesse worth many thousands of pounds from vested interests (betting and gaming, Sports etc) in my view is a seriously aggravating factor

do you have specific details?

accepting glasses, football tickets, clothes, concert tickets doesnt seem like vested interests to me, who supplied these?

details are important


Conservatives took donations from Shell, BP, Russian Oligarchs, Betting shops, private healthcare etc .............if it is those, then that is wrong.

I know hedge fund managers have given money to Labour, but not sure what leverage they would want.

Now there's all the fuss about Taylor Swift being give a 'blue light escort' at the taxpayers expense, for no good operation reason

I would argue she was a target and needed protection

seems like a Daily Mail attack to me

Whether it's legal or not is by the by

I disagree, the right wing media are screaming about Labour who followed the rules whilst excuse Tories for breaking the rules

details matter

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Here comes another one. I see Sue Gray's son is another one who got free tickets.

 

[Fergie 307]

it is al about equivalence

the right wing media is busy claiming Labour are the same as the Tories.........they arent theres no equivalence



do you have specific details?

accepting glasses, football tickets, clothes, concert tickets doesnt seem like vested interests to me, who supplied these?

details are important


Conservatives took donations from Shell, BP, Russian Oligarchs, Betting shops, private healthcare etc .............if it is those, then that is wrong.

I know hedge fund managers have given money to Labour, but not sure what leverage they would want.




I would argue she was a target and needed protection

seems like a Daily Mail attack to me



I disagree, the right wing media are screaming about Labour who followed the rules whilst excuse Tories for breaking the rules

details matter

Interesting that you ask who paid for Starmer's tickets. Was this a rhetorical question?
It would be odd to have concluded that these gifts were all above board without having looked into who paid for them.
As I understand it the Taylor Swift tickets, and numerous football freebies were all paid for by football's governing organisations
Given that the government are in the process of looking into how football should be regulated, there would appear to be a very clear conflict of interest.
If Starmer wants to go to a football match, or needs a new suit then he's not exactly a pauper, he can pay for them himself.
And yes, just as Boris should have paid for his own wallpaper etc.
I entirely agree they have not come close to some of the more extreme examples of Tory sleaze and corruption, but hey give them a chance, they've only been in office for five minutes.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

...and therein lies the problem regarding the GFA.
You're approaching the issue as though it can't be resolved. It was never thought that there could be a solution prior to the GFA but it happened through negotiation and the same could be achieved with regard leaving the ECHC. It depends upon the willingness to resolve the issues.

Once again you're looking at the EU issue through the same flawed glasses.
The EU is a dreadful protectionist organisation that has access to our markets which benefits them in the form of a huge trading deficit in their favour and disadvantages the UK.
If they are alleged trading partners then why has there always been a huge trading deficit in their favour? That trading deficit should be greatly reduced by either making it easier to access to their markets or restricting the EU's access to our markets or by negotiating more favourable terms.

I can guarantee that if their access to our markets of such as their car industries was restricted it would go into rapid decline with the host nations going into recession but we don't seem to have stomach to face them down.

EU GDP at ~£20tn in total is ~8 times that of the UK.

UK exports to EU at £355bn represents ~15% of UK GDP

EU exports to UK at £463bn represents ~ 2% of EU GDP

The UK is the minor player, with limited negotiating power - the belief that negotiating harder would yield a better result is flawed. Either the exit agreement was inadequate dominated by the political "get Brexit done" mantra, or the leave decision fundamentally foolish.

The route to success is in providing goods and services that the EU want. The choice of whether we import from EU or elsewhere is up for grabs - now decided on price, quality, delivery etc.

Cars - just looking at Germany - the UK imports ~10% of total output. US and China alone take nearly 3 times the UK. Smaller markets include the rest of EU + other bits of the world.

The total loss of the UK car market would not be welcomed by EU - but the assertion of rapid decline into recession is just nonsense.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

We have, from Cameron to Sunak, moving more and more to the right to appease a minority in their party and in our country.

Liz Truss, Nigel Farage are significantly right of centre. Cameron and Sunak by their actions are very centre ground.

The left wing analogue to your comment would be to observe that Tony Blair and Kier Starmer are leading the charge to the left - manifest nonsense.

 

[flying haggis]

I wonder if the mega rich Taylor Swift will re-imburse the Met for the escort.............

 

[Terry - Somerset]

All taxation is "a slice of the action" Where wealth is being generated it has to be taxed for the benefit of nations.
America is going to have to get to grips with its multinationals companies, so that they are not stripping the wealth from other countries. If large multinationals continue to hoover up available trade across the world without paying a proportionate amount of tax. locally, then the countries in which they trade, will become poorer.
I would like to think that when I purchase things, that a just proportion of that revenue stays inside the country. And that it isn't being syphoned off to send the likes of Jeff Bazos to Mars.

As I understand it VAT at 20% is paid on imported goods - possibly plus import duties depending on type and where they originated.

The profit made can be manipulated (transfer pricing, management fees, commissions etc etc) to a substantial extent to appear to arise in a low tax regime to minimise tax.

Assume a product with a selling price of £120 including VAT. VAT = £20.

Profit of (say) 10% would be £10. Corporation tax if paid on the profit would be £2.50 (25% rate).

Focussing on the tax avoided on the profit is an emotional distraction. The reality with services (in particular) is that traditional national borders are an increasing irrelevancy and the way taxation is raised needs to be modified accordingly.

 

[Fergie 307]

Liz Truss, Nigel Farage are significantly right of centre. Cameron and Sunak by their actions are very centre ground.

The left wing analogue to your comment would be to observe that Tony Blair and Kier Starmer are leading the charge to the left - manifest nonsense.

Indeed, both got into power on the basis of re inventing the party in a Tory Lite version.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The last 14 years of government has been an example of loads of hard right policies.

If you think the Conservatives aren’t right wing, you aren’t terribly well informed

The Tories of the last 14 years are not remotely far right. Had that been the case - perhaps the NHS would by now have been largely dismantled with insurance based private healthcare in its place - spend in real terms increased by 35%, staff by 30%.

The last government also introduced - for instance:

• introduction of triple lock for pensions
• government spending as a share of GDP from 1985 to 2007 was below 40% compared to 45% in the last 3 years (Covid peak ignored)
• employee legislation - equality act, unfair dismissal, parental leave, minimum wage,

In terms of international comparison, UK public expenditure at 44% of GDP is a little below average for Europe, the same as Japan, but much higher than US, India, South Africa, and many others.

 

[mark w]

Liz Truss, Nigel Farage are significantly right of centre. Cameron and Sunak by their actions are very centre ground.

The left wing analogue to your comment would be to observe that Tony Blair and Kier Starmer are leading the charge to the left - manifest nonsense.

"The left wing analogue" does not suggest Blair and Starmer are leading the charge to the left. They are certainly not left wing enough for me, they are more to the left though than any of the idiots the Conservatives have had in charge, particularly of late.

 

[Scruples]

A question for you: Name one successful person in whatever field of your choosing where apathy was the motivating factor which helped them achieve success? You have plenty of examples to choose from so it should be an easy answer.

I'm quite sure there are many studies with a left wing flavour to explain why some are successful while others aren't and why it's someone or something else's fault why they weren't successful but the common themes in the background of virtually all the success stories I've ever read is that personal ambitions and aspirations to achieve success were the overriding and primary motivating/driving factors behind every successful person's achievements. Apathy genuinely never figured in their success as far as I'm aware.

Thousands of people in the UK on a daily basis overcome adversity, prejudice, disability etc etc in order to achieve their life's ambitions and success. They don't let obstacles stand of the way of success and will find ways around them.

By the same token,, millions of less successful people will have had similar opportunities but failed to grasp/recognise or take up the challenge for a variety of reasons but an integral part of their failure will invariably be apathy. They give up at the first hurdle whereas the successful will continue until their goals are reached.
You can list a host of reasons why some people aren't successful but it isn't the fault of the successful why others fail to achieve.

That arguably applies to the vexed GFA question too! Each time I've been asked the question regarding the GFA on here it comes across as if the person asking the question doesn't actually believe themselves that it can be resolved.
If one believes that a problem/issues are insurmountable and can't be resolved then they won't be, it's termed apathetic or the other explanation is that they don't actually want the issue to be resolved which then fits their own agenda.

If the issues are to be resolved then it needs open-minded people with a forward thinking visionary approach to the problems with a view to resolving them not Luddites with their apathy believing that they can't be resolved.

Sorry but I don't think I'll ever fit into your negative 'oh woe is me' world.

I think that, just as there are people in the world who are inspired, creative, motivated and organised, there are also people who don't have any of those characteristics and/or have negative characteristics which leaves them flat, bored, disorganised and not motivated in any direction.

We always have those who to need steal, to fight, to use and abuse and those people appear to be either programmed by genes, or take their lifestyles from their parents upbringing.

Whatever the causes, we have a wide range of behaviour in our species which hasn't seemed to alter from ancient times. However much you think that people can choose their behaviour, or can be changed, I haven't seen any evidence of that in my 70+ years.

 

[spanner48]

Ah Ive spotted the problem................

the algorithms of social media platforms will feed you what you want to hear.....................GBnews, Mahyar Tousi and other right wing grifters is not a balance diet.

it is why you think this: "There is a class of British people, oddly now mostly left wing"



you mean like the ECHR that was literally drafted by Conservative MP David Maxwell-Fyfe



only Belarus and Russia are not in the ECHR

maybe you might want to think about why that is

"the algorithms of social media platforms will feed you what you want to hear........" ??

The Guardian?

The BBC?

 

[spanner48]

I’m not sure why you’ve put the word migrants in inverted commas.

It seems she is talking about migrants not asylum seekers.

I can’t find anything mentioned about breaking international laws.

No words needed:

 

[Phil Pascoe]

"the algorithms of social media platforms will feed you what you want to hear........" ??

The Guardian?

The BBC?

The same logic dosn't apply to them, apparently.

 

[Dauph]

I remember reading a sociology/psychology article that stated: If you put a random group of people together and tell them they need to carry out a task, and that in order to do this they need a leader, the person that puts their hand up to be leader will be the least suitable personality type to lead (I don't know if this is true but, it has legs) Just about everything about our world is organised in a "top down" structure. The world is run by people who deem themselves fit to be in charge. If we are citing apathy as a negative force in the way the world is run, it is we, the general population who have allowed, been manipulated and accepted this system. Voter turnout amongst the young and working class was the lowest ever in the last election. This apathy is partly due to the "whoever you vote for, the government wins" idiom. Starmer's Labour and the Tories are now so similar, is not particularly surprising people feel this way.