Keir Starmer

[sploo]

I liked Boris. He was charismatic, unlike any of the major politicians now, and he got a lot done under his term in office. He was called a lot of things but he achieved a lot of what the people wanted, and was in the ascension...until the pandemic, and the world economic dowturn. He was was blamed, by some, for that too. He had already upset the Remainers, mostly businessmen so, on top of that the pandemic and economic downturn that was enough to force him out before his time.
I'd vote for him again since, nobody has proved to be any better so far, and he had a style that endeared him more to the people than to the ruling classes. That is reason enough in my book.

It's posts like this that both amaze and sadden me; and illustrate why conmen will always thrive.

Johnson is a career liar - both in his professional and person life. He says whatever he thinks will get him what he wants in the immediate moment, without the slightest care for tomorrow. He's a selfish opportunist - choosing to back the Leave side late in the day, because he saw it as a route to getting the leadership of the Tory party (remember it wasn't that long previous that he was advocating for Turkey to gain membership of the EU).

Anyone that worked with him describes him as being a complete political lightweight; with no interest or grasp of the details. He didn't bother to turn up to COBRA meetings during the critical early stages of the Covid pandemic, and hid in a fridge to avoid a journalist.

His clown persona allowed him to somehow escape consequences for gaffs (and dog-whistle racism) that would have sunk any normal politician. But when challenged and really put on the spot he was a nasty piece of work (he's gotten physical with people more than once - including trying to arrange with his mate Darius Guppy to have a journalist assaulted). None of that is news - it's been his MO since his school days.

He was - quite predictably - an utter disaster in office, and was finally forced out by his own party only after they'd had enough of his continuous lying (not that they had a problem when he was mostly just lying to others, of course).

You may vote for him again, and I can guaranteed that if you did he'd promise you the earth, then screw you over the next day (and probably also sleep with your wife).

 

[sploo]

Freedom of movement has been replaced by control of movement.
Lawmaking has been returned to the UK.
Businesses are free to trade with whoever they like.
Businesses can tender worldwide without having to favour the EU.
Our borders have become a hot topic but not such a hot topice than is evident in the EU.
The UK, once one the EU's major contributors, won't be pouring money into those EU countries looking for major financial aid.
The savings from not being in the EU will, when the costs of the pandemic and world recession die down, help to clear the national debt, and leave the UK in a better position to invest in public services including the NHS, once it sorst out its inefficiencies and wasteful practices.

That's brilliant. Other than being the complete opposite of reality in every possible way.

 

[Yorkieguy]

Was it Taylor Swift, or an organisation that has anything to do with Taylor Swift, that gifted the tickets?

Lol

If you did your own research you'd soon discover who the donors are, and just how far they've wormed their way into the government, be it the FA, who will want to tone down the impending Football Governance Bill, or perhaps the most concerning, the betting and gaming industry. At the very least, the 'Swiftgate' highlights the perceived conflicts of interest that can arise when it comes to politicians accepting gifts from vested interests.

Does this matter, you may ask? Yes it most certainly does.

All of these organisations do this to have influence and to ‘gain the ear’ of MPs, especially ministers, which compromises the independence of MPs when it comes to regulating activities such as the regulation of sport and taxation of betting and gaming. If they declined such offers and kept their distance, as with ‘Swiftgate’ they wouldn’t be tainted.

Leaping to their own defence, MPs and their apologists have said:

"It's allowed in the rules and has all been declared". (Not quite true, but never mind). Whether it's within the spirt of the ministerial code is very debatable. The ministerial code, which details the conduct expected of government ministers, says: "No Minister should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation." (MPs are obliged to declare donations and extra-parliamentary income within 28 days).

Where the Football League and Betting & Gaming industry are concerned, how could it not 'appear to place minsters under an' obligation - not least Starmer and Reeves? I'm not a gambling man, but if I were, I'd be betting on Reeves much anticipated budget not bringing UK duty into line with Europe by doubling it, which would bringing in a much needed £3 billion a year.

The Premier League's giveaways - which also included Brit Awards hospitality passes worth over £6,500 passed on to five Labour MPs - have come at a time of ongoing uncertainty over the implementation of an independent regulator in English football.

According to the data (politicians have to lawfully declare any gifts and freebies they accept), the amount that the government has welcomed from the gambling sector has now surpassed £1 million. Of that, around £1 million has been donated by casino owners and operators, with tens of thousands also gifted by bookmakers and sports betting firms.

Starmer received donations amounting to £25,000 from a businessman, who - until recently - was the chairman of one of Britain’s leading betting firms. The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), the organisation created to promote the cause of its member brands, donated three tickets to a musical to the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. She also received around £20,000 in private donations from Neil Goulden, the former chairman of Gamesys.

The BGC were also in charitable mood with Transport Secretary Louise Haigh. She accepted a whopping £1,421 in free gifts, including tickets to the League One play-off final between Sheffield Wednesday and Barnsley – paid for by the BGC.

Wes Streeting, Health Secretary, has been a prolific acceptor of gifts and donations. £5,000 was paid to him by Jon Mendelsohn, a Labour peer who has previously held an interest in 888 Holdings. Streeting also attended a slap-up meal paid for by Allwyn, the new operator of the National Lottery. They paid £700 for the privilege of the minister’s time and ear.

The Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, was the lucky recipient of a matchday ticket and hospitality experience for the sold out England vs Denmark game at the rescheduled EURO 2020; that same package would have cost nearly £3,500 at face value. But top of the pops is the Derek Webb, a man whose lifetime has involved inventing three-card poker to, latterly, campaigning against FOBTs and online gambling harm.

He's been a serial donator to the Labour Party in recent years, but seemed to up the ante when it became acutely obvious that Labour were going to oust the Conservatives at the polls in the summer General Election. Webb donated a reported £750,000 to Labour’s election campaign in 2024; the most sizable gift from an individual this year.

https://www.ukbookmakers.org.uk/202...million-of-freebies-from-the-gambling-sector/

Lo and behold, during Culture, Media and Sport questions in the Commons, on Thurs 17 October, Labour MP for Dartford Jim Dickson asked Lisa Nandy, Culture Secretary: “if steps are being taken to progress towards an independent statutory levy on the industry to fund gambling treatment and independent information”, her answer was: she wants the gambling industry to “thrive” amid rumours of a multi-billion pound “tax raid” on bookies.

Ms Nandy said the Government are “committed to reviewing all of the available evidence” in order to strike the right balance between ensuring the gambling industry can “thrive” and supporting those suffering from problem gambling.

Millions are addicted to gambling, causing misery to themselves and loved ones, committing fraud to feed their addiction, and there are an estimated 400 suicides a year as a result. Not everyone who gambles becomes addicted, just as not everyone who smokes cigarettes dies, but saying you want the 'gambling industry to thrive' and 'support those who suffer from gambling' is rather like saying you want the tobacco industry to thrive, while looking after those who suffer the effects of smoking.

Nandy Continued:

"We’re aware of the value of this industry and the importance of it not just to the UK economy, but the joy that it brings to many, many people, and the employment prospects that it offers to people in every nation and region of the United Kingdom. “We are also very aware of the problems that can be caused by problem gambling, and as the previous government did, we are determined to talk to the widest range of partners to ensure that we strike the right balance, to protect people from the problems that can ensue, but also to support the growing industry.”

It's facile to say that the betting and gaming industry would suffer. At the rate things are going, we need fewer betting shops and more charity shops, so the bookies premises could be re-purposed.

A huge amount of gambling is digital - online. It doesn't 'bring employment to many, many people' - it's done in private. On free to air TV channels gambling advertising is prolific, targeting vulnerable people in their own homes. According to the research based on viewing data from the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB), the number of gambling adverts on the television hit 1.39 million last year, with 30.9 billion impacts.

This is a huge difference compared to 2006, when there were 152,000 ads and eight billion impacts. The figures translate into a six-fold surge in gambling ad numbers since the market was liberalised in 2007. Between 2006 and 2012, the share of gambling ads expanded to 4.1% from 0.7% of all TV advertising.

 

[Fergie 307]

I liked Boris. He was charismatic, unlike any of the major politicians now, and he got a lot done under his term in office. He was called a lot of things but he achieved a lot of what the people wanted, and was in the ascension...until the pandemic, and the world economic dowturn. He was was blamed, by some, for that too. He had already upset the Remainers, mostly businessmen so, on top of that the pandemic and economic downturn that was enough to force him out before his time.
I'd vote for him again since, nobody has proved to be any better so far, and he had a style that endeared him more to the people than to the ruling classes. That is reason enough in my book.

You really ought to have stopped at "He was charismatic"
I would have to agree with you there, but the amiable buffoon persona was carefully cultivated, even his sister has frequently said as much.
In every other respect the man was a disaster.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Politicians do not get tickets to football matches concerts, any other hospitality or freebies because they are nice chaps or chapesses.

They are wined, dined, entertained etc because they have power. Their hosts or donors want to influence how that power is deployed.

Yorkieguy is spot on when he notes " "No Minister should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him or her under an obligation."

Protestations that it was "within the rules" or "properly declared" does not cut it. Appearances matter. Not all "hospitality" influences all politicians to do that which they otherwise would not. We just don't know.

 

[Lons]

.............. I would strongly suggest, absurd..............

the absurd thing is that you clearly believe the carp you post.

 

[ey_tony]

Don't let that stop you, Tony - all you need is a positive attitude and you can sort it all out.

Ahhh well done! At least I acknowledge my shortcomings and don't pretend to know everything about everything which I've found is the intractable mindset of those who view everything as set in stone and can't possibly be changed
I simply have the attitude that if it's possible then why not go for it. If it wasn't for that kind of attitude we'd still be living in caves or worshipping mythical beings which are believed to live in the sky....wait a minute

 

[Yorkieguy]

Starmer agrees to send illegal migrants in Chagos Islands to British territory in St Helena, - despite surrendering the Chagos Islands just days earlier. Is this surreal development "Rwanda MK2?" Ought it not warrant a debate in Parliament?

While taking a breather from accepting another freebie jolly, Sir Keir Starmer, (Prime Minister for the time being, KC, noted Human Rights lawyer and former Director of Public Prosecutions), has agreed to a controversial deal to deport migrants arriving at the Chagos Islands to St Helena - despite giving up its sovereignty to Mauritius. The Labour leader's decision bears striking similarities to the Rwanda deportation plan, which he previously denounced as "completely wrong" and "immoral"

Under the new arrangement, asylum seekers reaching the British-owned archipelago on small boats will be sent to St Helena, a remote UK territory over 5,000 miles away in the Pacific Ocean. This move comes just weeks after Starmer provoked anger by agreeing to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The deal has sparked fresh controversy, with critics questioning Labour's apparent U-turn on migration policies and raising concerns about the impact on St Helena's small community of less than 4,500 residents. The deal allocates £6.65 million in Treasury funding to St Helena, ostensibly to address its healthcare backlog. Migrants will undergo security screening before deportation, with arrivals potentially continuing for up to 18 months or until the Mauritius agreement is finalised. The agreement has drawn criticism from various quarters.

Yuan Yi Zhu, assistant professor of International Relations and International Law, questioned the logic: "Let me get this right. According to Mauritius sovereignty over the Chagos already belongs to Mauritius; but they are happy to offload any asylum seekers arriving in what they say is Mauritian territory to the British territory of St Helena?"

The impact on St Helena's small community has raised significant concerns. Andrew Turner, a St Helena councillor, expressed apprehension about the deal's effects on the island's close-knit society. "We are a very small island. There are less than 4,500 people who are resident on St Helena, so any influx to the island would have an impact," Turner said.

He highlighted the intimate nature of the community.

"This is the kind of place where you know pretty much anyone you pass on the street on a first-name basis. The cultural shock alone would have a big impact," he added. Notably, islanders claim they were not consulted about the agreement before its low-key announcement by chief minister Julie Thomas on Wednesday.

The Foreign Office had made no public statement about the deal.

Friends of the British Overseas Territories, a campaign group, criticised the deal, saying it showed a "lack of understanding" of St Helena's challenges by the British government. Saint Helena is a small island with public services that already face a number of pressures," a spokesman said. "The last thing it needs is an undetermined number of illegal migrants being homed there for an unspecified length of time."

The group accused the UK Government of using funding as leverage to impose the deal on St Helena.

"The local government is understandably eager for extra funding, and it's shameful that the UK Government is using funding as a tool to foist this deal upon them," the spokesman added. These concerns highlight the potential strain on the island's limited resources and infrastructure.

A Foreign Office spokesman defended the deal, telling The Telegraph that it was a response to a "deeply troubling situation" inherited from the previous government.

"Ministers have worked hard to find solutions and contingency plans which protect the integrity of British territorial borders and migrant welfare," the spokesman said. The official said the arrangement would only apply to future migrants arriving on Diego Garcia.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...&cvid=a127f19d5b9c4df994748d3f823817da&ei=364

Ho hum...

"You shall have a fishy in a little dishy, you shall have a fishy when the boat comes in..."

 

[ey_tony]

Yes, it’s homophobic.

It is a conspiracy theory spread by the truly horrible Isabel Oakshott saying “there is an open secret about Starmers family life”

It rather shows the maturity level of Reform voters.

Why is Isabel Oakshott truly horrible?
I can't say I've ever watched her political views but based on what was said in the video I wouldn't see her as horrible or have any clue as to whether or not it was homophobic in any way.
I saw dozens of journalists and political commentators night after night slagging off Tory politicians on all aspects of their personal lives, were you equally vociferous about them as you are about Oakshott or do you believe she's truly horrible because she is criticising a Labour politician?