Incredibly naive to suppose that the fact Starmer, or any other current cabinet minister was in opposition precludes any wrongdoing.
For how long would you say it was apparent that the Tories were probably going to lose?
I would argue certainly since Truss, and arguably well before.
Perfectly sensible for anyone seeking the ear of a future government to start grooming them early on.
As others have said very difficult to prove any corruption, unless those involved are very stupid. And to be clear I am not suggesting the passing of brown envelopes in return for some specific legislation for example.
But do you seriously believe that when people from a gambling organisation, for instance, "entertain" politicians, they do not take the opportunity to put across their point of view, or at the very least to ensure that they have banked a favourable impression of their business?
Why else would they be doing it?
Whether it was within the rules is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Here is a man who has repeatedly promised us a new beginning and an end to sleazy behaviour.
Anyone with a IQ in double figures ought to have been able to see how his acceptance of thousands of pounds in freebies since becoming PM would look in the light of these promises, within the rules or not.
So he is either too thick to have worked it out, or too arrogant to care.
Neither qualities I would like to see in someone in his position.
I have to conclude that you are either touchingly naive, or perhaps you have your own bias at work?
Oh dear oh dear.
I thought we'd already covered the part where the gifts in question were over the period of 4 years and prior to the election... and yet you still say "since becoming PM".
It's absurd to level any accusations of wrongdoing. I understand that you believe the donors want something in return. The acid test is whether they actually do or not. Until the point it becomes apparent that wrongdoing is taking place I'd suggest the good old adage of innocent until proven guilty applies.
Can I ask you whether you wrote anything in a forum or on social medias condemning anybody at all in the Tory camp for their actual provable wrongdoing? Or is that a subject you'd rather steer clear of??
Colour me naive all you want if it makes you feel superior, but personally, I'll be guided by the facts and evidence rather than some crooked twist of assumptions and projections. You know, like the facts I presented earlier that refuted your previous claims.
It also is not naive to "suppose" Opposition MPs have no direct say in policy. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Finally, there are many other motives for providing gifts. Take Lord Alli, for example. He is a Labour Party member and Peer. What motivation could he possibly have for gifting clothes to a potential PM?? Well, if you remember the previous Labour leader, he was a scruffy guy who came in for a lot of criticism for the way he presented himself. If Alli simply wanted Labour to win (and he is after all a Labour Party member, so it is absolutely safe to say that he did) then I would propose that ensuring the candidate for PM didn't come under similar fire as the previous leader is as simple as it gets.
It really is all about the critical analysis of the *facts* thaty are in front of you. What it isn't about is the *opinion* of a totally bent right wing media, which is where all of this criticism of GIFTS is coming from, which up until now has not been an issue. Go figure.
The perfect example of the bent right wing media actually appeared today - when they criticised the handing back of a Pacific archipelago to Mauritius.
The bent media utterly failed to report any of the pertinent facts and instead led with outrageously fanciful spin.
They didn't say that the entire legislative endeavour was begun under Truss. It was staffed entirely by Tory Ministers such as Jenrick. The entire paper was written and passed under scrutiny prior to the election. It just wasn't enacted.
The bent right wing press also failed to report that USA was involved in the process and decision making and instead led with the "opinion" that USA were unhappy.
The bent right wing press then also name-dropped Falkland Island legislators as being unhappy and nervous that this might embolden Argentina. When in fact they had already concluded publicly that this was not an issue.
The bent press also failed to describe how the archipelago originally came under British Rule - ILLEGALLY.
But Hey-Ho, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good anti-Labour spin. Just like the perfectly legal and above board "gifts" saga. Preposterous lies about "corruption" and taken in by many - hook, line and sinker.
