New Diesel & Petrol Ban

[Fergie 307]

For me, first it's more about who gave the treats, which begs the question of why they thought Starmer deserved them, second about Starmer's complete lack of political nous in accepting them in the first place, let alone lack of moral compass and creepy sanctimonious reactions.
No bribery as such but definitely cultivating influence.
I doubt any of them would have done the same for Corbyn, as he was a real threat to the establishment.




Hilarious: he says "We're gonna draught some principles" ! Did he not have any already?

Once again the great Groucho Marx comes to mind.
"These are my principles, if you don't like them I have others"

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Well, according to The Guardian, not noted as a member of the "bent right wing press", although maybe in your opinion, he has accepted some £20k from Ali SINCE the election, and various other gratuities.
Interesting that they also report Ali having been given a pass for number 10 following the election.
If that is true then why might that be, is he a member of the government or civil service?
Or do his donations effectively buy him access?
Is it appropriate that any politician should be accepting gratuities from footballing bodies at a time when they are looking at regulation of the sport?
No doubt the tens of thousands in freebies he and others have received over the years will have no bearing at all on the outcome.

And please do not assume that others have the same tribal views as yourself.

I am opposed to this sort of behaviour from any and all politicians. As far as I am concerned they should not accept gifts, full stop.

An absolute ban is the only way to avoid ambiguity.

I'm not tribal.
I'm just anti-bias and wherever I see it (right here for instance) I call it out. With conviction of facts behind me.

Regarding Alli and the pass for Downing St.
First, it isn't as if he's an outsider or a lobbyist (or from a thinly disguised lobby group masquerading as a "think tank"...).
He's a Labour Party insider.
Second, I believe that the pass was for the purpose of organising a party. Did you know that he's renowned as a fixer who just gets stuff done?
Basically, there's nothing to see here and claiming so is simply displaying a pre existing bias.

You didn't answer whether you'd ever put keys to Internet text in the past condemning any other MP from any other party for accepting gratuities. Nor did you answer whether you'd put keys to Internet text condemning actual confirmed corruption by any other MP?
Which tells it's own story. Does it not?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

A gift versus a bride is dependant om your financial position, that is according to the law. So, giving a millionaire a bic ball point pen isn’t a bribe, giving a person who can’t afford a pen a Bic biro is a bribe. So, taking the analogy further, taking a person on a salary of £20K / annum to a 3 star Michelin star restaurant is a bribe, taking them to a Hungry horse isn’t.

A man on circa £170K per. Annum receiving gifts in excess of £100K within 12 weeks of taking up the job is should be considered a bribe, the gifts far outweigh what the person reasonable living standard expectation would or could be. So, the salary is what the Prime Minister earns at the moment, and the gift value is what he has received. In private industry, you would be sacked for gross misconduct. It would be concluded your decision making was being unduly influenced by the gifts you were receiving. I know, I have sacked people for just such practices.

It doesn’t matter whether the poetical party is left, right or centre, the taking of any gift is totally unacceptable and should immediately render them unfit for office and they should be immediately sacked. Any half decent business these days has a zero tolerance / acceptance of any gift or gratuity for exactly this reason.

Are you sure you're correct about that total being since the election? Or are you misquoting the total from his last 4 years whilst in opposition?

If you were right about the TOTAL being since the election, why are you totalling up individual gifts from many sources to then classify them as a single bribe.

Please explain in detail.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The above statements are incorrect.

The relevant legislation is The Bribery Act 2010. There are two tests that need to be applied:

"In Case 1, the wrongfulness element is committed where the advantage is intended to induce (or be a reward for) improper performance of a relevant function or activity.

In Case 2, the wrongfulness element is committed where the person knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage offered, promised or given in itself constitutes the improper performance of a relevant function or activity"

It's the intent of the gift that determines whether it is classed as a bribe as opposed to whether it actually results in one. The Bribery Act makes no distinction about the level of payment or benefit involved.

In the case of companies and other organisations put simply it is an offence to allow bribery to occur by omission in terms of controls and policies. Policies typically will require the recording of gifts and hospitality with oversight to ensure it is commensurate and appropriate. It's down to the organisation to decide if a de minimis limit for the acceptance and recording of gifts and hospitality should apply.



I'm not sure there's any evidence that Pam Ayres has ever accepted a bung .... but being serious agree 100%



Hey-Ho let's go back to what @Lons actually said ... "What riles is that those very same politicians while in opposition blasted the Tories for exactly what they are doing themselves and they made a huge fuss about being the party to clean up politics, stop corruption and be honest and transparent."

Starmer has made much of his intent to lead on cleaning up politics and restoring trust. Lots has not made this a party political point as to do so would incorrectly suggest that two wrongs make a right. We can argue until the cows come home whether it's corrupt and I can see the argument that no rules have been broken. However, it's a lot harder to argue that the spirit of the rules has been maintained. It's a good job for Starmer that hypocrisy (or lacking empathy?) isn't a crime.



Great that HIGNFY is back.

My statements are not incorrect.

Did you not realise that Party Politics in the UK is funded entirely through donations?
Did you not realise that gifts to politicians are totally legal and above board and within rules and legislation?

And which part of Starmer condemning CORRUPTION (not simply the above board acceptance of gratuities) don't you quite understand?
There has been no corruption with Starmer.
The acceptance of gifts is an entirely different conversation and it is fundamentally dishonest to deliberately conflate the two different things.

I haven't provided an opinion on whether gifts should be allowed, because that is not the conversation we're having.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Precisely the point I made. They screamed at the Tories for ALEDGED misdoings at the time. I have vivid memories of Rayner spitting and pointing for similar actions she's now guilty of herself.
They built their campaign on honesty, transparency and trust, portraying themselves as completely opposite to the Tories but that was blatantly untrue.

I certainly was annoyed with the Tory sleaze and imo ALL politicians should have a complete ban on accepting gifts of any kind, they are sufficiently rewarded to buy their own. Listening to Starmer, almost with tars in his eyes say "if I don't accept tickets I can't take my boy to a football match" was stomach churning. no less than watching Boris last night dodge the apology questions. Starmer is a multi millionaire with a salary the majority of working people would die for, no problem with that but the arrogant silly person can afford his own tickets or to rent a box at Arsenal.

You are rather naive it seems.

Incorrect. Labour screamed at Tory for the "evidenced" corruption not "alleged" corruption. There is a fundamental difference when evidence is available versus what is happening in the bent right wing press with condemning nothing other than behaviour falling entirely within the rules and law.

Tell me, what exactly are you implying Rayner is guilty of?

 

[Yorkieguy]

Precisely the point I made. They screamed at the Tories for ALEDGED misdoings at the time. I have vivid memories of Rayner spitting and pointing for similar actions she's now guilty of herself.
They built their campaign on honesty, transparency and trust, portraying themselves as completely opposite to the Tories but that was blatantly untrue.

I certainly was annoyed with the Tory sleaze and imo ALL politicians should have a complete ban on accepting gifts of any kind, they are sufficiently rewarded to buy their own. Listening to Starmer, almost with tars in his eyes say "if I don't accept tickets I can't take my boy to a football match" was stomach churning. no less than watching Boris last night dodge the apology questions. Starmer is a multi millionaire with a salary the majority of working people would die for, no problem with that but the arrogant silly person can afford his own tickets or to rent a box at Arsenal.

You are rather naive it seems.

Spot on.

It's been said several times on here 'Well if they declare the gifts, that's within the rules - what's the problem?'.

That's facile - take a look at who is providing all this largesse and why they do it.

Not corruption, and 'bribery' is too strong a word, but to buy influence, certainly - to tone down any measures that might adversely affect the finances of the outfits who are donors. I mentioned earlier just how much the betting and gaming industry chip in and how widespread the number of MPs and ministers are who are the recipients. Same with football - a £multi-billion industry.

Here's a clip about draft legislation under consideration now:

Quote:

Pressure is mounting over a controversial clause included in a draft version of the bill that will introduce an independent football regulator in England.

The Football Governance Bill was announced by the previous government and reintroduced in this summer’s King’s Speech following the Labour Party’s election victory.

It provisionally has a clause requiring the proposed regulator to consider the “foreign and trade policy objectives” of the UK government when taking decisions. In a letter to Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, Uefa warned government “interference” could lead to co-hosts England being barred from Euro 2028.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer says the government is talking to Uefa but he does not think the football regulator plans will prevent England taking part in the tournament. European football's governing body added the clause “requires further clarification and understanding”

End quote.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cj4dveq15j2o

Rather than quote from the (allegedly) 'Corrupt Right Wing Press', below is a clip from a red-top Labour 'rag' - The Daily Mirror:

All ‘freebies’ declared in the list of MPs interests, but it seems wholly inappropriate whatever party is involved. The inference can only be to influence ('groom?') MPs to delay, cancel or lessen the severity of any restrictions which might adversely impact on the finances of the industry. Why else would these outfits ‘splash the cash’ as they do? Newly elected MPs will be 'easy meat' and flattered at being considered worthy recipients.

Quote:

'The Premier League of free tickets and the football clubs giving out freebies to MPs The Register of Members Financial Interests shows which Members of Parliament have been given free tickets to football matches and other sporting and non-sporting events:'

The Premier League is the most likely source of the gifted tickets. Current MPs received 21 sets of tickets worth a combined total of £34,125 between them.

Labour MPs benefitted the most with 18 sets of tickets, while Conservative MPs received three sets. The Register only includes current MPs, so any tickets given out to those who lost their seats at the last election aren’t included in the figures.

The Football Association gifted MPs 17 sets of tickets to football matches, the next highest number of any organisation. They’re followed by Manchester City with 11, Liverpool with six, then Portsmouth, the EFL and the Betting and Gaming Council with three sets of tickets each, while Anna Turley received two tickets with hospitality to Arsenal v Everton at the Emirates Stadium worth £900.

Only half (11) of the tickets the Premier League has given out though were actually for football matches. The most expensive set of tickets they gifted an MP were four tickets with hospitality to a Taylor Swift concert worth a total of £4,000. They went to the Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.

The Premier League also gave Taylor Swift tickets to four other sitting MPs - Darren Jones (four tickets worth £3,400), Catherine McKinnell (two tickets worth £2,000), Chris Ward (two tickets worth £1,660), and Joe Morris (two tickets worth £1,660). The Premier League also gifted five MPs with tickets to the Brit Awards - Pat McFadden (£3,000), Liz Kendall (£1,500), Peter Kyle (£1,500), Dr Rupa Huq (£1,250) and Jake Richards (£1,250).

There are 11 sets of football tickets on the Register attributed to the Premier League. The Prime Minister received the most expensive of those - five tickets with hospitality to Arsenal vs Porto worth £3,000.

Olivia Bailey received four tickets to attend the final of the 2023 Community Shield worth a total of £2,800. Dame Karen Bradley received three tickets with hospitality to the FA Cup semi-final worth £2,634. The Football Association gave out more sets of tickets to football matches than the Premier League (14), but also gifted three sets of tickets to see Taylor Swift - four to Wes Streeting (£1,160), two to Sir Ed Davey (£584) and two to Bridget Phillipson (£523).

Manchester City’s gifted tickets were often to local MPs, such as Lucy Powell (four sets), Jeff Smith (two sets), and Andrew Western (one set). They also gave hospitality tickets to Sir Keir Starmer to City vs Arsenal, worth a total of £900.

End quote.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-mps-free-tickets-33751143

To use the current buzz word, the 'optics' don't look good.

For goodness sake - just don't do it.

Starmer el al can try to defend and 'normalise' it all till they're blue in the face, but as with the Winter Fuel and VAT on school fees, debacle, those stories will continue to dominate the headlines and keep off the front page all the things that they'd like the press to be trumpeting about - Housing, NHS, employment, not to mention the intractable problem of 'stopping the boats' and dealing with the asylum application backlog, which they said they'd solve.

Or so it seems to me.

 

[Jacob]

....

For goodness sake - just don't do it.

Starmer el al can try to defend and 'normalise' it all till they're blue in the face, but as with the Winter Fuel and VAT on school fees, debacle, those stories will continue to dominate the headlines and keep off the front page all the things that they'd like the press to be trumpeting about - Housing, NHS, employment, not to mention the intractable problem of 'stopping the boats' and dealing with the asylum application backlog, which they said they'd solve.

Or so it seems to me.

Yep. Just politically inept, whatever else he represents.
Top marks for political ineptitude with "We're gonna draught some principles"
The idea is to have principles before you enter Parliament, not just to work them out later as necessary, according to how the wind blows.

 

[Lons]

Incorrect. Labour screamed at Tory for the "evidenced" corruption not "alleged" corruption. There is a fundamental difference when evidence is available versus what is happening in the bent right wing press with condemning nothing other than behaviour falling entirely within the rules and law.

Tell me, what exactly are you implying Rayner is guilty of?

Are you her brother?

Not going to argue with someone who can't see past the end of his nose. Carry on believing fella.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Did you not realise that Party Politics in the UK is funded entirely through donations?
Did you not realise that gifts to politicians are totally legal and above board and within rules and legislation?

Yes and yes. You seem to have missed my point that being within the letter of the rules is different to acting in keeping with the spirit of them.

And which part of Starmer condemning CORRUPTION (not simply the above board acceptance of gratuities) don't you quite understand?

I fully understand that Starmer has condemned corruption in the past but it's a moot point.

There has been no corruption with Starmer.

I haven't said there has been. That doesn't mean accepting gifts to the extent he has is right and proper.

The acceptance of gifts is an entirely different conversation and it is fundamentally dishonest to deliberately conflate the two different things.

It's not an entirely different conversation in my opinion. You are of course entitled to your opinion as well.

I haven't provided an opinion on whether gifts should be allowed, because that is not the conversation we're having.

Well it's the conversation many people (including many in the Labour Party) are having. For many it's not coming from a position of bias - it's a reaction to someone who has claimed he was going to improve trust in our political system seemingly doing the opposite.

 

[Spectric]

Perfectly sensible for anyone seeking the ear of a future government to start grooming them early on.

Is that why some say that the next conservative Pm may not yet even be born .

So he is either too thick to have worked it out, or too arrogant to care.

I think it is much deeper than this, I don't think that he can genuinely see anything wrong with his public standards and so accepts freebies without blinking an eye. Maybe those free glasses are not as good as they could be and more worrying is the fact that did he also accept freebies when working with the CPS so he did not have unbiased views when dealing with legal cases.

This issue of freebies is easily solved, you just introduce rules that make it illegal and that you will be dismissed so why no rule changes unless they think they cannot afford to buy their own cloths on a £100K pay packet.

All these dodgy dealings and peoples lack of trust in politics need to be addressed, the very tools of politics needs to be overhauled and re-sharpened to deliver a toolbox fit for running the country and brought upto date so stick that black rod where the sun don't shine and drop all the out of date stuff that is nothing more than decorations on a christmas tree to leave a new modern form of politic's where they are all held to account and can be easily got rid of if they break the rules.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Are you her brother?

Not going to argue with someone who can't see past the end of his nose. Carry on believing fella.

He is Sam Tarry and I claim my £5.

 

[Fergie 307]

I'm not tribal.
I'm just anti-bias and wherever I see it (right here for instance) I call it out. With conviction of facts behind me.

Regarding Alli and the pass for Downing St.
First, it isn't as if he's an outsider or a lobbyist (or from a thinly disguised lobby group masquerading as a "think tank"...).
He's a Labour Party insider.
Second, I believe that the pass was for the purpose of organising a party. Did you know that he's renowned as a fixer who just gets stuff done?
Basically, there's nothing to see here and claiming so is simply displaying a pre existing bias.

You didn't answer whether you'd ever put keys to Internet text in the past condemning any other MP from any other party for accepting gratuities. Nor did you answer whether you'd put keys to Internet text condemning actual confirmed corruption by any other MP?
Which tells it's own story. Does it not?

What tells it's own story is that from your limited time on the forum you are arriving at your conclusions based largely on the content of this one thread, where I have made no excuses whatever for the Tories behaviour, but rather unequivocally condemned it.
So very hard to see how you would come to the conclusion you do from the facts available, other than as a result of your own prejudice.

I don't do social media as such at all, so no in answer to that question.
And on this forum I have frequently criticised the Tories over many subjects.

It seems that you are one of those individuals who will immediately resort to these sort of accusations when someone disagrees with them, and assume that they conform to some pre conceived stereotype of your own.
Amusingly enough it is you who are displaying your own bias for all to see.

Keep the red flag flying comrade, or at least, and before Jacob takes me to task, the very pale pink version that Starmer represents.

 

[Jake]

...

Agree with you and carry on fighting for reality if you can be arsed but I'd let them all scream into the void. Results will count next time round, not hypocritical Tory press confected outrage in first few months aimed at establishing false equivalences.

 

[Mickjay]

I just posted this on another thread but think it's still relevant here.

The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”​

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

 

[Lons]

Not often I agree wholeheartedly with Jacob, but he has had Starmer dead right for a long time.
He is a political used car salesman, will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear to make a sale. Once he's trousered your money and you've driven off the forecourt he doesn't give a s**t.
On to the next sucker.

Me too which is a rare occurrence with one difference and that is his comment on Corbyn.

 

[Cooper]

I think everyone contributing to this thread is lucky that they have so much detailed information about what has been given and by whom.
In Russia a few oligarchs rule with Putin they would laugh at this discussion.
The Republicans in the US get vast sums from billionaires who Trump has already promised to do their bidding.
I have said on this forum before, that democracy is less than 100 years old in the country. I believe universal franchise only came in in 1929. It is our only protection against the unsuitable people mentioned above who want to rule for their own advantage. We should all be actively involved making sure the right people are selected to lead us.
If everyone contributing to this thread joined their local Tory party and demanded that their leadership contest reopened nominations it would be a start!! At the moment it looks like the swivel eyed loons are going to select a swivel eyed loon.
Whatever your political preferences get involved and make sure the right people are selected.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Just think how much worse TTK would be if he were left wing enough to please Jacob.

 

[evildrome]

No, just NO. No they categorically did not. You're absolutely wrong on this one (and you do probably know it). Don't conflate taking gifts with "corruption". It's a totally different discussion. If simple gifts were actually what you were worried about, you'd've been up in arms many, many years ago about Tory gifts.

Labour railed against ACTUAL corruption. Provable wrongdoing. Actual, provable, rule breaking and law breaking.

Just a single example, when a "donor" gave a Tory Minister a bung for the express purpose of that Minister intervening in Planning Application and getting the donor off the hook with pending tax changes. That's just a single example of ACTUAL CORRUPTION of which there are many open and visible examples with Tory, but not a single example with Labour.

This discussion and finger-pointing only appears to be only going in ONE DIRECTION with people who are acting as if they are part of the Thought Police - "Oh they've accepted gifts, so there must be corruption going on".

It's absurd.

Why do we not allow police and the judiciary to accept gifts?

Because they're inherently less trustworthy than politicians?

Or because the practice carries inherent moral hazard?

I would say that if the police cannot be trusted to accept gifts then neither can politicians.

Yes, it may very well be within the "rules" as they stand now but those rules were made a very long time ago for people who viewed public service as a vocation (Churchill, Eden, Heath, Wilson) not a path to personal wealth.

While many MPs still may view public service as a vocation, we have seen numerous egregious examples in the very recent past of MPs for whom public service was a route to riches.

Therefore I would suggest, going forward, MPs should be held to the same standard as the police & judiciary.

Or at the *very* least, the same as the civil service.

 

[Lons]

Just looking at it from another angle, why tip your hairdresser? Yes for service rendered but you paid for that in the price and maybe deep down the fear is that if you don't the scissors might slip next time. Or if you use a restaurant or coffee shop regularly maybe they'll spit in your food if you didn't tip last time. If there wasn't something possibly beneficial for the benefactor we would all be walking into various businesses and handing over cash and gifts for absolutely no real or perceived return.

The majority of my working life was in sales and management so I encountered similar scenarios regularly. We gave incentives and I was offered many, even accepted tickets to a couple of football matches from suppliers hoping to keep my business. If we didn't do the rounds with suitable bottles at Christmas you could bet your life that future orders would go to competitors who did.

There is always an ulterior motive where sizeable amounts of money are involved.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Yes and yes. You seem to have missed my point that being within the letter of the rules is different to acting in keeping with the spirit of them.

I fully understand that Starmer has condemned corruption in the past but it's a moot point.

I haven't said there has been. That doesn't mean accepting gifts to the extent he has is right and proper.

It's not an entirely different conversation in my opinion. You are of course entitled to your opinion as well.

Well it's the conversation many people (including many in the Labour Party) are having. For many it's not coming from a position of bias - it's a reaction to someone who has claimed he was going to improve trust in our political system seemingly doing the opposite.

I honestly am lost for words here - it's completely bizarre when someone continues to argue from a matter of opinion which is completely at odds with observable reality.

Observable reality demands and requires that if something is done completely within the letter of the rules and the law, then it is also "right and proper".

Conflating YOUR opinion of what you believe to be "right and proper" is not relevant to the FACT that no corruption has taken place, which means CATEGORICALLY and completely indisputably Starmer has not been in any way been hypocritical.

The real story here *ought to be* the power of the bent media to basically fabricate a biased opinion piece and imply (for the hard of thinking and stupid, this means that they are being taken into a lie) that there is something untoward going on - and deliberately conflating right and proper behaviour (FACT, not OPINION) with the evidenced and factual corruption that was taking place routinely under the previous government.

It is such a shame that thicko and biased and thicko-biased people are taken in by this and cannot see through the deliberate lies and fallacies. It's pitiful.